the problem is that this protocol can run on various ports,
so if the there was a hidden setup (virus like) of a vnc-like-app ,
and it runs hidden - than the system will be monitored
even via ports that you must leave open (bi-directional reasons).
you can wonder why pcAw was never threatened by these issues:
first, it's not an open source, so it's not easy to build things based on
its protocols.
second, it has fixed ports, so it can be blocked.
> I have heard no legitimate reasons for wanting to run VNC without the
local
> user's consent or knowledge.
well , virus-like and crackers activities don't have "legitimate reasons" ..
I don't want to be a "drag" but I would really urge to give it a second
thought.
else, I would expect some of these scenarios to occur , and the future app
with rfb protocol
to be recognized as "Trojans" in the (near-far) future AntiV.
Ran .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neel, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:07 PM
Subject: RE: VNC Invisible
> I aggree! Besides, if the goal is to limit the sites that a user is
allowed
> to browse, there are other products that can handle that without spying on
> them. How do the users connect to the internet? If it is via proxy, look
> into some sort of filter for the proxy. I use WinProxy
> (http://www.winproxy.com) on my home network to limit what my kids access.
I
> believe that Symantec Internet Security also has similar features without
> the use of a proxy.
>
> -Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James ''Wez'' Weatherall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VNC Invisible
>
>
> > I not talking about the "official" VNC compilation ,
> > but about compiling vnc-like-versions (= rfb based) .
> > lets say I compile a pre-configured vnc with taskbar icon hidden and no
> > authhost at port 6000.
> > I add it to some kind of app setup (or a simple vb/javascript!) and
spread
> > it around. from now on all these machines are seen without notice !
> > what's the difference from BackOrifice ? - which is rightfully
recognized
> > as a virus ..
> >
> > still I think something should be done about this .
> > at least a condition in the license like ...
> > " these codes should be used only with explicitly notifying the hosts
> about
> > every monitoring session, or else host explicit written concession to
give
> > up this right ."
> >
> > although I look for your opinion Jonathan , it would be nice to have
James
> > "Wez" also.
>
> I have heard no legitimate reasons for wanting to run VNC without the
local
> user's consent or knowledge. There are valid reasons for wanting to hide
> the tray icon, but if this is done then the QuerySetting should always be
> set. If we allow WinVNC to run without the icon in a future release then
> this will be the (programmatically enforced) restriction on it's use, I
> think.
>
> We do not support, advocate or in any other way condone the use of WinVNC
> for the purposes of monitoring desktops without their users' knowledge.
>
> Cheers,
>
> James "Wez" Weatherall
> --
> "The path to enlightenment is /usr/bin/enlightenment"
> Laboratory for Communications Engineering, Cambridge - Tel : 766513
> AT&T Labs Cambridge, UK - Tel : 343000
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
