Well I am not the administrator of the network. I just want to bypass the
proxy of my ISP that blocks more sites than it permits, and I know that they
are NATing. someone proposed httport and I can't figure out how to use it
..!! So if I am behind a NAT..could httport be effective for me ???
tha
Outlook 2000 SP2 (or SP1 with Email Attachment
Security Update), Outlook 2002 both have this
capability. I have never implemented it, nor read too
much about it, so I can't give too many specifics. But
the info is available on Microsoft's site.
With these clients and Exchange 5.5 or 2000, you can
NAT from the router would be fine. Does 11.0 support this though. But why do
this with the router? The proxy server should be able to do source based
routing. And besides.. coming out the proxy, the source address looks like 1
ip address.
Router wise he has to be running RIP or GRP to his ISP,
So then how do you do this with Outlook 2000? I have been able to read
headers if the mail is directly addressed to me, but otherwise, they just
show up blank.
Andrew Blevins
Arrowhead Help Desk
1-800-669-1889
x. 8569
-Original Message-
From: Tom Geldner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
At 16:25 12-06-2001, Brent Scott wrote:
Yep, for sure, you should use NAV For Exchange 2.51 ;-) ... Pretty good
product ... you can block (delete) attachments, even if they are not
infected .. ;)
Take Care!
Marco Bicca
>Would be better off to get Anti-Gen for Exchange Server, the filtering
>is
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Blevins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> So then how do you do this with Outlook 2000? I have been
> able to read headers if the mail is directly addressed to me,
> but otherwise, they just show up blank.
You don't. Outlook has no means of exporting or
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 09:17:52 -
root wrote:
> Lets assume you're on a 24/7 connection, and you're that paranoid
> that someone would be targeting your machine as soon as you boot.
> If this is the case then get a hardware firewall.
May favourite example on that score was a Win98 install a f
Hi Keith,
Are you limiting your block of *just* the . s c r extensions? The
attachments I have seen inbound (via the IDS) are showing . s c r.htm. That
*might* be doing it.
rob
-Original Message-
From: Davis, Keith
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12/6/01 9:19 AM
Subject: RE: W32.Goner.A@
Running BGP on a 2500 is a really good way to "let the smoke out" of the
router. You don't have the memory needed to hold the tables and the
processor would always be busy.
The source-sensitive policy routing you are talking about will determine
which next hop to use based on the source address,
The Mail Server run over Windows NT 4.0, The heuristics are at Maximun level
and are activate the Bloodhound.
I read that the virus change the File size and file name, or anybody
refoward the virus modificate when the antivirus detected.
David
- Original Message -
From: Ziggy <[EMAIL PR
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:42:15 -0700
Mike V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was under the impression that 53/tcp was for zone xfers, and
> 53/udp was for queries, so you may want to confirm to avoid
> opening more than you need to.
DNS uses TCP of the returned record exceeds the size of a single UD
Hi All,
Since I can't get anywhere with the AT&T broadband abuse and legal
department, I figured I run this by the group. For the past 3-4 months I
have been repeatedly port scanned by the following 2 ip addresses
66.30.136.77 and 66.30.136.236 at least 10-20 times a day. I have sent
numerous em
>Besides the fact it's trivia to sniff and then spoof a MAC address
AND
>someone using that same sniffer can crack the WEP after about 400,000
>packets (Maybe less) -- if you are running everyone through an IPSEC
tunnel
>over the air and have a set of firewalls between your 802.11b and
your
>secur
I am currently building a pair of Win32 Snort (with ACID) machines to
monitor traffic either side of our firewall.
My plan is to make the boxes as standalone as possible which will mean
running IIS on the boxes to allow the ACID analysis tool to run.
Other than standard hardening of W2k, can I
lo all,
i`m running portsentry on a cobalt raq 4 webserver
and i`m getting an astronomical amount of scans on
port 135. I know this is one of the NetBIOS ports
however all these scans are triggering portsentry
to dump these people in hosts.deny I saw a post a
while pack regarding the argument o
With Windows 2000 or NT (maybe XP?) in the services controller you can play
around with the dependencies to change the order that services start.
Assuming you can get ZoneAlarm to run as a service (this is an exercise left
to the reader) you can make whatever services you are concerned about
"depe
I have been using a product from Aladdin called eSafe gateway
(www.esafe.com).
It works in conjunction with our firewall and provides you a method to
do email content
inspection with a rule-based control BEFORE it reaches exchange.
