Re: solution time for www/smtp hole
Charles Henrich (henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu)
Fri, 13 Aug 1993 13:22:25 -0400 (EDT)
> I don't think that exclusion is the way to go. If we're going to exclude
> any services listed in the Assigned Numbers RFC (rfc1340 right now) that
> look like they might be dangerous, we'd better exclude 71-74 (Remote Job
> Service), 82 (XFER Utility), etc. Most of the "funky" ports that are
> currently in use are already officially assigned to something else, and
> when you connect to port 82 on joe.random.host you can't be sure whether
> you're getting the XFER utility or the httpd that someone stuck on some
> random port.
The purpose is to stop attacks on systems. All the ports you've named are not
widely used for their intended purpose, and as such dont present a problem
(IMHO). Exclusion is the better answer, why break the world when you do not
need to? Justification for religous reasons just isnt enough (IMHO).
-Crh
Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu
http://rs560.msu.edu:82/afsmsu/user/h/e/henrich/public/web/henrich.html