Hi Kiwi - I used to live in New Plymouth.
At some point in time in the future there might be an exploit which uses one
of the third party ifilters. Should a malicious hacker replace an unsigned
ifilter with one of their own they might be able to gain access to your
system (although they already have enough access to replace the dll so they
pretty well own your machine anyway).
To protect against this you can check to ensure that all your ifilters are
signed.
--
RelevantNoise.com - dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com [quoted text, click to view] "InstantKiwi" <xtradotcodotnz@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1189142581.905717.201290@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> Howdy folks,
>
> Some of you may have experience the issue described in the following
> MS kb article, "You may experience a 45-second delay when you run a
> full-text query in an instance of SQL Server 2005 that is running on a
> server without Internet access" (
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/ > 915850).
>
> Does anybody know what the risks are of implementing the suggested
> work around which is to turn off signature verification on word breaks
> (e.g. - sp_fulltext_service 'verify_signature', 0). The article
> says...
>
> "Warning If you ignore signature verification, the instance of SQL
> Server 2005 is less secure. We recommend that you sign any word breaks
> that you install or make sure that any word breakers that you acquire
> are signed."
>
> What types of vulnerabilities I am exposing my SQL Server to if I turn
> off signature verification.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Kahu
>