North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus
- From: Mark Segal
- Date: Tue Aug 12 13:43:53 2003
Well after my port blocking escapades of yesterday we have got one
complaint.. Someone who was selling exchange based mailboxes. So his /26 is
now a permit rule in the acl.. But the blocking, has cut down on our
infection rate significantly. (I am seeing a lot of inbound, but not a lot
of outbound traffic to 135).
Director, Network Planning
Futureway Communications Inc. is now FCI Broadband
From: McBurnett, Jim [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: August 12, 2003 12:40 PM
To: Jack Bates; Mans Nilsson
Subject: RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus
Jack, et al.
As a larger than average end user and what could
be called a small ISP, I really can not image
legitimate traffic on 135..
who in there right mind would pass NB traffic in the wild?
I dunno, may it is just that Old military security mindset
creeping into my brain housing group.
Can someone enlighten me? What is legitimate 136 traffic?
From: Jack Bates [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:31 PM
To: Mans Nilsson
Subject: Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus
Mans Nilsson wrote:
> Your chosen path is a down-turning spiral of kludgey dependencies,
> where a host is secure only on some nets, and some nets can't cope
> with the load of all administrative filters (some routers tend to take
> port-specific filters into slow-path). That way lies madness.
Secure? Who's talking about secure? I'm talking about trash. Not
blocking the port with a large group of infected users means that your
network sends trash to other people's networks. Those networks may or
may not have capacity to mean your network's trash.
Temporarily blocking 135 is not about security. A single infection
within a local net will infect all vulnerable systems within that local
net. A block upstream will not save local networks from cross infecting.
However, it does stop your network from sending the trash out to other
networks which may have smaller capacities than your network does.
Of course, perhaps a good neighbor doesn't really care about other
people's networks? Perhaps there is no such thing as a good neighbor.
It's kill or be killed, and if those other networks can't take my user's
scanning them, then tough!
There is legitimate traffic on 135. All users I've talked to have been
understanding in a short term block of that port. They used alternative
methods. I have a lot of valid traffic still cranking out the other