Re: Port 135 Probes Continue
chris_at_nospam.com
Date: 12/25/03
- Next message: Newsbox: "Re: A Question On Ipchains Input Rules"
- Previous message: Lew Pitcher: "Re: Security through wide system use?"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: Port 135 Probes Continue"
- Next in thread: Joe: "Re: Port 135 Probes Continue"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:40:44 GMT
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 02:19:19 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
>In article <86hdzpygjj.fsf@potato.vegetable.org.uk>, usenet-20031224
>@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk says...
>> Depends if you want your ISP to nanny you or not. I think maybe there
>> *should* be a group of ISPs for this, and others for real users; maybe some
>> ISPs should filter known-bad on dial-up connections, just to reduce the
>> traffic. However, I would far *rather* they just yanked the accounts of
>> anyone failing to respond to a `you've been cracked you idiot' mail within
>> a day, because otherwise all you're doing is masking the problem, rather
>> than making any steps to solve it.
>
>Actually, if the restricted ports INBOUND on residential accounts, but
>left commercial accounts alone, I would imagine that it would clean up a
>lot. You would have the choice of which type connection you want, and we
>would be saved from most of the lamers that connect directly to the
>internet because they don't know any better.
We also need to clarify who owns the connections. Many ISPs (maybe
even most) do not provide the dialup service and don't have direct
control over it. In my area for example, most of the ISP dialup
numbers belong to UUnet.
-Chris
- Next message: Newsbox: "Re: A Question On Ipchains Input Rules"
- Previous message: Lew Pitcher: "Re: Security through wide system use?"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: Port 135 Probes Continue"
- Next in thread: Joe: "Re: Port 135 Probes Continue"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
