Re: [Full-Disclosure] "MS Blast" Win2000 Patch Download

From: Jeffrey A.K. Dick (jeffdick_at_covirt.com)
Date: 08/14/03

  • Next message: Bassett, Mark: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] "MS Blast" Win2000 Patch Download" 
    To: <full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:21:00 -0400

    "If the environment is so bad that you cannot even do that, then you should
    be surfing Monster.com for a new job rather than ranting at people on this
    forum for offering sound suggestions to combat the problem."

    Somebody has had too many users infected recently ... ;-D

    RTFP ... Brad pointed out that blocking 135 DOESN'T fix things so "you don't
    have to worry about it" ... unless you are in the enviable position where no
    machines that have been outside the firewall are ever allowed inside your
    network, there are no uncontrolled access points AND your users never
    download anything bad.

    Yes, blocking 135 at the firewall is a really, really, really, really good
    idea (did somebody say that it wasn't ???), but if you think that blocking
    135 means that "you don't have to worry about it", then don't even bother
    with Monster.com ... you have bigger problems to attend to.

    What we SHOULD be doing is replacing potentially dangerous and misleading
    statements with accurate ones -- blocking 135 is no guarantee of protection
    for your network, but it is a good start.

    Cheers,

    JAKD

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: Bassett, Mark: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] "MS Blast" Win2000 Patch Download"
    • Quantcast