On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 01:40:09PM -0500, Matthew Carpenter wrote:
>That's what I mean by "nasty"... Retaliation (albeit mild). That's the
>way to go IMHO. Just haven't had the time to automate one.
One of our ISP customers was being mail bombed from an ISP, and when I
called their technical
That's what I mean by "nasty"... Retaliation (albeit mild). That's the
way to go IMHO. Just haven't had the time to automate one.
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:31:23 -0500
"Douglas J Hunley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Carpenter babbled on about:
> > I've done a bit of "civil" using the s
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:51:03 -0500
Douglas J Hunley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Myles Green babbled on about:
> > Is that in your script Doug? If so, I'm gonna give it a whirl 'cause
> > I've got 6 or 7 IIS ...errm.. Users... contributing to excessivly
> > large http_access logs =(
>
> nope. the
Myles Green babbled on about:
> Is that in your script Doug? If so, I'm gonna give it a whirl 'cause
> I've got 6 or 7 IIS ...errm.. Users... contributing to excessivly large
> http_access logs =(
nope. the code for that is in hte archives of this list over at
mail-archive.com
if it's just logg
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:31:23 -0500
Douglas J Hunley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Carpenter babbled on about:
> > I've done a bit of "civil" using the standard chains of
> > responsibility, but"nasty" has been very tempting... especially with
> > the "SSH_Version_Mapper" crap...
> > __
Matthew Carpenter babbled on about:
> I've done a bit of "civil" using the standard chains of responsibility, but
> "nasty" has been very tempting... especially with the "SSH_Version_Mapper"
> crap... ___
not "nasty" per say... just turning the attack a
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:02:03 -0500
"Douglas J Hunley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> actually, I prefer to let the hits in, as I have things in place to trap them
> and .. uh.. "deal" with the offending machine
>
Are we talking about "civil" or "nasty" modes?
I've done a bit of "civil" using th
Lavinius Romio Petru babbled on about:
> So far so good, but you can be using --sport too to only allow
> connections from priveleged ports, and I olso played with something like
example? where in this code would it go? advantages? disadvantages?
> this
> /sbin/iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -
John Hiemenz babbled on about:
> I didn't go over with a fine tooth comb, and I'm not anything near a guru.
> Is this the same thing you posted a day or sao back or are there changes to
> it this run around?
I only posted it once. I have been having small issues with kmail though, so
maybe it go
This is fun. Too bad my ISP has blocked port 80.
And I also failed to patch kenrel 2.4.17 with the patch-o-matic.
> > -m string --string 'cmd.exe' -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset
>
> Might be more fun to make the target -j MIRROR and send the request back
> where it came from.
--
The pivotal
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:29:30 +1000
"Lavinius Romio Petru" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed into the bitstream:
> So far so good, but you can be using --sport too to only allow
> connections from priveleged ports, and I olso played with something like
> this
> /sbin/iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --tc
ary 2002 5:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: opinions on this iptables script
just wondering if all the gurus could comment on this script (below)
before
we move it into production. seems to work nicely on test box. thanks.
*-*-*-*-*
#!/bin/bash
# set to location of iptables
IPTABLES="
No. The last one was posted by me. It's really rudimentary, and have
gotten some nice remarks from Mr. Bandel.
> I didn't go over with a fine tooth comb, and I'm not
> anything near a guru. Is this the same thing you posted
> a day or sao back or are there changes to it this run around?
--
On Friday 11 January 2002 01:49 pm, Douglas J Hunley wrote :
> just wondering if all the gurus could comment on this script (below) before
> we move it into production. seems to work nicely on test box. thanks.
>
> skript klipped
I didn't go over with a fine tooth comb, and I'm not anything near
just wondering if all the gurus could comment on this script (below) before
we move it into production. seems to work nicely on test box. thanks.
*-*-*-*-*
#!/bin/bash
# set to location of iptables
IPTABLES="/sbin/iptables"
# TCP ports to allow
TCP_ALLOW="22 25 53 79 80 113 119 617 873"
# UDP
just wondering if all the gurus could comment on this script (below) before
we move it into production. seems to work nicely on test box. thanks.
*-*-*-*-*
#!/bin/bash
# set to location of iptables
IPTABLES="/sbin/iptables"
# TCP ports to allow
TCP_ALLOW="22 25 53 79 80 113 119 617 873"
# UDP
16 matches
Mail list logo
