This prompts me to say something about a comment from a previous poster about how vulnerable Windows is compared to Linux/xBSD etc
I see many, many vulnerability alerts weekly for *nix based systems. Probably just as many as you see for Windows. You should of course harden any Internet facing network device, however the point is not really the type of server OS you run, or the Apps on it, but how good you are at proactively keeping them patched. I suggest that you go to some firewall vendor sites and plagiarise a bit of marketing guff if you want to sell the firewall idea to a sceptic, although just plonking a firewall in front of your unpatched sendmail server won't achieve a great deal. My 2c, YMMV Symon -----Original Message----- From: Wilmes, Rusty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 April 2003 20:05 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: hacking challenge [7:66720] there's an access list on the ethernet interface thats directly connected to a dsl modem. they're allowing telnet and smpt to basically, any any plus various other protocols from/to specific addresses. There're only two outside addresses that are natted but its really hideous and the access list is the only thing resembling a layer of security between the internet and their server farm. I was just hoping to hear some really good verbage about how vulnerable they are. I've told them for 3 months to get a pix but it just aint sinking in. Now they've got a worm loose on their mail server thats bringing down their main host system and their internet line (but thats another story). > -----Original Message----- > From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:46 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: hacking challenge [7:66720] > > > Wilmes, Rusty wrote: > > > > this is a general question for the security specialists. > > > > Im trying to convince a client that they need a firewall.... > > > > so hypothetically, > > > > if you had telnet via the internet open to a router (with an access > > list that allowed smtp and telnet) (assuming you didn't know the > > telnet password > > or the enable password)that had a bunch of nt servers on > > another interface, > > Do you actually mean that you are allowing Telnet and SMTP to > go through the > router? You said "to" above which is confusing. Allowing Telnet to the > router unrestricted would be a horrible security hole, even > for people who > don't know the password because passwords are often guessable. > > But I don't think that's what you meant... > > Allowing Telnet and SMTP through the router is more common, > especially SMTP. > You have to allow SMTP if you have an e-mail server that gets > mail from the > outside world. Avoid Telnet, though, if you can. It sends all > text as clear > text, including passwords. > > The question is really how vulnerable is the operating system > that the SMTP > server is running on? It's probably horribly vulnerable if your client > hasn't kept up with the latest patches, and it sounds like > your client is > the type that hasn't? In fact, the server is probably busy > attacking the > rest of us right now! ;-0 > > So, as far as convicing your customer.... > > The best way may be to put a free firewall, like Zone Alarm, > on the decision > maker's computer and show her/him all the attacks happening > all the time. Or > if she already has a firewall, walk her through the log. > > Good luck. I have a good book to recommend on this topic: > > Greenberg, Eric. "Mission-Critical Security Planner." New > York, New York, > Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003. > > Here's an Amazon link: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471211656/opendoornetw > inc/104-9901005-4572707 > > Priscilla > > > how long would it take a determined hacker a) cause some kind of > > network downtime and b) to map a network drive to a share on a file > > server over the > > internet. > > > > Thanks, > > Rusty > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Larry Letterman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:44 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: VLAN loop problem [7:66656] > > > > > > > > > Yes, > > > it prevents loops in spanning tree on layer 2 switches from > > > causing a loop > > > by disabling the port on a cisco switch... > > > > > > > > > Larry Letterman > > > Network Engineer > > > Cisco Systems > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > > > Thomas N. > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:18 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: VLAN loop problem [7:66656] > > > > > > > > > > > > What does "portfast bpdu-guard" do? Does it prevent > > interfaces with > > > > portfast enabled from causing the loop in my scenario? > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > port mac address security might work, altho its a lot of > > admin > > > > > overhead..are you running portfast bpdu-guard on the > > access ports? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Larry Letterman > > > > > Network Engineer > > > > > Cisco Systems > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: Thomas N. > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 8:14 PM > > > > > Subject: VLAN loop problem [7:66656] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > I got a problem in the production campus LAN here > > between > > > > VLANs. Please > > > > > help me out! Below is the scenario: > > > > > > > > > > We have VLAN 10 (10.10.x.x) and VLAN 20 (10.20.x.x) > > subnets. > > > > Routing is > > > > > enable/allowed between the two subnets using MSFC of > > > the 6500. Each > > > > subnet > > > > > has a DHCP server to assign IP address to devices on > > its subnet. > > > > > Spanning-tree is enable; however, portfast is turned on > > on all > > > > > non-trunking/uplink ports. Recently, devices on VLAN > > 10 got > > > > assigned an > > > > IP > > > > > address of 10.20.x.x , which is from the DHCP on the > > > other scope and > > > > also > > > > > from 10.10.x.x scope, and vice versa. It seems that we > > a > > > > loop somewhere > > > > > between the 2 subnets but we don't know where. I > > > noticed lots of end > > > > users > > > > > have a little unmanged hub/switch hang off the network > > > jacks in their > > > > > cubicals and potentially cause loop. > > > > > > > > > > Is there any way that we can block the loop on the > > > Cisco switches > > > > without > > > > > visiting cubicals taking those little umanaged > > > hubs/switches? Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > Thomas ============================================= This email has been content filtered and subject to spam filtering. If you consider this email is unsolicited please forward the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and request that the sender's domain be blocked from sending any further emails. ============================================= ===================================== Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66786&t=66720 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
