5 ms·
So when I try the registry key workaround, it doesn't work, because my registry doesn't have a Printers section. Which is logical, because the last time I owned
by rwallace 5y ago
So when I try the registry key workaround, it doesn't work, because my registry doesn't have a Printers section. Which is logical, because the last time I owned a printer was long before I bought this machine. Does that mean I don't have to worry, or that I'm wide open to attack? All the discussion so far seems silent on what happens if you don't have a printer. (This seems common to a lot of discussion about 'security vulnerability in Foo' - are you exposed if you don't have and have never used Foo? It doesn't say.)
- undfg 5y agoHave you tried creating those keys your registry is missing?
- rwallace 5y agoNo. Should I? Is it the case that my machine is exposed without them, and creating them is necessary to solve the problem? Or that it's fine the way it is now, and creating them would cause the very problem I would be hoping to solve?
- undfg 5y agoI have no idea, I'm saying that you can add them if they don't exist. (or just don't open up your SMB port to the wan...)
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoI suspect you are looking for them in the wrong place. I've never seen an installation without them.
- rwallace 5y agoBy way of verification, not only did I double check the path in regedit, but I also tried copy pasting the command line from the Microsoft page, and that gave path not found.
- gruez 5y ago>Does that mean I don't have to worry, or that I'm wide open to attack? If it's windows client the printing feature is most certainly enabled, so yes you're open to attack. You can think of the registry as a global config file. If a given section is missing, the program will just do whatever the default is. The same applies for windows. A section (path) missing doesn't mean the feature isn't enabled.
- rwallace 5y agoThat's clear then, have added the relevant path. Thanks!