Re: Port 139 closed... what else?
From: Keith W. McCammon (km@km.com)
Date: 12/19/02
- Next message: Sandy Wood: "RE: Auditing logins via w3svc"
- Previous message: Jim Nugent: "Re: Age of Mythology game requires admin rights !"
- In reply to: Damocles: "Port 139 closed... what else?"
- Next in thread: Damocles: "Re: Port 139 closed... what else?"
- Reply: Damocles: "Re: Port 139 closed... what else?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Keith W. McCammon" <km@km.com> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:00:40 -0500
Sure. 88 TCP/UDP (Kerberos), for starters. Why not close off everything,
and only allow what's needed. It seems like you're designing your security
policy backwards.
"Damocles" <mhowlett@stonebelt.org> wrote in message
news:051c01c2a77e$7b26bf50$89f82ecf@TK2MSFTNGXA01...
> If we close off port 139 (or just diable netbios) is there
> any other way for an outside party to authenticate to a
> windows 2000 domain? what other form of "session" can be
> used to authenticate? this assumes that the server in
> question is not running ftp or smtp services... most of
> the servers that this is happening to are running web
> services.
- Next message: Sandy Wood: "RE: Auditing logins via w3svc"
- Previous message: Jim Nugent: "Re: Age of Mythology game requires admin rights !"
- In reply to: Damocles: "Port 139 closed... what else?"
- Next in thread: Damocles: "Re: Port 139 closed... what else?"
- Reply: Damocles: "Re: Port 139 closed... what else?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
