Re: Allow all "high UDP" or not ?
From: Casey (Casey_at_nosuch.net)
Date: 11/17/04
- Next message: Quiet Guy: "Re: H323 aware firewall list"
- Previous message: Lars M. Hansen: "Re: Allow all "high UDP" or not ?"
- In reply to: Mordicus: "Allow all "high UDP" or not ?"
- Next in thread: LB: "Re: Allow all "high UDP" or not ?"
- Reply: LB: "Re: Allow all "high UDP" or not ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:29:06 GMT
In article <8ef00a56.0411170332.63bb32a4@posting.google.com>, kolokol_2004@speedpost.net says...
> Hi,
>
> My firewall is McAfee Desktop Firewall.
>
> It has a rule named : "Allow all high UDP" (local for 1024-65535 and
> remote for 1204-65535). Please, what is this rule ? Is it safe to let
> a so large range of UDP ports open ? I noticed that if I block all
> high udp port(or delete this rule), the network/internet is still
> working fine... so I do not understand what is for...
>
> For better security settings, should I allow all "high UDP" or block
> them ?
>
> Thank you for help & comments...
>
> Mordicus
>
I have always understood that the best "rule-of-thumb" for
creating firewall rules is "Block Everything That You Don't
Use". Consequently, on my Win98 box, my UDP rule is:
UDP, Block, local/remote ports 1-52, 54-65535, in/out.
I needed UDP port 53 for DNS.
Works just fine.
Casey
p.s. I also apply this philosopy to ICMP types and TCP ports.
- Next message: Quiet Guy: "Re: H323 aware firewall list"
- Previous message: Lars M. Hansen: "Re: Allow all "high UDP" or not ?"
- In reply to: Mordicus: "Allow all "high UDP" or not ?"
- Next in thread: LB: "Re: Allow all "high UDP" or not ?"
- Reply: LB: "Re: Allow all "high UDP" or not ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|