Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Blocking port 135?
From: Mans Nilsson <mansaxel () sunet se>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 15:52:44 +0200

Subject: Re: Blocking port 135? Date: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:09:47AM -0500 Quoting Jack Bates (jbates () brightok net):
Depends on why you block and interfere. Intention plays a large part 
according to law. 

If people can sue McDonalds for hot coffee, everything is possible. I'm European, so this does not apply, but I'd try 
to be very careful in .us.

Many AUP/TOS aggreements have interesting no-server clauses. 

Not mine. And, I generally think that with such AUPen, one gets something
one step better than Minitel or I-Mode, which is not Internet. 
Yes, I'm one of those loud end-to-end guys.  

- Setup detection systems and perform immediate contact on accounts that 
 trigger the system to determine if it's legitimate or not. If not, bye 

That is wiretapping in Sweden, and illegal without a court order.
I believe. Nobody has gone even close to taking it to court, and I
stay far away from it.

Of course, this only stops outbound issues. It does nothing to prevent 
inbound, and in the event of a worm, you'd better make sure you have 
double and triple methodologies in place to stabalize your network. 

Some of our thinner access lines were up to 50% full when the Slammer hit. 
If there comes a much more evil worm than so, we do have OOB  access
to the entire core..  

Måns Nilsson         Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC


Attachment: _bin

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]