Re: What could have been done differently?

[Scott Francis <darkuncle () darkuncle net>]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:13:19AM -0200, rkjnanog () ieg com br said:
[snip]
> But this worm required external access to an internal server (SQL Servers
> are not front-end ones); even with a bad or no patch management system, this
> simply wouldn't happen on a properly configured network. Whoever got
> slammered, has more problems than just this worm. Even with no firewall or
> screening router,  use of RFC1918 private IP address on the SQL Server would
> have prevented this worm attack

Only if the worm's randomly-chosen IP addresses were picked from the valid IP
space (i.e. not RFC1918 addresses), and although I am not sure, I doubt the
worm's author(s) was that conscientious.

Later, on Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 19:01:25 -0500 (EST), <bdragon () gweep net>
replied:
> RFC1918 addresses would not have prevented this worm attack.
> RFC1918 != security

All too true. However, using NAT/packet filtering can at least prevent
casual/automated network scans. Of course, if one was implementing proper
filtering, 1434/udp wouldn't be accepting connections from outside sources,
whether directly or through NAT/port forwarding. But then, this observation
has been made many times already ...
-- 
-= Scott Francis || darkuncle (at) darkuncle (dot) net =-
  GPG key CB33CCA7 has been revoked; I am now 5537F527
        illum oportet crescere me autem minui

Attachment: _bin
Description: