nanog mailing list archives
Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:36:12 -0500
Sean Donelan wrote:
http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/BEC6DE12EC6AE16ECC256D8000192BF7!opendocument "While some end users are calling for ISPs to block certain ports relating to the Microsoft exploit as reported yesterday (Feared RPC worm starts to spread), most ISPs are reluctant to do so."
Is it just me that feels that blocking a port which is known to be used to perform billions of scans is only proper? It takes time to contact, clean, or suspend an account that is infected. Allowing infected systems to continue to scan only causes problems for other networks. I see no network performance issues, but that doesn't mean other networks won't have issues.
-Jack
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)