Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: accessing WinXP Home pc

  1. #1
    Just burned his ISO
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2

    Default accessing WinXP Home pc

    I want to test my pc with WinXP home ed. to see if it can be access by someone on my network. Does anyone have a tutorial on how to see if I can gain remote access from a diffrent pc on the same network?

    Dilwert

  2. #2
    Jenkem Addict imported_wyze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dilwert View Post
    I want to test my pc with WinXP home ed. to see if it can be access by someone on my network. Does anyone have a tutorial on how to see if I can gain remote access from a diffrent pc on the same network?

    Dilwert
    Are you planning to use Backtrack 2 to remotely access your XP Home box from your network?
    dd if=/dev/swc666 of=/dev/wyze

  3. #3
    Developer
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    6,124

    Default

    he wants us to spoonfeed him a working xp exploit is the way I understand his post. if you asking about legit remote administration then if you turn it of you should be good.

  4. #4
    Member godcronos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    103

    Smile RE:accessing WinXP Home pc

    Check your firewall,maybe even install a firewall.Read up on how a computer can be accessed ( try google for info), read and learn about services that are running and how to disable them if you don't need them!Install an antivirus and update it(Mcaffee enterprise edition even lets you put a password on it so it can't be shutdown if anyone checks your running services)(but there are tricks to disable it anyways :P hihi ) I am not sure cause I got XP Pro, but XP home crap should have a firewall and you can enable it.Update your Windows with the latest fixes and patches.Put a good minimum 10 characters with all kinds of combinations password!
    bla bla bla( I'll let you 'crack' that code ).

    If you don't understand at least these and a lot more , BackTrack is too complicated for you! Don't mean to put you down! You don't need Backtrack to check if you are vulnerable! Don't mean to put down backtrack down either! "Can't build a house on sand, the first wave will bring it down! "


    Read read read! Apply apply apply!And read some more...update..apply..read some more..update..apply...! Are you sure you want to go on doing this?!! )

    Good luck!

  5. #5
    Senior Member shamanvirtuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in the "Ex" human right country
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    the fact of having windows$ installed is a major security hole .......
    Watch your back, your packetz will belong to me soon... xD

    BackTrack :
    Giving Machine Guns to Monkeys since 2006

  6. #6
    Jenkem Addict imported_wyze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    This is true... even on my m$ work system with the paid firewall software i have + paid AV + Process Guard + limited running services + 56473892 other things, over time the crap will make its way in. I don't want to turn this into 'another' m$ bashing thread, but there are elements to the kernel and the architecture to windows that make it more insecure, more so than other OS's, so your best bet is to do as purehate says and turn it off.

    On a side note, I did a little pentesting research on remote assistance against a virtual windows machine I set up and found out that it connects to a microsoft site during the connection process... a little investigating and it turns out to be that microsoft acts as a 'middleman' between the 2 computers establishing the remote assistance session....
    dd if=/dev/swc666 of=/dev/wyze

  7. #7
    Senior Member streaker69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginville, BlueBall, Bird In Hand, Intercourse, Paradise, PA
    Posts
    3,535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swc666 View Post
    This is true... even on my m$ work system with the paid firewall software i have + paid AV + Process Guard + limited running services + 56473892 other things, over time the crap will make its way in. I don't want to turn this into 'another' m$ bashing thread, but there are elements to the kernel and the architecture to windows that make it more insecure, more so than other OS's, so your best bet is to do as purehate says and turn it off.

    On a side note, I did a little pentesting research on remote assistance against a virtual windows machine I set up and found out that it connects to a microsoft site during the connection process... a little investigating and it turns out to be that microsoft acts as a 'middleman' between the 2 computers establishing the remote assistance session....
    If all you microsoft bashers are so confident in the security of OSS software, would you consider putting your machine directly on the internet with no protection at all?

