Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(March 1994)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Interlock bug
From: blu @ jericho . mc . com (Brian Utterback)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 94 11:39:57 EST
To: firewalls @ greatcircle . com, NITTMANN @ uwlax . edu
Cc: tar @ jericho . mc . com

----- Begin Included Message -----

Hi,
so here is somebody who complains that he cannot send around 
anonymous letters. 
Hey, you proper fellow, what are your obvious reasons to 'sanitize' 
your partner? MIght it be you have no business to send mail there in 
interactive mode by telnetting into their sendmail?

I would say that there is no real world interest sending around 
anonymous letters. Sendmail has some features that are intended for 
interactive debugging. Some of those had caused a lot of headaches 
in the past, e.g., running commands under sendmail's privileges (see 
Morrison's worm). This one here is obviously to shorten interactive 
logins to the sendmail port (telnet).

So, now explain please to the list your obvious reasons and why you 
need that feature so badly, and why you do not call up ANS or send 
them mail, since you have a mailer's address? How about sending it 
to root at the host you 'sanitized' away?

Your address is blocked from our network.

Your organization is blocked from our network.

Your Internet contact will be informed and I will request 
information on your activities.

Mike Nittmann



----- End Included Message -----

Well, gosh, let's here it for freedom of speech.  Here we have someone who 
reports a bug in some software, and you instantly brand them guilty of 
suspicious activity, reconfigure your network, delve into their privacy, waste
the time of their Internet contact and waste MY time.  The software does not
comply with the RFC.  This is arguably a bug.  He may have been debugging mail
software himself when he noticed the problem.  He may never have used this 
feature before and may never again, but just noticed the discrepancy.  

If you object to this behavior required by the RFC so much, perhaps you might 
consider issuing a revised RFC yourself.  I know that the process of changing
the requirements is a pain, but if it is so important to you, you might consider
it.  If it is not so important, then I suggest that you do not jump down the 
throats and label as suspicious anyone that reports a bug.

Do not bother trying to contact my Internet contact; I am the contact here.
And I will not bother reconfiguring my network to block you; its not worth it.

Brian Utterback    blu @
 mc .
 com    Manager Technical Networks
Mercury Computer Systems, Inc.   (508) 256-1300x168
199 Riverneck Road               (508) 256-3599 FAX
Chelmsford, MA 01824             You can't grep dead trees.
 

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Tripwire tw.db_* database
From: Mark Verber <verber @ parc . xerox . com>
Next: IP_FORWARDING
From: lacoursj @ uprc . com (Jeffrey D. LaCoursiere)
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Interlock bug
From: "Michael Nittmann, Principal Communications Analyst, The Trane Company (608 787 3792)" <NITTMANN @ UWLAX . EDU>
Next: Re: Interlock bug
From: jas @ talking . COM (Jim Shankland)

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com