Message 2: Serious security holes in Win 95, 98 and NT !!
from "Danny Sinang" <danny@uplink.com.ph>
Message 3: RE: Storefront ?
from "Waldemar Born" <WallyB@LIP.net>
Message 4: RE: Storefront ?
from rkm@marshall.net (rkm)
Message 5: Re: Serious security holes in Win 95, 98 and NT !!
from Dave Mussulman <dave@vircom.com>
Message 6: Multiple upstreams
from "Stuart Stevenson" <stuart@tracent.com>
Message 7: MS Proxy Server 2.0
from Hun-Jae Lee <Hun-Jae.Lee@digital.com>
Message 8: RE: MS Proxy Server 2.0
from Hun-Jae Lee <Hun-Jae.Lee@digital.com>
Message 9: Re: Multiple upstreams
from "Phillip Heller" <pheller@csonline.net>
..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 1 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Storefront ?
From: jeff.binkley@asacomp.com (Jeff Binkley)
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 05:26:00 -0500
Is anyone using Storefront with NT IIS 4.0 ? If so, can you provide
any feedback on how well it works ? Also I'd like to hear any suggestions
for good multiuser voicemail systems which run under 95/NT 4.0 . We've
been using Hotfax Message Center from Smith Micro with limited success.
Thanks,
Jeff Binkley
ASA Network Computing
..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 2 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Serious security holes in Win 95, 98 and NT !!
From: "Danny Sinang" <danny@uplink.com.ph>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 20:17:23 +0800
Guys,
Read all about it at http://www.hackerproof98.com/news.htm .
The article says something about a utility that can scan 254 Class C
addresses at a time and check if the computers using those addresses are
vulnerable. Most of them will be and their hard drives are easy pickings.
Can anybody verify this ?
What do you think ?
If it were true, then the company that made this hackerproof98 software will
definitely earn big bucks !
- Danny Sinang
..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 3 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: Storefront ?
From: "Waldemar Born" <WallyB@LIP.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 14:45:54 +0200
I'm currently evaluation StoreFront. Up to now it works very well. I like
the open structure of this software.
It is bound to an Access (pro version to sql) database. It has nice features
such as an confimation bot and some reporting functionality. I am in germany
and didn't found where to change the currency symbol from $ to DM.
Wally
Magenta Computer AG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com
> [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Binkley
> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 12:26 PM
> To: ntisp@iea-software.com
> Subject: Storefront ?
>
>
>
> Is anyone using Storefront with NT IIS 4.0 ? If so, can you provide
> any feedback on how well it works ? Also I'd like to hear any suggestions
> for good multiuser voicemail systems which run under 95/NT 4.0 . We've
> been using Hotfax Message Center from Smith Micro with limited success.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff Binkley
> ASA Network Computing
>
..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 4 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: Storefront ?
From: rkm@marshall.net (rkm)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:42:24 -0400
<soapbox>
I don't like ANY of the commerce packages that require the global.asa file
to do the work for them. If I'm not running any other custom ASP pages it's
OK... but typically it's not the only ASP app on a site, and it's definitely
not the only ASP on the BOX...
</soapbox>
On the other hand, the price is right and it seems to work <g>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ntisp-request@iea-software.com
> [mailto:ntisp-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Binkley
> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 6:26 AM
> To: ntisp@iea-software.com
> Subject: Storefront ?
>
>
>
> Is anyone using Storefront with NT IIS 4.0 ? If so, can you provide
> any feedback on how well it works ? Also I'd like to hear any suggestions
> for good multiuser voicemail systems which run under 95/NT 4.0 . We've
> been using Hotfax Message Center from Smith Micro with limited success.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff Binkley
> ASA Network Computing
>
..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 5 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Serious security holes in Win 95, 98 and NT !!
From: Dave Mussulman <dave@vircom.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 11:38:32 -0500
At 07:17 AM 8/9/98 , you wrote:
>Read all about it at http://www.hackerproof98.com/news.htm .
>
>The article says something about a utility that can scan 254 Class C
>addresses at a time and check if the computers using those addresses are
>vulnerable. Most of them will be and their hard drives are easy pickings.
>
>Can anybody verify this ?
>What do you think ?
The idea is if you use sharing and share your protected files without a
password, and you connect to the Internet it is possible for someone to
connect to your computer and access those shares. If you, for example,
share your entire C drive with read/write permissions and don't password
protect it, then someone could walk in, grab your files, hose your
settings, and leave.
It's a security hole, yes, but one made by exploited poor administration
more than anything else. If you're sharing information you don't want
others to access, put a password on it. Always password protect any
writable directory on your computer.
