Re: Even you can be hacked

["Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <LarrySheldon () cox net>]

Henry Linneweh wrote:

> Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
> hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
> world China in particular. 


Thank you.


> I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
> routing
> tables unless they are registered with the host and or
> providers as to their legitimate use....
>
>
> smpnameres     901/tcp      SMPNAMERES
> smpnameres     901/udp     SMPNAMERES
> blackjack      1025/tcp    network blackjack
> blackjack      1025/udp   network blackjack
> cap            1026/tcp   Calender Access Protocol
> cap            1026/udp   Calender Access Protocol
> exosee         1027/tcp   ExoSee
> exosee         1027/udp   ExoSee
> #              1124-1154  Unassigned
> ssslic-mgr     1203/tcp    License Validation
> ssslic-mgr     1203/udp   License Validation
> ms-sql-s       1433/tcp   Microsoft-SQL-Server 
> ms-sql-s       1433/udp   Microsoft-SQL-Server 
> ms-sql-m       1434/tcp   Microsoft-SQL-Monitor
> ms-sql-m       1434/udp   Microsoft-SQL-Monitor    
> #              6851-6887  Unassigned
> monkeycom      9898/tcp   MonkeyCom
> monkeycom      9898/udp   MonkeyCom
>
> And I need a list that shows who or what owns Dynamic
> and/or Private Ports
>
> -Henry
>
> --- "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <LarrySheldon () cox net>
> wrote:
>
> > Andy Dills wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Jeff Shultz wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your
> >
> > own systems.
> >
> > > > Even if the water company is sending me 85%
> >
> > TriChlorEthane?
> >
> > > > Right.  Got it.  The victim is always responsible.
> > > >
> > > > There you have it folks.
> > >
> > >
> > > Change the word "victim" to "negligent party" and
> >
> > you're correct.
> >
> > > Ignoring all of the analogies and metaphors, the
> >
> > bottom line is that ISPs
> >
> > > are _not responsible_ for the negligence of their
> >
> > customers, and that ISPs
> >
> > > are _not responsible_ for the _content_ of the
> >
> > packets we deliver. In
> >
> > > fact, blocking the packets based on content would
> >
> > run counter to our sole
> >
> > > responsibility: delivering the well-formed packets
> >
> > (ip verify unicast
> >
> > > reverse-path) where they belong.
> > >
> > > Remember, we're service providers, not content
> >
> > providers. Unless your AUP
> >
> > > or customer contract spells out security services
> >
> > provided (most actually
> >
> > > go the other way and limit the liability of the
> >
> > service provider
> >
> > > specifically in this event), then your customers
> >
> > have to pay you to secure
> >
> > > their network (unless you feel like doing it for
> >
> > free), or they are
> >
> > > responsible, period.
> > >
> > > As far as I'm concerned, that guy would have a
> >
> > better shot at suing
> >
> > > Microsoft then challenging his bandwidth bill.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Andy Dills
> > > Xecunet, Inc.
> > > www.xecu.net
> > > 301-682-9972
> > > ---
> >
> >
> > How many more of these do I need, do you think?
> >
> > --
> > Requiescas in pace o email
> >
> > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
> >
> > http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/


--
Requiescas in pace o email

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/