Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned
From: "Steve Wray" <steve.wray () paradise net nz>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:21:31 +1300
But if things carry on the way they are, ISPs are going to be required, by law, to restrict access to the internet. Once upon a time, the internet community was a closed circle, if someone on the internet released a worm or something that closed the net down, it only affected that small circle of geeks. The rest of the world might have been excused for asking 'so what?' Not so anymore; ATMs, emergency services etc are all impacted by crud on the internet. That being the case, the rest of the world will very soon be asking why the heck arn't internet service providers policing their customers better? Pressure groups will form, politicians will be bribed oops sorry 'have campaign contributions made' be endlessly harrassed by highly paid lobbyists (for example). Soon, unless the internet community can demonstrate an adequate level of self discipline, it will no longer be as open as it is today. Already, there are moves afoot to create 'internet content providers' as opposed to 'internet service providers'. Think about it; Joe Public, non-Geek wants music, movies email and porno maybe instant pestering (oops *messaging*). Content providers can dish all that out at a fraction of the cost of a real ISP (lower overheads, less to manage, can franchise to RIAA approved outlets etc). Joe Geek, on the other hand, loses bigtime. My guess? Unless the internet community shapes up or oh maybe unless ipv6 becomes the standard for most of the internet (*snicker* yeah RIGHT) within, say, 5 years there will be NO open pipe ISP left anywhere in the, uh, civilised world. You will have to go to somewhere more interesting like Tuvalu ;)
-----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of yossarian Sent: Monday, 10 February 2003 11:25 a.m. To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] SQL Slammer - lessons learned PS wrote:All this is well and good, but I have a really hard timeunderstandingwhy we need to route insecure networking protocols such as NetBIOS, CIFS, NFS or NIS across the Internet. Just closing thoseports would doa world of good for the Internet as a whole, and who in theworld wouldit hurt?Well, it wouldn't hurt many, that is true. But who is to decide which ports can be closed? I'd block this kind of traffic within the network, in policy and on the internal firewalling, and the external connection(s). Long time ago the net was invented to connect, with it came these extremely insecure protocols. But I could argue the same for many other protocols. So could my ISP.If you really seriously need to mount drives from a remotenetwork, youcan do it through a secure tunnel (SSH, VPN), which wouldnot be blockedby blocking those ports. If the Internet is going to survive in any viable fashion, we have to come to our senses when it comesto allowableservices. The uncontrolled access to networking services on home computers and poorly secured commercial networks is the root cause behind a lot of the problems that exist on the Internettoday - worms,virus, trojans, etc. Ports 139 and 445, *at a minimum*, should be closed (to the outside) on every network in the world. Are you really willing to demand your "freedom" in the face of the overwhelming odds that leaving those ports open will domore harm thangood?Yes, I am. Leaving these ports open does not harm me, if it harms anyone - not my problem. The ports you are referring to are not vital to the internet, it can just cause extra traffic. With the e-bubble, we got loads and loads of bandwidth, not used normally. My freedom to use non-standard systems, and in the foreseeable future, non-TCPA systems, is essential to me, and to many others. All this talk of regulating the internet is very scaring, since it hurts the choice in technology we have now. Putting the burden on ISP's for all the woes we see, is counterproductive. What will we do once we've put them all out of business, policing the net without financial compensation? _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned, (continued)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Paul Schmehl (Feb 06)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Ron DuFresne (Feb 06)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Paul Schmehl (Feb 06)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned John . Airey (Feb 07)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Niels Bakker (Feb 07)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned David Howe (Feb 07)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Niels Bakker (Feb 07)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned David Howe (Feb 07)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Schmehl, Paul L (Feb 09)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Helmut Springer (Feb 09)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Georgi Guninski (Feb 09)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned yossarian (Feb 09)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Steve Wray (Feb 09)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Schmehl, Paul L (Feb 09)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Helmut Springer (Feb 09)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Steve Wray (Feb 09)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Helmut Springer (Feb 09)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned John . Airey (Feb 10)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned John . Airey (Feb 10)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned David Howe (Feb 10)
- RE: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Schmehl, Paul L (Feb 10)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned David LaPorte (Feb 10)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned Karl DeBisschop (Feb 10)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned David LaPorte (Feb 10)
- Re: SQL Slammer - lessons learned petard (Feb 10)
(Thread continues...)