    EVERY OS has flaws that can be exploited remotely. It's just that a large number of people despise Microsoft for whatever reason they choose to hate them, and those people have devoted a large amount of time to finding those flaws. Just recently those same people have started to focus upon Apple as well, and eventually, they'll turn on all the OSS.

    There are known exploits for even OSS software, if there weren't then we wouldn't be seeing security updates for them. OSS software has it's bugs and problems just like everything else. For anyone to say that one OS is any more secure than another one is just plain stupid.
    A third party security audit is the IT equivalent of a colonoscopy. It's long, intrusive, very uncomfortable, and when it's done, you'll have seen things you really didn't want to see, and you'll never forget that you've had one.

  8. #8
    Jenkem Addict imported_wyze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by streaker69 View Post
    For anyone to say that one OS is any more secure than another one is just plain stupid.
    That is a very broad statement and I disagree completely. You cannot strip Windows down to a barebones OS as you can with Unix based OS's.

    Sure, every OS has a vulnerability or has the potential for a new vulnerability, but you are not correct in saying that all OS's are equally secure; that's just not true.
    dd if=/dev/swc666 of=/dev/wyze

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swc666 View Post
    You cannot strip Windows down to a barebones OS as you can with Unix based OS's.

    Well sure you can swc666!!!

    Its called reverse engineering.

    Just reverse engineer any version of microsux, or any other OS for that matter,..and tear it down to a bare bones OS...and wah-la!! You got yourself a FULLY functional new working OS to your personal liking.
    [CENTER][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=5][B][COLOR=blue][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=red]--=[/COLOR][/FONT]Xploitz[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=red]=--[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Courier New][COLOR=Black][SIZE=6][B] ®[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/CENTER]
    [CENTER][SIZE=4][B]Remote-Exploit.orgs Master Tutorialist.[/B][/SIZE][SIZE=6][B]™
    [/B][/SIZE]
    [URL="http://forums.remote-exploit.org/showthread.php?t=9063"][B]VIDEO: Volume #1 "E-Z No Client WEP Cracking Tutorial"[/B]
    [/URL]
    [URL="http://forums.remote-exploit.org/showthread.php?t=7872"][B]VIDEO: Volume #2 "E-Z No Client Korek Chopchop Attack Tutorial"[/B]
    [/URL]
    [URL="http://forums.remote-exploit.org/showthread.php?t=8230"][B]VIDEO: Volume #3 "E-Z WPA/WPA2 Cracking Tutorial"[/B][/URL]

    [URL="http://forums.remote-exploit.org/showthread.php?t=8041"][B]VIDEO: Volume #4 "E-Z Cracking WPA/WPA2 With Airolib-ng Databases"[/B][/URL]
    [/CENTER]

  10. #10
    Senior Member streaker69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginville, BlueBall, Bird In Hand, Intercourse, Paradise, PA
    Posts
    3,535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swc666 View Post
    That is a very broad statement and I disagree completely. You cannot strip Windows down to a barebones OS as you can with Unix based OS's.

    Sure, every OS has a vulnerability or has the potential for a new vulnerability, but you are not correct in saying that all OS's are equally secure; that's just not true.
    I don't recall saying that all OS's are equally secure, as a matter of fact, all OS's have a certain level of insecurity.

    And it isn't a matter of stripping down an OS at all. All I said was, would you take an unprotected *nix box, of your favorite flavor and connect it directly to the internet, no firewall, software or hardware, no IPChains, no NAT, nothing, just the OS. Do you think it would survive?

    All OS's have their vuln's, it's well known, but for some reason the *nix crowd seems to overlook that they come out with security updates just as Microsoft and Apple does. Only reason MS has "more vuln's" is because there's a huge population of people looking for them. If that same number of people were to look at *nix, I'm sure more vuln's would be found.
    A third party security audit is the IT equivalent of a colonoscopy. It's long, intrusive, very uncomfortable, and when it's done, you'll have seen things you really didn't want to see, and you'll never forget that you've had one.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •