nanog mailing list archives
Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:42:23 -0700
the second, and important part of the, question is whether there are legitimate packets to that port which want to cross your border. for 135, i am not aware of any that should cross my site's border un-tunneled. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who should determine what protocols can cross your site's border router?
i. it is my site. next question. randy
Current thread:
- Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Sean Donelan (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Jack Bates (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Randy Bush (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Sean Donelan (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Randy Bush (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Robert Raszuk (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Randy Bush (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Robert Raszuk (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus John Kristoff (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Randy Bush (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Jack Bates (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Mans Nilsson (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Petri Helenius (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Måns Nilsson (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus neal rauhauser 402-301-9555 (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Jason Houx (Aug 13)
- Message not available
- firewall == network diaper, ranting in HTML neal rauhauser 402-301-9555 (Aug 14)