Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(December 1996)
 

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

Subject: RE: phone hookup detection, etc.
From: "Buff, Kurt" <kurt @ SEATTLE . NYLCARE . com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 20:00:17 -0500
To: "'Bob Beck'" <beck @ obtuse . com>
Cc: "'firewalls @ greatcircle . com'" <firewalls @ greatcircle . com>

Too true, but if you're coming in after the fact, that may be hard to
implement. Also, running this kind of detection (especially if you hide
it) raises the opportunity cost of running a non-sanctioned modem.

Kurt

>----------
>From: 	Bob Beck[SMTP:beck @
 obtuse .
 com]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, December 10, 1996 16:21
>To: 	Buff, Kurt
>Subject: 	Re: phone hookup detection, etc.
>
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> Just a thought, gang. If the site is using Win95 (or NT), and you're
>> worried about modems, why not use a WinBatch or other scripting language
>> to check the registry for modem definitions during login? You can even
>> hide the scan process from the user fairly easily. Shouldn't this be a
>> part of good network security anyway, to have a good inventory of
>> equipment, and perhaps even a copy of everyone's registry taken say once
>> a week?
>> 
>
>	Well, good network security would imply that the users didn't
>have the access level to be able to do such a thing anyway.
>
>	-Bob
>
>

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Unix vs. Windows NT
From: "Jamie Thain" <jthain @ cat . bbsr . edu>
Next: RE: Another IIS Bug -- FIXED
From: "R. E. Paret" <rparet @ trumpet . aix . calpoly . edu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: phone hookup detection, etc.
From: "Buff, Kurt" <kurt @ SEATTLE . NYLCARE . com>
Next: Q: Plain TCP packet vs. SYN packet
From: Brian Stormont <brian_stormont @ corfu . projo . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com