Security Incidents mailing list archives
Re: 8 hours of pinging
From: epadin () WAGWEB COM (Ed Padin)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:11:42 -0500
<soapboxmode=on> Well your customer is quite lame. Blocking napster and application blocking in general are infringements of user's rights. One ot these days companies will understand that owning the computers is not tantamount to owning the users. Think of the internet as any other telephone/comm-device. Because you own the phone doesn't mean you can dictate to me what I can and can't say over it. And everyone has the right to make at least one phone call... :-) I left the last place that tried to filter my communications.... and if your company does this, you should think about leaving too. So I repeat, trying to block napster is very lame and will only accelerate the development of better, and more dangerous to the RIAA, software... check out the coverage of gnutella... You've been warned. <soapboxmode=off>
<devil's advocate> Well, the other side of that argument is "Pay for your own bandwidth and you can do what you damned well please with it.". Napster introduces legal liabilities, security issues and bandwidth issues. It also fills up the firewall logs with all the ping messages it generates. If it wasn't for these issues I doubt that they would care. They don't really watch which sites people visit. It only came to their attention because the firewall was bitching about pings and bandwidth (They watch it for capacity planning.). The jury is also still out on wether people should be trading Led Zeppelin albums. It goes along the same lines as a company not allowing pirated software. </devil's advocate> I can see your point, tho. I personally think it's better for a company to make employee bahavior a matter of policy not _enforcement_. It creates a shitty gestapo-like work environment. BTW: What's "RIAA" ? ABTW: Thanks for the info below.
On the other hand with the exploitable remote buffer overflow, mayble a good napster block isn't such a bad thing... With that said... here is the info you need...
snipped
Current thread:
- rooted by r0x - from address 212.177.241.127, (continued)
- rooted by r0x - from address 212.177.241.127 Dwight Schauer (Mar 29)
- Re: rooted by r0x - from address 212.177.241.127 Ethan King (Mar 29)
- Re: rooted by r0x - from address 212.177.241.127 Rick Magill (Mar 30)
- sendmail/identd attack Guido A.J. Stevens (Mar 30)
- Re: rooted by r0x - from address 212.177.241.127 Ryan Russell (Mar 29)
- UDP port 9200 Bobby, Paul (Mar 30)
- Re: UDP port 9200 Robert Graham (Mar 30)
- Re: UDP port 9200 Joey McAlerney (Mar 30)
- rooted by r0x - from address 212.177.241.127 Dwight Schauer (Mar 29)
- Re: rooted by r0x - from address 212.177.241.127 Jens Hektor (Mar 31)
- Re: 8 hours of pinging Robert Kulagowski (Mar 29)