Re: Clever Firewall Rules, Second Edition
From: Tim Haynes (usenet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk)Date: 09/21/01
- Previous message: Sven Michels: "Re: iptables anti-nimda anyone?"
- In reply to: Jose Nazario: "Re: Clever Firewall Rules, Second Edition"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Jose Nazario <jose@biocserver.BIOC.cwru.edu> Subject: Re: Clever Firewall Rules, Second Edition From: Tim Haynes <usenet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> Date: 21 Sep 2001 09:36:02 +0100 Message-ID: <86ited6ivh.fsf@potato.vegetable.org.uk>
Jose Nazario <jose@biocserver.BIOC.cwru.edu> writes:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
>
> > Besides, my host is only online about 6 hours per day, I think I'm
> > safe :)
>
> ask how many dialup users who were hit with worms in the past 12 months
> about this philosophy. its not a safe one to rely on. you're backing it
> up with a firewall, and thats good. however,
Agreed.
The scary statistic I tend to deploy to dispel the above myth is that, 2
Christmases ago, I signed up to help test a new ISP (here in the UK).
Dynamic IP#. Logged in as the `test' user.. and in under 30s I'd denied an
incoming 119/tcp connection.
~Tim
-- Clouds cross the black moonlight, |piglet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk Rushing on down to the sound |http://spodzone.org.uk/ of a turning world |
- Previous message: Sven Michels: "Re: iptables anti-nimda anyone?"
- In reply to: Jose Nazario: "Re: Clever Firewall Rules, Second Edition"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]