Even you can be hacked

Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. LarrySheldon at cox.net
Fri Jun 11 20:13:51 UTC 2004


Henry Linneweh wrote:

> Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to
> hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the
> world China in particular. 
> 
> I think unassigned ports should be dropped from
> routing
> tables unless they are registered with the host and or
> providers as to their legitimate use....
> 
> 
> smpnameres     901/tcp      SMPNAMERES
> smpnameres     901/udp     SMPNAMERES
> blackjack      1025/tcp    network blackjack
> blackjack      1025/udp   network blackjack
> cap            1026/tcp   Calender Access Protocol
> cap            1026/udp   Calender Access Protocol
> exosee         1027/tcp   ExoSee
> exosee         1027/udp   ExoSee
> #              1124-1154  Unassigned
> ssslic-mgr     1203/tcp    License Validation
> ssslic-mgr     1203/udp   License Validation
> ms-sql-s       1433/tcp   Microsoft-SQL-Server 
> ms-sql-s       1433/udp   Microsoft-SQL-Server 
> ms-sql-m       1434/tcp   Microsoft-SQL-Monitor
> ms-sql-m       1434/udp   Microsoft-SQL-Monitor    
> #              6851-6887  Unassigned
> monkeycom      9898/tcp   MonkeyCom
> monkeycom      9898/udp   MonkeyCom
> 
> And I need a list that shows who or what owns Dynamic
> and/or Private Ports
> 
> -Henry
> 
> --- "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <LarrySheldon at cox.net>
> wrote:
> 
>>Andy Dills wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff Shultz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your
>>
>>own systems.
>>
>>>>Even if the water company is sending me 85%
>>
>>TriChlorEthane?
>>
>>>>Right.  Got it.  The victim is always responsible.
>>>>
>>>>There you have it folks.
>>>
>>>
>>>Change the word "victim" to "negligent party" and
>>
>>you're correct.
>>
>>>Ignoring all of the analogies and metaphors, the
>>
>>bottom line is that ISPs
>>
>>>are _not responsible_ for the negligence of their
>>
>>customers, and that ISPs
>>
>>>are _not responsible_ for the _content_ of the
>>
>>packets we deliver. In
>>
>>>fact, blocking the packets based on content would
>>
>>run counter to our sole
>>
>>>responsibility: delivering the well-formed packets
>>
>>(ip verify unicast
>>
>>>reverse-path) where they belong.
>>>
>>>Remember, we're service providers, not content
>>
>>providers. Unless your AUP
>>
>>>or customer contract spells out security services
>>
>>provided (most actually
>>
>>>go the other way and limit the liability of the
>>
>>service provider
>>
>>>specifically in this event), then your customers
>>
>>have to pay you to secure
>>
>>>their network (unless you feel like doing it for
>>
>>free), or they are
>>
>>>responsible, period.
>>>
>>>As far as I'm concerned, that guy would have a
>>
>>better shot at suing
>>
>>>Microsoft then challenging his bandwidth bill.
>>>
>>>Andy
>>>
>>>---
>>>Andy Dills
>>>Xecunet, Inc.
>>>www.xecu.net
>>>301-682-9972
>>>---
>>>
>>
>>
>>How many more of these do I need, do you think?
>>
>>-- 
>>Requiescas in pace o email
>>
>>Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
>>
>>http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
Thanks

-- 
Requiescas in pace o email

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/





More information about the NANOG mailing list