Cryptolocker and non-mapped network shares

[DeweyC]

I understand that shares that are not mapped on a computer are not vulnerable to programs like cryptolocker.

 

I have a Server 2008 that is used only to store backups and files used across multiple computers.  It is setup to allow access from several computers on the network without authentification at each access.  It shows up under the file explorer network tree on Win 8.1 and Win 7; but not as a mapped network drive.  (Yes, I am not a professional IT guy).  It does not show up with the "net use" command either.

 

Are the files on the server currently vulnerable?  What IS the best practice to ensure those files are protected.  FWIW, I do save the server contents every 6 months or so onto a HDD.

 

Also, I back up certain folders from that server and my main computer to a Synology NAS which shows up as a mapped drive with the net use command.  The NAS does nto show up as a mpped drive in file explorer.  Is it vulnerable?

 

Thanks. 

[David H. Lipman]

No, it isn't vulnerable as long as...

 

* There are no mapped drives from the POV of users

 

*  No person who logs onto the system abuses the role of a server such as ordinary web browsing or installing software that hasn't been vetted.

 

"What IS the best practice to ensure those files are protected"

 

Proper Domain Based authentication using Strong Passwords, use of Hidden Shares, use of a paid-for anti virus license, vulnerability assessment and patch management and use of a backup program that creates packaged, password protected, files.

 

There are probably more and I'll add if I think of any.

[DeweyC]

Thank you.  The other thing I am looking at is how the main computer is used to access the internet.  How well does UAC protect me?

 

I have refrained from setting up an account with limited access because so many programs (Quickbooks, etc) just about demand access to the internet.

[David H. Lipman]

UAC is more annoyance than a help.  Yes, it does limit some things when enabled but I find the corporate world, the Enterprise environments and most home users disable it.  Those who use it still get infected. 

 

Does it minimize the infection rate with UAC enabled ?

That's hard to quantify but I can envisage there are situations where it has helped but I don't think there is a high percentage of events being mitigated.

[DeweyC]

Thanks.  That was my bias.

[AdvancedSetup]

What it does do though is ensure that a user is "aware" of operations that they may not otherwise be aware and certainly helps prevent the accidental installation or change of some things that might affect the entire computer. Agreed that it's of little real value in protecting from a real infection - though perhaps some.