Re: solution time for www/smtp hole
Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu>
From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Message-id: <9308131722.AA04889@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: solution time for www/smtp hole
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 13:22:25 -0400 (EDT)
In-reply-to: <9308131621.AA00513@herman.cmf.nrl.navy.mil> from "William C Fenner" at Aug 13, 93 12:21:53 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 999
Status: RO
> I don't think that exclusion is the way to go. If we're going to exclude
> any services listed in the Assigned Numbers RFC (rfc1340 right now) that
> look like they might be dangerous, we'd better exclude 71-74 (Remote Job
> Service), 82 (XFER Utility), etc. Most of the "funky" ports that are
> currently in use are already officially assigned to something else, and
> when you connect to port 82 on joe.random.host you can't be sure whether
> you're getting the XFER utility or the httpd that someone stuck on some
> random port.
The purpose is to stop attacks on systems. All the ports you've named are not
widely used for their intended purpose, and as such dont present a problem
(IMHO). Exclusion is the better answer, why break the world when you do not
need to? Justification for religous reasons just isnt enough (IMHO).
-Crh
Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu
http://rs560.msu.edu:82/afsmsu/user/h/e/henrich/public/web/henrich.html