 DanielPremium,MVM
join:2000-06-26
San Francisco, CA | reply to MySpareBrain
Re: No netbeui in XP They are trying to get rid of netbui because it is very 'chatty'; as in being broadcast based.
--
"Opportunities multiply as they are seized." - Sun Tzu |
|
| said by danielrm26:
They are trying to get rid of netbui because it is very 'chatty'; as in being broadcast based.
OK, but isn't TCP/IP a lot more vulnerable then NetBeui? |
|
|
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 | said by stanc3:
OK, but isn't TCP/IP a lot more vulnerable then NetBeui?
No.
--
dave
|
|
| said by daveporter:
No.
Do you mean "in theory" or "in practice"? Though NETBEUI and NetBIOS over TCP carry essentially the same traffic, NETBEUI isn't routed over the internet and doesn't have anywhere near the same number of cracking tools available heh heh.
??? |
|
 rrypma
join:2001-07-10
Dobbs Ferry, NY | I have found that by installing NETBEUI from the XP CD created some problems and instability in my network. I just removed it from my machines and everything works flawlessly now. I do have a NAT-based router and always keep ZA running. From what I have read, this setup should prove more than secure. |
|
DanielPremium,MVM
join:2000-06-26
San Francisco, CA
| reply to MySpareBrain
Netbeui's issues... Netbeui is broadcast based, meaning that if you have a giant segmented network like on a University campus it basically ignores the switches and routers and just sprays all over every single machine connected to the LAN. This is a huge mess and causes problems for optimization. The idea of a routable protocol is to be able to limit how often one person's packets have to interfere with another segment.
Netbeui is the ultimate 'interferer' since it just goes everywhere and ignores segmentation.
It IS a great protocol for home LANs, but MS is trying to get rid of it because it is dated and 'chatty'. I am sure there are other reasons too, but those are a couple of them.
[text was edited by author 2001-11-19 14:52:37] |
|
 Bill_MIBill In MichiganPremium,MVM
join:2001-01-03
Royal Oak, MI
kudos:1
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to MySpareBrain
Re: No netbeui in XP said by stanc3:
OK, but isn't TCP/IP a lot more vulnerable then NetBeui?
In an older, now obsolete scenario it was. People were putting 2 PCs directly on the internet with a hub, no personal firewalls, and exposing shares to the internet via TCPIP. This is just about *the* only situation NetBEUI was an excellent choice to have shares and security, too. It was so bad some ISPs block those 137-139 ports. |
|
 DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | reply to MySpareBrain
No, Netbeui is as vulnerable as TCP/IP since in the end they both carry Netbios commands. A person may actually launch a successful attacks on the same LAN using Netbeui to a PC that is guarded for TCP/IP.
Netbeui is better if you know that all the other computers in your LAN will not attack you back. In other words, they are not hostile. Netbeui gives some security for home networks because you can probably trust your home PCs and the protocol is non-routable.
In the absense of Netbeui IPX can be used but since Internet routers by default do not route IPX either it is generally as secure as Netbeui (slightly slower). |
|
DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | reply to Bill_MI
said by Bill_MI
NetBEUI was an excellent choice to have shares and security, too. It was so bad some ISPs block those 137-139 ports.
I think you are confusing Netbeui with Netbios of TCP/IP (NetBT). Netbeui is at the same level as TCP/IP. It does not use TCP/IP so TCP/IP ports are irrelevant to Netbeui.
Netbios is a protocol that runs on Netbeui or TCP/IP. Netbios over Netbeui (NetBF) does not depend on TCP/IP being present. Netbios over TCP/IP actually uses the aforementioned ports. What is removed is Netbeui. Netbios is still there in XP (AFAIK). |
|
