Henry Linneweh wrote:
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
world China in particular.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from routing tables unless they are registered with the host and or providers as to their legitimate use....
smpnameres 901/tcp SMPNAMERES
smpnameres 901/udp SMPNAMERES
blackjack 1025/tcp network blackjack
blackjack 1025/udp network blackjack
cap 1026/tcp Calender Access Protocol
cap 1026/udp Calender Access Protocol
exosee 1027/tcp ExoSee
exosee 1027/udp ExoSee
# 1124-1154 Unassigned
ssslic-mgr 1203/tcp License Validation
ssslic-mgr 1203/udp License Validation
ms-sql-s 1433/tcp Microsoft-SQL-Server ms-sql-s 1433/udp Microsoft-SQL-Server ms-sql-m 1434/tcp Microsoft-SQL-Monitor
ms-sql-m 1434/udp Microsoft-SQL-Monitor # 6851-6887 Unassigned
monkeycom 9898/tcp MonkeyCom
monkeycom 9898/udp MonkeyCom
And I need a list that shows who or what owns Dynamic and/or Private Ports
-Henry
--- "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andy Dills wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
wrote:
Jeff Shultz wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your
own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85%
TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it folks.
Change the word "victim" to "negligent party" and
you're correct.
Ignoring all of the analogies and metaphors, the
bottom line is that ISPs
are _not responsible_ for the negligence of their
customers, and that ISPs
are _not responsible_ for the _content_ of the
packets we deliver. In
fact, blocking the packets based on content would
run counter to our sole
responsibility: delivering the well-formed packets
(ip verify unicast
reverse-path) where they belong.
Remember, we're service providers, not content
providers. Unless your AUP
or customer contract spells out security services
provided (most actually
go the other way and limit the liability of the
service provider
specifically in this event), then your customers
have to pay you to secure
their network (unless you feel like doing it for
free), or they are
responsible, period.
As far as I'm concerned, that guy would have a
better shot at suing
Microsoft then challenging his bandwidth bill.
Andy
--- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
How many more of these do I need, do you think?
-- Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
Thanks
-- Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
