IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Windows vX.X Forum / Re: "Messenger" != "NET SEND" ?
Post #129,524
by deSitter
Picture of deSitter
12/7/03 9:38:51 PM
Reply
New Re: "Messenger" != "NET SEND" ?
"Windows Messenger" in 3.x and 95 was a popup text box for displaying LAN Manager messages, which get sent to specific machines or domains/workgroups. "Windows Messenger Service" is the corresponding legacy service that pops up these messages on an informational dialog box.

And yes, I just checked, later versions of NET can send to individual users. The NT 4 NET SEND only went to machines. Most people disable the Messenger Service, because while doing a backup, they prefer not to be reminded of how small a penis they are sporting (Messenger spam).
-drl
Post #129,568
by pwhysall
Picture of pwhysall
12/8/03 3:11:38 AM
Reply
New Alternatively...
...I drop all netBIOS traffic (inbound and outbound) at the firewall.

Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
Post #129,569
by CRConrad
12/8/03 3:18:19 AM
Reply
New So if Darrell's gang use W2K or later, they could try my way
     NET SEND to all except a few systems? - (SpiceWare) - (42) - Dec. 5, 2003, 04:08:12 PM EST
         Send to group -NT - (Silverlock) - Dec. 5, 2003, 04:30:20 PM EST
         If you send not to machine names, but... - (CRConrad) - (6) - Dec. 7, 2003, 03:50:29 PM EST
             Re: If you send not to machine names, but... - (deSitter) - (5) - Dec. 7, 2003, 04:08:32 PM EST
                 "Messenger" != "NET SEND" ? - (CRConrad) - (4) - Dec. 7, 2003, 06:48:13 PM EST
                     NET SEND Help - (orion) - Dec. 7, 2003, 08:13:06 PM EST
                     Re: "Messenger" != "NET SEND" ? - (deSitter) - (2) - Dec. 7, 2003, 09:38:51 PM EST
                         Alternatively... - (pwhysall) - Dec. 8, 2003, 03:11:38 AM EST
                         So if Darrell's gang use W2K or later, they could try my way -NT - (CRConrad) - Dec. 8, 2003, 03:18:19 AM EST
         update - (SpiceWare) - Dec. 8, 2003, 10:00:34 AM EST
         Re: NET SEND to all except a few systems? - (qstephens) - (32) - Jan. 1, 2004, 10:30:25 AM EST
             ROFL - (deSitter) - (31) - Jan. 1, 2004, 11:47:06 AM EST
                 It inspires me - (orion) - (30) - Jan. 1, 2004, 11:50:45 AM EST
                     Re: It inspires me - (deSitter) - (22) - Jan. 1, 2004, 12:11:51 PM EST
                         On this we agree - (orion) - Jan. 1, 2004, 03:23:51 PM EST
                         Windows has no user context? - (Arkadiy) - (20) - Jan. 2, 2004, 06:38:33 PM EST
                             process-level user context - (deSitter) - (19) - Jan. 2, 2004, 07:53:05 PM EST
                                 I am still at a loss as to what you mean -NT - (Arkadiy) - (18) - Jan. 2, 2004, 10:22:02 PM EST
                                     A login is a profile - (orion) - Jan. 2, 2004, 11:36:02 PM EST
                                     Re: I am still at a loss as to what you mean - (deSitter) - (16) - Jan. 3, 2004, 12:02:12 AM EST
                                         You're much mistaken - (Arkadiy) - (15) - Jan. 3, 2004, 04:05:28 PM EST
                                             Can you be logged in as two people at once? - (ben_tilly) - (7) - Jan. 3, 2004, 05:09:19 PM EST
                                                 Not log in, no. - (admin) - (3) - Jan. 3, 2004, 05:13:05 PM EST
                                                     I'll tuck that away in case I ever need it -NT - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 3, 2004, 07:33:08 PM EST
                                                     Yes you can and it is a weak security system - (orion) - (1) - Jan. 3, 2004, 08:10:23 PM EST
                                                         Re: Yes you can and it is a weak security system - (pwhysall) - Jan. 3, 2004, 11:54:08 PM EST
                                                 Certainly - (Arkadiy) - (2) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:10:45 PM EST
                                                     Re: Certainly - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:57:05 PM EST
                                                         You keep hearing yourself, not me - (Arkadiy) - Jan. 4, 2004, 08:35:49 PM EST
                                             Re: You're much mistaken - (deSitter) - (6) - Jan. 3, 2004, 09:28:42 PM EST
                                                 What does hiererchy of processes have to do with it? - (Arkadiy) - (5) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:14:02 PM EST
                                                     Re: What does hiererchy of processes have to do with it? - (deSitter) - (4) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:54:51 PM EST
                                                         I am not sure what NT_AUTHORITY is - (Arkadiy) - (3) - Jan. 4, 2004, 08:42:31 PM EST
                                                             Except: - (FuManChu) - (2) - Jan. 5, 2004, 01:55:07 AM EST
                                                                 RIght you are -NT - (Arkadiy) - Jan. 5, 2004, 07:18:30 AM EST
                                                                 Bottom line - (pwhysall) - Jan. 5, 2004, 07:20:06 AM EST
                     Careful there . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (5) - Jan. 1, 2004, 12:31:49 PM EST
                         Does it really? - (ben_tilly) - (3) - Jan. 1, 2004, 01:53:29 PM EST
                             I don't remember all the details . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - Jan. 1, 2004, 02:23:54 PM EST
                                 The licenses are more forgiving than you think - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Jan. 1, 2004, 02:48:58 PM EST
                                     Really interesting issue - (orion) - Jan. 1, 2004, 03:27:39 PM EST
                         Bah! I'll make it freeware then. - (orion) - Jan. 1, 2004, 02:07:29 PM EST
                     that's what I did - (SpiceWare) - Jan. 2, 2004, 12:36:33 PM EST

Uno, dos, tres, quatro.
105 ms