Re: Port 135 Probes Continue
chris_at_nospam.com
Date: 12/23/03
- Next message: Rowdy Yates: "Re: Win XP Home Ed. Install, WPA, and Partitioning Questions"
- Previous message: phn_at_icke-reklam.ipsec.nu: "Re: PGP versus the Outlook built in secure mail?"
- In reply to: Jens Hektor: "Re: Port 135 Probes Continue"
- Next in thread: Huge: "Re: Port 135 Probes Continue"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:33:28 GMT
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:42:48 +0100, Jens Hektor
<hektor@rz.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>NeoSadist wrote:
>> No offense, but ALL incoming NetBios (135-139, 445) should NOT be allowed
>
>136/[tcp|udp] is innocent.
136 TCP UDP PROFILE Naming System - no longer used
I certainly wouldn't allow traffic to/from a deprecated port number.
Would you?
- Next message: Rowdy Yates: "Re: Win XP Home Ed. Install, WPA, and Partitioning Questions"
- Previous message: phn_at_icke-reklam.ipsec.nu: "Re: PGP versus the Outlook built in secure mail?"
- In reply to: Jens Hektor: "Re: Port 135 Probes Continue"
- Next in thread: Huge: "Re: Port 135 Probes Continue"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
