nanog mailing list archives
Re: Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues)
From: Vadim Antonov <avg () kotovnik com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:26:35 -0800 (PST)
I'm just waiting for hakerz to finally figure out that having the port number a hash of host address will effectively make port-based "notch" filtering useless. Usin On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:
Blocking ports in the core doesn't stop stuff from spreading. There are too many alternate paths in the core for systems to get infected through. In reality, backbones dropped 1434 packets as a traffic management practice (excessive traffic), not as a security management practice (protecting users).
Current thread:
- Port 80 Issues John Murphy (Mar 08)
- Re: Port 80 Issues Richard A Steenbergen (Mar 08)
- Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues) Johannes Ullrich (Mar 09)
- Re: Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues) james (Mar 09)
- Re: Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues) Jonathan Claybaugh (Mar 09)
- Re: Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues) Johannes Ullrich (Mar 09)
- Re: Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues) james (Mar 09)
- Re: Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues) Sean Donelan (Mar 09)
- Re: Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues) Jack Bates (Mar 09)
- Re: Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues) james (Mar 09)
- Re: Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues) Vadim Antonov (Mar 10)
- Re: Port 445 issues (was: Port 80 Issues) james (Mar 09)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Port 80 Issues John Murphy (Mar 08)
- Re: Port 80 Issues John Murphy (Mar 08)
- Re: Port 80 Issues Sean Donelan (Mar 08)
- Re: Port 80 Issues John Murphy (Mar 08)