-
April 4th, 2003, 08:50 AM
#41
Hey I got a question, [Win ME]
Well I was doing this opened up MS-DOS prompt then typed in nbtstat -a 127.0.0.1 and it started but then it said host not found, i was wondering why it says that and i Tried doing it with my friends ip but said the same thing. Now what do i do.\
>Thanks, this was a very great thread.
-
April 4th, 2003, 09:09 AM
#42
Senior Member
Originally posted here by powertoad5000
The tutorial was written with XP in mind, so you'll have no troubles there. And you can't access non-shared resources over netbios using these techniques. But if you can install a backdoor with your shared recource access, then you can get to the whole computer in the end anyway.
I have a fair bit of idea using backdoors but I just am curious that is DOS that powerful that you can have access to another pc's hard drive even if it is not shared.
So far I think that XP is the most powerful OS made by MS, security wise. Althought I have no idea about the other OS's of MS in this particular matter but XP is not letting me get through it, which is in a way good thing so that from now on I should always go for XP on my LAN pcs.
Beware Clarity! A person talking to you in clear language is clearly using obsolete ideas.
-
April 4th, 2003, 09:26 AM
#43
Member
Killerboots use a -A instead of -a
case is important in this instance.
ps The loopback address 127.0.0.1 doesn't seem to work in 2k either, try the IP address of your Network card / Modem if dialed in (get these using ipconfig at the command line)
Ur Daddy, I am not sure if this is what you are asking but there are default
shares of c$, d$ etc for each drive under win2k at least. So block that port!
-
April 4th, 2003, 09:30 AM
#44
I had already tried that but still comes up with the same answer "Host not found".
-
April 4th, 2003, 09:37 AM
#45
Senior Member
Originally posted here by kilerboots
I had already tried that but still comes up with the same answer "Host not found".
Yes, same is the case with XP. Try doing this with your ip instead of 127.0.0.1 and you'll get the desired results.
Beware Clarity! A person talking to you in clear language is clearly using obsolete ideas.
-
April 4th, 2003, 09:49 AM
#46
Oh ok I got it working and thanks everyone for the help.
-
April 4th, 2003, 12:19 PM
#47
-
April 22nd, 2003, 12:59 AM
#48
Member
Note that this doesn't work in some Exchange-run terminals? I have actually tried this at my school and found that this was blocked by Exchange 2000 server.
I mean, our school teachers and their affiliates are pretty dumb, when it comes to securing school computers. But this time the software version seems to work perfectly, in unification with the Windows 2000.
It was interesting to get through blocked command usage, but with help of the *.bat files, it was successful. Upto assigning a drive-map.
However, it failed to assign a drive-map without a notice. In the cmd.exe it actually stated that "net use command was successful".
Any idea how to bypass that?
\"If you befriend a person but lack the mercy to correct him, then you are in fact his enemy!!!!\"
-
April 22nd, 2003, 07:57 PM
#49
Junior Member
I'm relatively annoyed -- please be patient with my lack of insight here, but I'm extremely new to this.
I keep using the command "nbtstat -A [IP address]" to get a table on hosts which I know have netbios shared resources avaliable, but nothing comes up. Instead, I seem to be getting the same thing for every attempt at this:
Lana # 0:
Node IpAddress: [67.13.241.161] Scope Id: []
Host not found.
Lana # 1:
Node IpAddress: [67.13.241.87] Scope Id: []
Host not found.
Lana # 2:
Node IpAddress: [172.147.10.119] Scope Id: []
Host not found.
I have concluded that the fact that I keep getting those three IP adresses for every target I try indicate that it is a problem based around my ISP -- compuserve. *Dodges flying objects*
Is this the reason I'm not getting any connection tables using nbtstat in the DOS prompt?
The other possibility I've thought of is that I'm using Windows ME, which I'm generally aware of being the suckiest operating system ever conceived of, and I think that this might hinder my ability to get this to work.
I'm sorry if this is incoherent, but as I said I'm fairly new to the game, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
-
June 15th, 2003, 11:22 AM
#50
Junior Member
Originally posted here by ammo
<quote>Moral of this story: always cover port 139.</quote>
True, but Win2000 and WinXP also listen on port 445 for SMB service directly over TCP. port 139 is like "smb over netbios over tcp" (sortof)...
Moral of this follow up: if you run w2k or wXP, always cover port 139 AND 445
Ammo
yup... no need to search for smtp / pop3 just port 139 / 445
usually 139 is enough
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|