Josh Rollyson wrote: > This hypothetical exploit shouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place. > If you have a service on port 23 vunerable to scriptkiddie.c that service > needs to be immeadiatly replaced with one not vunerable. A firewall is > a last line of defense, you should never rely entirely on any one security > solution.
Agreed completely.. But when you have services you want used internally, but not externally, that becomes the problem. I should have said that instead of the exploit situation. Mike
