Re: [fw-wiz] Permissive Firewall Policy
- From: "J. Oquendo" <sil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:57:05 -0400
Anton Chuvakin wrote:
You've officially made me feel old. 10 years... 10 years of Mr. Ranum!?Any port between 1 and 65000 are known to be bad at least some of the time.Holy cow! Is this for real? Somebody still asking a question like that?
It feels like a bit that would be posted to celebrate this list's 10th
anniversary or something :-)
But! I think for the outbound access the question borders on making
[some] sense. Yes, the general "block all that are not needed based on
the policy" is still there, but I almost feel that it makes sense to
spell out some of the *especially* ugly ports to watch, kind of like
telnet for inbound 10 years ago ... Or maybe not :-)
Best,
(kidding MR)
--
====================================================
J. Oquendo
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743
sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net
The happiness of society is the end of government.
John Adams
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- References:
- [fw-wiz] Permissive Firewall Policy
- From: Kevin Hinze
- Re: [fw-wiz] Permissive Firewall Policy
- From: Marcus J. Ranum
- Re: [fw-wiz] Permissive Firewall Policy
- From: Anton Chuvakin
- [fw-wiz] Permissive Firewall Policy
- Prev by Date: [fw-wiz] ARES 2007 Workshop Call for papers Submission Deadline : November 19, 2006
- Next by Date: [fw-wiz] Ruxcon 2006
- Previous by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] Permissive Firewall Policy
- Next by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] Permissive Firewall Policy
- Index(es):