my school have blocked certain programs

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: nweaver
yes, it's their network, they can block the services/ports/programs they want...on their network. IMHO, they do NOT have the right to make system changes to a private machine. Lets flip the tables a bit here, how would you guys react if your ISP ran the reg script on your machine?

I'd be increadibly surprised that they found a registry on my powerbook. :Q

😉

I'd switch ISPs.

 

[nweaver]

lol @ n0cmonkey

maybe the OP should get a powerbook, that would solve his problems 😉

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: nweaver
yes, it's their network, they can block the services/ports/programs they want...on their network. IMHO, they do NOT have the right to make system changes to a private machine. Lets flip the tables a bit here, how would you guys react if your ISP ran the reg script on your machine?

Or worse, ran something akin to an RIAA/MPAA-sponsored version of something like "Punkbuster", and wouldn't even allow you to connect to the internet via your ISP, if that program found any files stored on your local machine that the RIAA/MPAA might considered "illegal" (regardless if you ripped them from a physical CD that you actually owned, for example).

I could actually see that happening too, sadly, if ISPs also start to require virus-scan-before-connect software - the commercial providers of such software would likely happily bend-over for the RIAA/MPAA to insert their own scan patterns into the software as well for media files, if it meant greater profits.

Such horrid intrusions of privacy, would be disguised as an analogy for driving - that you have to under go licensing tests before being allowed to drive, so how is that different than "scanning tests" on your private host, before being allowed "onto the information superhighway". Some ISPs would likely go so far as forcing their customers, to be behind a NAT, and not actually having a real IP address nor a direct internet connection, and instead the ISP would impliment transparent proxying for the most popular protocols (web/ftp/e-mail/etc) only. Welcome to the new "non-free" internet. 🙁

 

[Bozo]

Get a lawyer

Bozo 😀

 

[InlineFive]

They probably have Remote Desktop disabled to help prevent malware from gaining access to their internal network. As for the other programs, don't complain if you don't use them.

But by all means, ask them about it and see what they say.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
They probably have Remote Desktop disabled to help prevent malware from gaining access to their internal network. As for the other programs, don't complain if you don't use them.

How does the remote desktop CLIENT give malware acess to their internal network?

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
They probably have Remote Desktop disabled to help prevent malware from gaining access to their internal network. As for the other programs, don't complain if you don't use them.

How does the remote desktop CLIENT give malware acess to their internal network?

There's an option to mount local drives on the remote computer while connected. A virus or malware of some sort could be written to travel up that connection, especially if it is written to pay attention when new drives mount.

Still, I think blocking mstsc is a lazy solution.

 

[bsobel]

There's an option to mount local drives on the remote computer while connected. A virus or malware of some sort could be written to travel up that connection, especially if it is written to pay attention when new drives mount.

Fair point. I doubt thats why it's blocked in this case tho 😉

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: bsobel

There's an option to mount local drives on the remote computer while connected. A virus or malware of some sort could be written to travel up that connection, especially if it is written to pay attention when new drives mount.

Fair point. I doubt thats why it's blocked in this case tho 😉

I doubt it is too - any IT admin smart enough to realize that as a possible infection vector also would have come up with a better way to block out mstsc than by a domain restriction.

 

[oog]

rename your executables?