Re: KB article 324261 incorrect?
From: Steven L Umbach (n9rou_at_nospam-comcast.net)
Date: 11/23/05
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: User locked out with event 537 under type 11 logon"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:42:30 -0600
You are correct. There appears to be an error in the KB article. Almost
always one port will need to be any to accommodate the over 1024 port that
the client will randomly use. In the KB article there is a send feedback
option that you could use to send to them your findings but don't expect
immediate results. Good job! --- Steve
"Jim Bartlett" <JimBartlett@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CBA360D7-00AD-437E-A29F-56825F7A9AD6@microsoft.com...
>I have posted this in Windows 2003 networking but no replies received.
>Maybe
> this is a more suitable forum. Basicall, the issue is that in KB324261,
> the
> procedure has you create IP filters that only match traffic that comes
> from
> AND goes to ports 161 and 162 over TCP/UDP. This doesn't happen. When
> using
> any SNMP management product (Dell Openmanage for example), traffic comes
> from
> a random high port, to port 161, then from 161 back to the random high
> port.
> So the filters defined in that article never match.
>
> I had to create rules that say from 161 to any port, use IPSec. This rule
> works (verified by Ethereal). Shouldn't this article be updated, or have I
> misread it?
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: User locked out with event 537 under type 11 logon"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
