Subject:
|
Re: skirting port blocking?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:25:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
811 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:37:13AM +0000, Matthew Miller wrote:
> 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.
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 might save on outgoing bandwidth, if there are a lot of
spap-sending-infected students - which is not hard to believe :)
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
| (...) Yup, as I understand from the Windows folks, it was a nightmare. And stopping the outgoing flood means less people getting new versions of the mail, so it does slow down the spread. We just blocked it at BU for Resnet, but we do allow students (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: skirting port blocking?
|
| (...) 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. (21 years ago, 26-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
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
|
|
|
|
