World of VNC
31–40 of 40 posts
Re: World of VNC
#32Re: World of VNC
#33Geezus he included the hostnames and IPs? This is so insanely irresponsible.
I'd argue it's responsible. Security through obscurity is no security at all.
Re: World of VNC
#34Now is it just a difference in scanned ports or a genuine improvement in security, I can't tell, but I can only hope.
Re: World of VNC
#35Re: World of VNC
#36That one is really weird: https://worldofvnc.net/browse.php?id=1107 I got no clue so far.. but so many questions!
Re: World of VNC
#37Geezus he included the hostnames and IPs? This is so insanely irresponsible.
Could be worse: http://www.insecam.org/
Re: World of VNC
#38>> I found 3567 servers that were unprotected. That's pretty low for scanning the whole internet. Either VNC isn't used that much or I was simply expecting 10 times as many servers.
https://www.shodan.io/search?query=rfb+authentication+disabl...
And there are roughly 550,000 VNC servers on the Internet:
Re: World of VNC
#39I'm interested to see that they only found 3567 open servers, whereas a scan I have from a couple years ago shows 7573 entries. Now is it just a difference in scanned ports or a genuine improvement in security, I can't tell, but I can only hope.