Albert J. Pou
-Original Message-
From: Brent Scott [mail
A company called Sanctum has a product to help with this. AppShield. There are other
tools out there as well.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Peterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 4:20 AM
To: Bill Walls
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A questi
if you call norton...and ask them...they will admit that if you are
getting seriously pounded by a virus...and you are trying to
clean/quartine itit will overflow the system..and then let them
through. I found that out the hardway about 6 months ago when we got
attack by a vbs virus and it ov
My port reference list (Seifried) has the following entries for these:
www-http80/tcp # World Wide Web HTTP
www-http80/udp # World Wide Web HTTP
hosts2-ns 81/tcp # HOSTS2 Name Server
hosts2-ns 81/udp # HOSTS2 Name Server
trojan 1080/tcp# Socks | wingate pr
Hello all,
when we send out a non delivery report on our mailserver, that NDR contains some data,
such as the name of the mailserver and so on.
Is there a way to modify what is being sent out (it's a microsoft exchange
organisation).
What I mean is, mail is transfered from the mailserver to t
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 12:57:03 +0100 Christian Steinert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Found a lot of tools but little description.
> Surely one of you hotshots will know a little more than me...
> Thanks.
> Christian.
>
If it is a paper your are looking for; here is a link:
De
have you tried stoping it at the mail server level with filters ..what OS
are you running???
-Original Message-
From: Luciano Giacchetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 9:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: W32.Goner.A@mm
Hi,
My NAV, Norton Antivirus Corp
I am have some trouble with a solaris workstation that won't allow
another workstation to remotly logon.
When using the "select remote host " option or "enter remote host name"
from the main login all i get is a balnk screen.
The problem is this, with BSM not enabled, no problems, I can logon,
h
On Thursday 06 December 2001 10:59 am, Wes Bateman wrote:
> You mention your qmail server, is that the box that was "attempting
> to connect" to port 6000 on an outside host?
Yes, it is my box that is initiating the connections.
> If the box that is sending traffic from port 25 to port 6000 is
> On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 04:45, Matthew Cline wrote:
> > I have my firewall setup to stop and log attempts to connect to external
X
> > servers, and this caught three attempts (all in the same second) to
connect
> > to destination port 6000, from a source port of 25 (SMTP). I don't
think
> > that
Hi
User level client applications (i think) are not allowed to use ports lower
than 1024.
So you may have some reason to think so...
Regards
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Meier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matthew Cline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 06 December 2001,
I believe there is a syslog server application that comes along with Cisco
Works that will email you based on your preferences.
Rob
1080 is the Socks proxy port. Judging by the other ports, looks like
someone has installed MS Proxy or some other proxy on your box. Have you
tried connecting to those ports? Or setting up a browser to use those ports
as a proxy service. Or even just checked your task list to see if anything
u
On Thursday 06 December 2001 02:56 am, Steve Newhouse wrote:
> Hello all, I have a very basic question for you:
>
> I did a scan of myself today and noticed that I have
> ports 80, 81, 1080, and 8080 open. I am running Win2K
> Pro and am not hosting a website from this computer.
>
> Port 1080,
On Wednesday 05 December 2001 03:04 pm, Bassam ALHUSSEIN wrote:
> hello all ...
> can Httport be configured and used from behind a NAT ?
>
> thanx for any help ...
yes it can, just configured the nat to forward the needed ports to the
machine
I have a web-email account that I have limited administrative measures ie filters etc.
Could you please tell me what one can do to counter these spammers...
My email address has been hidden under the BCC: tag and the unsubscribe path is
an invalid email.
Their website has an unsubscribe button bu
I've noticed that these entries have been continuous over the past few days.
They're around the clock and always one minute apart. I'm not quite sure
what's causing it and am confused by the lack of source address. Has anyone
here seen similar on their networks? thanks for your help. Forgive the
i
Hi,
I've been trying to get Procmail to work with the trophie package
(http://www.vanja.com/tools/trophie/), so that incoming mail and attachments are
scanned for virus's but I've had difficultlies in getting the Procmail recipe to
work. Has any one had a successfull experiance with these two pr
On Tuesday 04 December 2001 10:49 pm, you wrote:
> I'm new to exchange 2000 and I know this is probably a easy question for
> everyone but I was wondering how to block certain attachments(filenames) in
> exchange 2000. I would like to have it such that files are stripped out of
> emails before it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is not really a response to Jay's post this is just my own 2
cents for whatever that is worth (in today's economy I venture not
much).
I think a person SHOULD obfuscate their ips. Let's say they are
running a vulnerable service and they are try
36 matches
Mail list logo
