Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Cox is blocking port 135 - off topic


From: "harq deman" <harqman () btopenworld com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:51:37 +0100

With the DCom vulnerability affecting:
- Every fresh install of most windows operating systems,
- Every system where the user is too dumb to click the obvious update
button,
- Every system registered with a pirate key that has had its access to
windows update suspended,

it is IMHO only a short period of time before a successful worm takes
effect.  At that point, it is highly probably that MS networking will be
shunned by most responsible ISPs for their customers protection.

May I draw your attention to http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/warhol.html

It is highly likely that, in the future, any fresh installs of Windows NT4 /
XP / 2000 / 2003 will be `owned' by a dcom worm in less time than it takes
to download the patch.

<JOKE> Microsoft should change the ports used by their operating systems
during patching operation </JOKE>

Perhaps Cox is ahead of the crowd...?

maybe I'm talking shit.. I don't know, I'm high
peace
harq

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <pdt () jackhammer org>
To: "Kurt Seifried" <listuser () seifried org>
Cc: <joey2cool () yahoo com>; <full-disclosure () lists netsys com>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Cox is blocking port 135 - off topic


If they do it like Comcast has it implemented even clients on the same
cable router can't speak on the "windows" ports to each other.  Last I
checked they were blocking 137-139 and have been for some time.
Off topic:

This won't help much at all. Windows 2000/XP run Microsoft SMB over TCP
on
445 as well (reduced overhead then 135/etc, no NetBIOS layer). When a
client
tries to connect to a remote host for file/print sharing/etc it connects
on
both ports 135 and 445, if a response is recieved from port 445 it drops
the
connection to 135. THe attack works quite well against client systems
using
port 445. If Cox blocks both ports 135 and 445 that will be
semi-effective
(except of course for internal users who spread a worm/etc, such as
laptops
that move around). THis may block a few of the more stupid attacks but
not
for long.

Kurt Seifried, kurt () seifried org
A15B BEE5 B391 B9AD B0EF
AEB0 AD63 0B4E AD56 E574
http://seifried.org/security/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


Current thread: