mailing list archives
Re: TCP Port 42 port scans? What the heck over...
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:02:03 -0500
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:27:31 EST, Matt Ostiguy said:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:58:18 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
<Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
Do you have any actual data showing that either of those two numbers is low
or are you relying on "if people have clue, these will be low"?
Educated guess. Some reasons:
<lots of good and valid reasons elided>
The problem with all your reasons is that they have an underlying assumption
that people have enough clue to realize things like "they don't need it",
or "they don't need more than one or two". I'm however convinced that for
each network admin out there who understands there's times to run WINS and
times not to use it, there's at least 5 or 10 who said "ooh shiny" and clicked
on the button to install it...
And remember that those sheep can't say "firewall".. ;)
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Re: TCP Port 42 port scans? What the heck over... Owned You (Dec 14)
Re: TCP Port 42 port scans? What the heck over... Florian Weimer (Dec 14)
Security breach database n30 (Dec 17)
- Re: RE: Cipher Tool, (continued)