there is no right or wrong answer for a policy on email attachments.
every organization needs to evaluate the benefits and weighted against
the risk for such a service. email attachments is a requirements for
email service. if a company needs email service for its business
operations it doesn't make sense to block attachments. there are many
ways to control the attachments and scan them for harmfully/ infected
content. it depends on the how much control you need ( justified by risk
/ benefit analysis) there are technical solutions that can be applied on
the mail gateway ( spam control , anti virus) and on the desktop ( anti
virus, desktop security control policy , etc ..) which if all combined
they can reduce the risk mentioned below to an acceptable level.
vulnerabilities exist in every system but that doesn't stop us from
using them. just remember if you can't handle something then you are
the problem!
Jonathan Loh wrote:
>Good luck teaching common sense.
>--- Kinnell <kinnell.t_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Very true. However we are not looking to ban people from using e-mail
>>as a tool to pass important files; we are looking to keep Tim, the new
>>intern from a near college, from opening a stupid e-mail with a "your
>>wife knows you watch porn" subject and running a file in there that is
>>said to keep your wife from finding out.
>>
>>The problem is between the keyboard and the seat, not so much on the
>>servers, but if we can't teach the users common sense then we need to
>>ban all files. Same goes for so many hot topic items
>>
>>
>>-Kinnell
>>
>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:41:44 -0800 (PST), Jonathan Loh <kj6loh_at_yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ok let's have a reality check.
>>>Blocking archive files is easy by just writing a simple filter looking for
>>>various extensions. Pruning executable files means you will have to use
>>>
>>>
>>that
>>
>>
>>>same filter, open the archive, either extract the whole thing, delete the
>>>executables, and repackage the whole thing, or delete the executables in
>>>
>>>
>>place.
>>
>>
>>>Everyone can split large application files, or can be taught how, and send
>>>
>>>
>>them
>>
>>
>>>to be repackaged. Ever wonder how TCP and UDP work?
>>>
>>>--- David J ONEILL <David.J.Oneill_at_state.or.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gee, why not just block ALL email communication. That would save you
>>>>some work too.
>>>>
>>>>Archive files are a necessary part of communication and very beneficial
>>>>in saving bandwidth.
>>>>
>>>>Let's have a reality check ....
>>>>
>>>>David J O'Neill
>>>>Senior Systems Analyst
>>>>State of Oregon
>>>>Department of Human Services
>>>>Office of Information Services
>>>>PH# 503.378.2101 ext. 280
>>>>email david.j.oneill_at_state.or.us
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Jonathan Loh <kj6loh_at_yahoo.com> 03/14/05 02:21PM >>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>Ok that's a solution. But what I want to ask you is this. How much
>>>>overhead
>>>>does it take to do this? Blocking archive files would be an easier
>>>>method with
>>>>little overhead. Possibly with a reply to sender that your site does
>>>>not
>>>>accept archive files.
>>>>--- Kinnell <kinnell.t_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On the network I'm a member of we block all exe files sent inside
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>rar or zip, so even if it is sent the file will be 0byted. Wouldn't
>>>>>that be a better method? otherwise if you block all bz2, zip, rar,
>>>>>etc... then you will block a lot of useful communication
>>>>>
>>>>>-Kinnell
>>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:49:16 -0500, adisegna_at_siscocorp.com
>>>>><adisegna_at_siscocorp.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sean, I have to disagree with you. Any file that that can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>encapsulate an
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>executable file should be blocked (IMO). ZIP files are one of the
>>>>>>biggest carriers of malicious content these days. I don't make it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>habbit of trusting my users no matter how many times they get
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>trained.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>RAR extraction tools are not part of the software image policy on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>my
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>network so users are oblivious to the file blocking. What is your
>>>>>>solution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>AD
>>>>>>Information Technology Group
>>>>>>Security Identification Systems Corporation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: Sean Crawford [mailto:sean01_at_accnet.com.au]
>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 9:39 PM
>>>>>>To: security-basics_at_securityfocus.com
>>>>>>Subject: RE: 543.rar attachment
>>>>>>
>>>>>>---> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>---> From: adisegna_at_siscocorp.com [mailto:adisegna_at_siscocorp.com]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>---> Subject: RE: 543.rar attachment
>>>>>>
>>>>>>---> I just recently got the same executable inside .rar. I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>extracted
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>---> dddd.exe and ran a scan on it. Norton Corporate 9.01 didn't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>find
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>---> anything (as of 4 days ago). I wasn't about to double click
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>this
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>exe on
>>>>>>---> my corporate network. Block the rar extension on your mail
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>server.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>--->
>>>>>>
>>>>>>rar is a valid compression format...blocking it isn't a very good
>>>>>>solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2 cents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sean
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>__________________________________
>>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
>>>>http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>__________________________________________________
>>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
Received on Mar 17 2005
Intro
