Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(January 1997)
 

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

Subject: RE: NT 4.0 Bug FIX
From: Doug McFadyen <DougMc @ Attachmate . com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:48:52 -0800
To: "'Firewalls'" <firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM>

>> Guess Microsoft must have been watching Todd's email, eh?...;-]
>
>Anything I can do to help.  Now, if we could just get them to cooperate
>with the CERT...  8^)

In what ways does Microsloth not cooperate with CERT?

We, due to budget constraints, don't use an active firewall to insulate
us from the net, we use a passive router (Telebit Netblazer).  In simple
terms, we block all incomming traffic on all well known ports (that is,
ports < 1024, and a select few nasties above that).

I am really starting to get worried about the SOCKS port (port 1080).
Since this service is on a port > 1024, we don't block it.  And if
anyone "on the inside" has a SOCKS server running, there is nothing
stopping the outside world from accessing the SOCKS server and then
subaccessing many of our internal systems.  How did such a powerful
service get allocated a non-well-known port, anyways?

Doug.


Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Journalism and security.
From: Mike Shaver <shaver @ neon . ingenia . ca>
Next: Re: NT 4.0 Bug FIX
From: Ron DuFresne <dufresne @ parka . winternet . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: NT 4.0 Bug FIX
From: Henry Lim Chee Wee <cwlim @ ncs . com . sg>
Next: Re: NT 4.0 Bug FIX
From: fredrik . nordgren @ ups . qd . se (Fredrik Nordgren)

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com