Subject:
|
Re: skirting port blocking?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:37:13 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@SPAMLESSmattdm.org
|
Viewed:
|
831 times
|
| |
|
|
Jamie Obrien <jamien@interworx.com.au> wrote:
> It's a bugger alot of institutions use the "It's for security" excuse, but
> you'll have better luck at winning the lotto than changing policy.
Well, it really *is* for security. Or, bandwidth-savings, at least. The
alternative is to send armed strike forces around to install patches on
every MS Windows system attached to the network every time a new hole is
found.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
| (...) Blocking outgoing port 25 doesn't do anything for security. At most, it means that infected machines can't be used to send out spam (unless they're using the U's SMTP server). But it won't stop anyone from *getting* infected. That said, it (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
