nanog mailing list archives
Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:40:28 -0700
Is it just me that feels that blocking a port which is known to be used to perform billions of scans is only proper?
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. 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)