Re: iptables / reject vs drop
From: ynotssor (ynotssor_at_example.net)
Date: 10/27/04
- Next message: Mike Combs: "Re: REPOST: Why I hate Linux: List of 9 (trolling please ignore)"
- Previous message: Paul remove-the-nospam Day: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- In reply to: Paul remove-the-nospam Day: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- Next in thread: Heinz Ekker: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- Reply: Heinz Ekker: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:03:19 -0700
"Paul remove-the-nospam Day" <paul@nospam.bur.st> wrote in message
news:1098846361.190483@sweep
>>> 110/tcp open pop3
>>> 143/tcp open imap
>>
>> Why do you have _both_ 110 and 143 open? Do you really need both?
>
> Yes? Some users prefer the simplicity of POP3, some prefer the
> functionality of IMAP.
And *both* transmit the users' passwords in plain text. So many people who
are adamant about ssh instead of telnet make the same security error by
using pop3 or imap.
Use pop3s port 995 or imaps port 993 instead.
-- use hotmail for email replies
- Next message: Mike Combs: "Re: REPOST: Why I hate Linux: List of 9 (trolling please ignore)"
- Previous message: Paul remove-the-nospam Day: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- In reply to: Paul remove-the-nospam Day: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- Next in thread: Heinz Ekker: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- Reply: Heinz Ekker: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|