Re: Would you pay more ...
From: Calin Don (pulse_at_rdslink.ro)
Date: 07/08/04
- Previous message: MARTIN M. Bénoni: "RE: firewall setup"
- In reply to: Jeff: "Would you pay more ..."
- Next in thread: Don Voss: "Re: Would you pay more ..."
- Reply: Don Voss: "Re: Would you pay more ..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 22:39:07 +0300 To: security-basics@securityfocus.com
Jeff wrote:
> Regarding standard consumer broadband connections ...
>
> Would you pay more to only have the following destination ports open
> to the internet originating from your broadband modem:
>
> tcp 21 - ftp
> tcp 22 - ssh
> tcp 25 - smtp
> tcp, udp 53 - dns
> tcp 80 - www
> tcp 110 - pop3
> tcp 119 - nntp
> udp 123 - ntp
> tcp 443 - secure www
>
> (Arguments for/against specific ports solicited. I purposely left
> some out that I don't use. Curious how significant they are to
> others. IMAP4 and icmp protocols come to mind)
>
> ALTERNATIVELY, would you like it if this was the STANDARD package and
> additional ports were considered optional, and required payment.
>
> LASTLY, this could start out as the NEW Secure way to go! It simply
> requires that your existing cable modem be upgraded (replaced) at a
> cost of $50-$75. All new installations would recieve these as part
> of the std pkg.
>
> (I know some small businesses that would LOVE to have this. I know
> because they've called me to resolve some "weird problems" and look
> at me funny when I tell them that they should have had a firewall all
> along.)
>
> I would REALLY like to hear from those of you that work in the ISP
> field. I have always been on the receiving end of an ISP -- never
> worked in that trench. But I suspect that this type of firewall could
> be built into every single cable/dsl modem used at little expense.
> Indeed, could save lots of money on bandwidth.
>
> Consider Grandma now ... she typically isn't a gamer and need other
> ports open. Nor does she work at home and require a vpn. BUT she is
> the MOST likely to get hit by some exploit, and it's her damned box
> (x 1,000,000) uselessly eating up bandwidth because some smart-aleck
> *&#$ing script kiddie bas(*&#$
>
> .... ohm-yelli-mon ... ohm-yelli-mon ... OK, ok, better.
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ethical Hacking at the InfoSec Institute. Mention this ad and get $545
> off any course! All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 10 students
> or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert
> instructors. Attend a course taught by an expert instructor with years
> of in-the-field pen testing experience in our state of the art hacking
> lab. Master the skills of an Ethical Hacker to better assess the
> security of your organization. Visit us at:
> http://www.infosecinstitute.com/courses/ethical_hacking_training.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
No i won't because i think that this kind of option for a home user
would be useless. And this because a user could open a http server for
instance and leve it unsecured so this protection from ISP useless for him.
- application/pgp-signature attachment: OpenPGP digital signature
- Previous message: MARTIN M. Bénoni: "RE: firewall setup"
- In reply to: Jeff: "Would you pay more ..."
- Next in thread: Don Voss: "Re: Would you pay more ..."
- Reply: Don Voss: "Re: Would you pay more ..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
