nanog mailing list archives
RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus
From: "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew () eeph com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:08:43 -0700
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of McBurnett, Jim ... I really can not image legitimate traffic on 135..
My problem with this approach is that, in 1985, you could have said "I really cannot imagine legitimate traffic on port 80". (On the other hand, you could probably say that today and be mostly right) Matthew Kaufman matthew () eeph com
Current thread:
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus, (continued)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Jack Bates (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Simon Lyall (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Petri Helenius (Aug 12)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus McBurnett, Jim (Aug 12)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Dave Israel (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus John Palmer (Aug 12)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Randy Bush (Aug 12)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Mike Jezierski - BOFH (Aug 12)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Jason Frisvold (Aug 13)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Dave Israel (Aug 12)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Matthew Kaufman (Aug 13)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Stephen J. Wilcox (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Mans Nilsson (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 13)