Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: SMTP behind NAT
From: Laurens Vets <laurens () daemon be>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 18:58:13 +0200
Hey Georg,
I'm currently in a nat environment, where outbound connections to smtp and smtps are blocked by a firewall. You are therefore forced (unless using vpn or something alike) to send mail via a local smtp server. I was wondering whether there is any sense in blocking these connections. What does the administrator gain by forcing everybody to a local open smtp server? Can you avoid being put on some kind of blacklist by these means?
It's a measure to block unauthorized internal mailservers (think virus/trojan/bot infected internal machines) to send mails (think viru mails/spam :p) without going through the company authorized mailservers (who usually have av/antispam measures on it)
I would very much appreciate an answer. Thanks in advance.
No problem :) Laurens ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by: InfoSec InstituteLearn all of the latest penetration testing techniques in InfoSec Institute's Ethical Hacking class. Totally hands-on course with evening Capture The Flag (CTF) exercises, Certified Ethical Hacker and Certified Penetration Tester exams, taught by an expert with years of real pen testing experience.
http://www.infosecinstitute.com/courses/ethical_hacking_training.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- SMTP behind NAT Georg Pichler (May 01)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT Michael.Randazzo (May 01)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Laurens Vets (May 01)
- Message not available
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Georg Pichler (May 04)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Aaron Howell (May 04)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT Murda Mcloud (May 05)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Georg Pichler (May 06)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT Murda Mcloud (May 06)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT David Gillett (May 07)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT Murda Mcloud (May 07)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT Tariq Naik (May 08)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT bartlettNSF (May 11)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Georg Pichler (May 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Rob Taylor (May 01)