at Friday, January 31, 2003 7:00 PM, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was seen to say:
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 11:31, David Howe wrote:
>> at Friday, January 31, 2003 3:55 PM, Paul Schmehl
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Firewall? DMZ? What makes you think everybody has those?
>> Its about $40 for a p
> Henrik,
>> I guess many people also thinks that having a PGP signature
>> on mails make them - true (while paranoid people would
>> actually verify the signatures)
> No, PGP signatures help me establish trust to individuals by
> allowing me to connect messages by the same individual to
> each oth
RE: [Full-Disclosure] The worm author finally revealed!Yossarian wrote:
>> But since you asked: I have been a network manager -
SjC wrote:
>oooh, a network manager. You must be very important to garner such a
knightly title. Do you think of yourself as being an important person
bec
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 12:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Because its not their call. I could write an EncryptoWidget for my company and have
>is using 1434/UDP - what right does my ISP or any other carrier have to decide what
>ports I can and can't use?
They have every right, they are not a commo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 31 Jan 2003, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> You have to remember, at least in the edu space, "things" have been this
> way for a long time. Edu is where the Internet began, and "we" have
> enjoyed a free and open network for a long, long time. Telling folks in
> edu
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Schmehl, Paul L wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> Now I'm even more surprised that you haven't gotten my point. Or are
> you just trying to play devil's advocate? My point is that the twits
> that think every admin whose network got one instance of Slammer or who
> wasn't already b
On 31 Jan 2003, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 14:07, Ron DuFresne wrote:
> >
> > if deployed on all commisioned servers, then yer protected at host
> > level...
> >
> Ever priced a firewall for Windows? Oh, I set up ipchains, iptables,
> ipfw or whatever on the *nix boxes I maintain
-Original Message-
From: yossarian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 6:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] The worm author finally revealed!
>But since you asked: I have been a network manager - responsible
>for infra for 5 countri
Title: RE: [Full-Disclosure] The worm author finally revealed!
> But since you asked: I have been a network manager -
oooh, a network manager. You must be very important to garner such a knightly title. Do you think of yourself as being an important person because it's obvious that
Paul Schmehl Asked:
> How many systems are you responsible for?
None, at this moment - do management. Haven't been in the IT business for 25
years like you, only 14, and nearly all on the corporate side of it - not so
exciting as an edu. I guess I must be much younger or have taken much longer
to
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 15:17, yossarian wrote:
>
> What you are advocating, is taking legal action to everyone except the
> professionals in your dept. too busy to fix their boxes.
>
I wasn't *advocating* anything. I was trying to highlight how
ridiculous some of the demands are when something bl
RdF asked Paul Schmehl:
> But, what does interest me here, is that if utdallas has no real security
> policy, and no perimiter defences, what does the Adjunct Information
> Security Officer really do? Tis a real question and not meant as a slam.
>
Were did you get this awful idea? See:
http://www
Henrik,
> I guess many people also thinks that having a PGP signature on mails
> make them - true (while paranoid people would actually verify the
> signatures)
No, PGP signatures help me establish trust to individuals by allowing me
to connect messages by the same individual to each other and t
> > > How 'bout
> > > an even more esoteric question? Why do the tier 1 providers (like
> > > UUNET) allow traffic on port 1434???
> > because there is no reason to block it.
Well some people might want to use it. If they are to block any port ever
used by attackers, we'll have to decide on a rep
On 31 Jan 2003, Paul Schmehl wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> Your $40 personal firewall won't do shit for a class B network with two
> DS3s, must less an OC3. Enterprise firewalls are a lot more than $40,
> and they need a full time *skilled* technician to make them worth
> using. Now you're in the r
Backing the patches out didn't do a thing, so now we have to return all
the way to SP2, reinstall HEAT and then patch back to the level right
*before* the one that took it down. You can just imagine how thrilled
the admins are to have to do that - and the next time they have to patch
that box, t
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 11:31, David Howe wrote:
> at Friday, January 31, 2003 3:55 PM, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Firewall? DMZ? What makes you think everybody has those?
> Its about $40 for a personal firewall; Windows 2K and above come as
> standard with one installed anyhow. Even if t
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 11:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Afterall IT that isn't working is just a waste of money.
>
Sig material alert!!
--
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
AVIEN Founding Mem
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 10:44, Ron DuFresne wrote:
>
> As mentioned in another list, all this trouble M$ folks have with
> patching, and indeed it seems a carzy mess in the windows world, whence
> various badly compiled patches will back you out of fixes from the privous
> patch, as well as the issue
at Friday, January 31, 2003 3:55 PM, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Firewall? DMZ? What makes you think everybody has those?
Its about $40 for a personal firewall; Windows 2K and above come as
standard with one installed anyhow. Even if this won't give you a DMZ,
it at least gives you local p
Paul,
Seriously, I think if there was a large enough survey of the edu. domains,
you'd find that an institution without any security policy in place, and
no real perimiter devices in activge use to protect the edu's resources in
some fashion would be in the rarebreed category. Granted, edus have
On onsdag, jan 29, 2003, at 17:47 Europe/Copenhagen,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:14:25AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Solar Eclipse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2003.01.29.0516 +0100]:
I believe that the author of the worm is the infamous Kevin Mitnick.
