[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030908203733.00b11218@pop.gmx.de>
From: nonleft at gmx.net (nonleft)
Subject: Should ISPs be blocking open ports for
their customers?
is it common practice that ISPs are inspecting the TCP headers?
What is the sense of it all when everybody upgrades to IPv6 or uses IPSec?
is it sensible for fast routing?
At 09:03 08.09.2003 -0400, you wrote:
>This white paper was just published today by SANS:
>
>Internet Service Providers: The Little Man's Firewall?
>http://www.sans.org/rr/special/isp_blocking.pdf
>
>A large percentage of malicious traffic is focused on a small number of
>vulnerabilities and their associated ports[1]. Blocking some of these
>ports will isolate infected machines and slow the spread of malicious,
>autonomous code such as worms. However, the vulnerable services used by
>these worms do have legitimate uses. If secured properly, they can be
>used without the risk of infection. In this paper, we focus on ISPs that
>provide Internet access to consumers. This paper assumes that a consumer
>is a home user or a small business without dedicated IT staff. This
>paper does not apply to backbone infrastructure providers or co-location
>providers.
>
>In part of this paper, we argue for blocking ports commonly used for
>Microsoft File sharing and related services; specifically, ports 135,
>137, 139, and 445. These ports and, in particular, Microsoft File
>Sharing, draw a lot of attention from malware authors.
>
>...
>
>_______________________________________________
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
___________________________________
kind regards
nonleft
"the early bird catches the worm,
but it is the second mice that gets the cheese!"
Powered by blists - more mailing lists