Providers removing blocks on port 135?

Mike Tancsa mike at sentex.net
Tue Sep 23 17:33:53 UTC 2003


At 01:18 PM 23/09/2003, Jack Bates wrote:
>Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
>>I am not advocating that at all.  ("everyone's doing it, so let's not 
>>bother") However, I dont see what the municipal government has to do with 
>>a matter like this.  I imagine its a civil issue where you have to get 
>>the lawyers involved :(  Certainly if the company persisted, we would 
>>have done so.  The fact that they can then go to another ISP who does not 
>>care and allows them to use their network is another issue.
>
>Of course, it depends on the local laws, but in many locations, pornography

This user was sending *out* from our network, not to our users. It would 
have been up to the authorities in said localities to bring charges against 
them. I did what I could here.   The only cost effective way to deal with 
things like this is for the ISP to act which we did.  Oklahoma would be 
foolish to spend tens of thousands of dollars to go after this idiot. 
Really, your state money is better spent elsewhere.
This is not very different than the ISPs out there not bothering to clean 
up their infected users (my favorite rant for the quarter).  Looking at
http://isc.sans.org/port_details.html?port=135&repax=1&tarax=2&srcax=2&percent=N&days=70&Redraw=Submit+Query
it would appear by the number of source addresses, there has not been any 
significant reduction in blaster and its variants.

         ---Mike


>has a lot of restrictions and when those restrictions are broken, it 
>becomes a criminal matter. For example, most of my user's have "family" 
>accounts. This means that their email is not only theirs but their 
>children and grandchildren's. Even if the owner of the account is an 
>adult, the fact that their children are present when they read their email 
>means that all pornographic spam they receive is essentially being 
>delivered to a minor. This is especially true with misleading subject 
>lines where children are exposed to unwanted material before anyone 
>realizes it. In Oklahoma, at least, it is a criminal offense to expose 
>children to pornographic material.
>
>-Jack




More information about the NANOG mailing list