3 ms·
Yes DMZs are unsecure. Not really specific to windows as any software with an unpatched CVE in a DMZ can be attacked
by water8 4y ago
Yes DMZs are unsecure. Not really specific to windows as any software with an unpatched CVE in a DMZ can be attacked
- Sakos 4y agoNot quite. It needs to be an RCE vulnerability that can be used remotely against a system without user interaction. XP had a lot of those. There aren't a lot of those now. Afaik, most RCE's nowadays require a user to download a hostile file or view a hostile site. It's part of why we don't get worm attacks all that often like we used to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_(computer_worm) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_(computer_worm) > The worm spreads by exploiting a buffer overflow discovered by the Polish security research group Last Stage of Delirium[5] in the DCOM RPC service on the affected operating systems, for which a patch had been released one month earlier in MS03-026 and later in MS03-039. This allowed the worm to spread without users opening attachments simply by spamming itself to large numbers of random IP addresses. Four versions have been detected in the wild.[6] These are the most well-known exploits of the original flaw in RPC, but there were in fact another 12 different vulnerabilities that did not see as much media attention.[7]
- water8 4y agoFair, although SMB has had a few noteworthy ones recently. And lets not forget log4j