The timing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
(Again no personal attacks: I respect what you guys have to say).
[Paul Said:]
Firewall? DMZ? What makes you think everybody has those? How 'bout an
even more esoteric question? Why do the tier 1 providers (like UUNET)
allow traffic on port 1434???
[/Paul]
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Mark Renouf wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said the following on 1/31/2003 7:53 AM:
>
> > So saying that there is no excuse to patch blah blah blah doesn't
> > hold true. We have to work within logistical boundaries and do
> > what we can. What do you do if patching isn't viabl
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 09:15, Mark Renouf wrote:
>
> (Note: this is not directed personally at you, just an observation
> in general.)
Ditto. :-)
>
> What I don't get, why the sudden urgency to block 1434 all of a
> sudden... what are your SQL boxes doing listening publicly on
> ANY FREAKIN PORT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said the following on 1/31/2003 7:53 AM:
> So saying that there is no excuse to patch blah blah blah doesn't
> hold true. We have to work within logistical boundaries and do
> what we can. What do you do if patching isn't viable, the systems
> have to stay up and development/test
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(...)
|
| Just imagine you pulled the plug on your company's webserver because they
were running an un-patched IIS (and you're running IIS because some
development manager decided it was The Right Thing). Your CEO comes storming
down saying they are loosing business and th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Fair comment and you are entiled to your opinion. However much we 'Helpdesk' (as Pipes
puts it) people who have to manage actual live systems would like to secure our
systems we are still driven by the management.
Yes it would be nice to have a management str
i still think its MITNICK, lol...
- Original Message -
From: "sockz loves you" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] The worm author finally revealed!
> > I believe that the author
> I believe that the author of the worm is the infamous Kevin Mitnick.
> The timing cannot be a coincidence. Mitnick was let loose on the
> Internet on Jan 21 and four days later the Internet was brough down.
> It's obvious that he is the one responsible.
>
> Solar
> Kevin Mitnick is not responsib
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:08, Pipes Cuchifrito wrote:
> >With regards patching systems: have you ever worked in a *real* operations post?
>Have you ever had developers of your main product say to you "no you can't upgrade to
>SP6a as it's break the main engine". No matter how much you beg and plea
>With regards patching systems: have you ever worked in a *real* operations post? Have
>you ever had developers of your main product say to you "no you can't upgrade to SP6a
>as it's break the main engine". No matter how much you beg and plead to get this
>fixed they don't have the resources.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Sockz:
Look, I'm not prepared to argue about this. *EVERYONE* knows that Mitnick hacked some
Gibsons with his Altair and released this worm.
With regards patching systems: have you ever worked in a *real* operations post? Have
you ever had developers of your
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 08:49, Michael Renzmann wrote:
> Hi.
>
> sockz loves you wrote:
> >>I believe that the author of the worm is the infamous Kevin Mitnick.
> > Kevin Mitnick is not responsible for the SQL Worm, DORK.
>
> [ ] you recognize irony if you see it
> [ ] you tried to follow the thr
> I believe that the author of the worm is the infamous Kevin Mitnick.
> The timing cannot be a coincidence. Mitnick was let loose on the
> Internet on Jan 21 and four days later the Internet was brough down.
> It's obvious that he is the one responsible.
>
> Solar
Kevin Mitnick is not responsible
Hi.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a joke for God's sake, you were supposed to laugh. I'm amazed at the
number of people who took that seriousely.
As allways: You can't ever make the "warning, ironic content, don't take
this for serious" signs in such postings fat enough - there always will
be
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:14:25AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Solar Eclipse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.29.0516 +0100]:
> > I believe that the author of the worm is the infamous Kevin Mitnick.
> > The timing cannot be a coincidence. Mitnick was let loose on the
> > Internet on Jan
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Solar Eclipse wrote:
> I believe that the author of the worm is the infamous Kevin Mitnick.
or maybe NSA and aliens from mars ;PpPpPPpP
--
Piotr Chytla
iSEC Security Research
http://isec.pl/
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe i
]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] The worm author finally revealed!
also sprach Solar Eclipse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.01.29.0516
+0100]:
> I believe that the author of the worm is the infamous Kevin Mitnick.
> The timing cannot be a coincidence. Mitnick was let loose on the
> Interne
He was visiting hong kong
if i speed read the foreign tabloids correctly
smenard
- Original Message -
From: "Solar Eclipse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:16 AM
Subject: [Full-Disclosure] The worm author finally r
I believe that the author of the worm is the infamous Kevin Mitnick.
The timing cannot be a coincidence. Mitnick was let loose on the
Internet on Jan 21 and four days later the Internet was brough down.
It's obvious that he is the one responsible.
Solar
___
41 matches
Mail list logo
