nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?
From: Martin Hannigan <martin () theicelandguy com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:23:02 -0400
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Joe Greco <jgreco () ns sol net> wrote:
Well most port scanning is from compromised boxes. Once a box is compromised it can be used for *any* sort of attack. If you really care about security you take reports of ports scans seriously.Yeahbut, the real problem is that port scanning is typically used as part of a process to infect _other_ boxes. If you allow this sort of illness to spread, the patient (that is, the Internet) doesn't get better.
Port scanning is the Internet equivelant of the common cold. They're a dime a dozen. I recommend taking some Vitamin B and D. Block, and Drop. Best, Martin -- Martin Hannigan martin () theicelandguy com p: +16178216079
Current thread:
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?, (continued)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Mark Andrews (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Ross (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Ross (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Ross (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? JC Dill (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Mark Andrews (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Martin Hannigan (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Bobby Mac (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Bill Stewart (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Charles (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Rob Evans (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? JC Dill (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Bill Bogstad (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Neil (Mar 14)