If you don't want to purchase their software, do a search for NetWatcherPro
-- it's a free little program that log users sessions with your shared
files and you can setup bans appropriately. It looks like it does the same
thing as Hackerproof98, but NWP is free. (Well, at least it used to be
free -- just went back to his website
http://wwwedu.cs.utwente.nl/~verschoo/html/software.html and it looks like
NWP is now commercial -- but I'm sure there are other similar products
around that are shareware/freeware still.)
Dave Mussulman
Vircom Technical Support / Voice: (514) 990-2532
mailto:support@vircom.com / http://www.vircom.com / telnet://game-master.com
Provide content as well as access! Expand your services to include a
3D-graphical, multiplayer adventure online game. The 4th Coming is now
on sale to Internet Service Providers. http://www.the4thcoming.com
..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 6 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Multiple upstreams
From: "Stuart Stevenson" <stuart@tracent.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 22:13:45 -0500
We're currently doing a little web hosting via a 128k ISDN and an Ascend=
Pipe 50. We have a class C from PSI and have been humming along just=
fine. Now we're starting to feel the pressure to add bandwidth and have=
struck a deal with a neighbor to pull in a 10-Base-T cable from his 2 T1s.
The plan is to use a Cisco router between our suite and theirs. We can get=
another Class C from these guys, but we would also like to keep the PSI=
connection as a backup.
We've got a few questions on how to do all this:
1) Is it possible (and reasonable) to have both connections active at the=
same time?
2) If so, can we do it and keep the PSI address block with routing via the=
new upstream (which is connected to Verio) or get PSI route to our Verio=
block?
3) If not, is it reasonable to setup two subnets (1 PSI block and 1 Verio=
block) with each virtual server assigned an address in each subnet? I am=
thinking if we do it this way, I could have our primary DNS on the Verio=
subnet, pointing to Verio addresses, with our "secondary" setup as a=
primary on the PSI subnet, with all it's A records pointing to the PSI=
block. I know it's twice the work, but (to me anyway) it makes sense and=
would provide complete connection redundancy.
Any thoughts from some seasoned pros?
Stuart Stevenson
stuart@tracent.net
Tracent Technologies, Inc.
www.tracent.net
..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 7 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: MS Proxy Server 2.0
From: Hun-Jae Lee <Hun-Jae.Lee@digital.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:30:10 +0900
Does anyone know whether the proxy server supports more than 3 NICs or
not? I am searching arount MS web sites, but don't find such
information yet.
Thanks in advance.
..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 8 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: MS Proxy Server 2.0
From: Hun-Jae Lee <Hun-Jae.Lee@digital.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:03:07 +0900
Sorry I found that, "The Proxy Server 2.0 packet filter can support a
maximum of three external network adapters. " --
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q176/9/22.asp
-----Original Message-----
From: Hun-Jae Lee
Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 12:30 PM
To: 'ntisp@iea-software.com'
Subject: MS Proxy Server 2.0
Does anyone know whether the proxy server supports more than 3
NICs or
not? I am searching arount MS web sites, but don't find such
information yet.
Thanks in advance.
..------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 9 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Multiple upstreams
From: "Phillip Heller" <pheller@csonline.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 01:12:33 -0400
I would look into attaching that 128k ISDN line to the Cisco box and run
BGP4. Of course 128k ISDN hardly offsets the speed of the T1, but if you
took customer routes from PSI, you might improve efficiency a bit, and
redundancy _quite_ a bit. Of course you'll need to get PSI and your new
found friend to do BGP sessions with you.
Good luck either way!
Regards,
Phil
pheller@csonline.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Stevenson <stuart@tracent.com>
To: ntisp@iea-software.com <ntisp@iea-software.com>
Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 11:20 PM
Subject: Multiple upstreams
We're currently doing a little web hosting via a 128k ISDN and an Ascend
Pipe 50. We have a class C from PSI and have been humming along just fine.
Now we're starting to feel the pressure to add bandwidth and have struck a
deal with a neighbor to pull in a 10-Base-T cable from his 2 T1s.
The plan is to use a Cisco router between our suite and theirs. We can get
another Class C from these guys, but we would also like to keep the PSI
connection as a backup.
We've got a few questions on how to do all this:
1) Is it possible (and reasonable) to have both connections active at the
same time?
2) If so, can we do it and keep the PSI address block with routing via the
new upstream (which is connected to Verio) or get PSI route to our Verio
block?
3) If not, is it reasonable to setup two subnets (1 PSI block and 1 Verio
block) with each virtual server assigned an address in each subnet? I am
thinking if we do it this way, I could have our primary DNS on the Verio
subnet, pointing to Verio addresses, with our "secondary" setup as a primary
on the PSI subnet, with all it's A records pointing to the PSI block. I
know it's twice the work, but (to me anyway) it makes sense and would
provide complete connection redundancy.
Any thoughts from some seasoned pros?
Stuart Stevenson
stuart@tracent.net
Tracent Technologies, Inc.
www.tracent.net