[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Full-Disclosure] Re: Cox is blocking port 135 - off topic
- To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
- Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Cox is blocking port 135 - off topic
- From: martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net>
- Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:24:46 +0200
also sprach Kurt Seifried <listuser@seifried.org> [2003.08.10.2256 +0200]:
> If Cox blocks both ports 135 and 445 that will be semi-effective
... until the next worm goes haywire. It just seems so ironic that
security is reactive, thanks largely to Microsoft, when in many
cases, a proactive approach would make our lives so much easier
(albeit not prevent attacks, of course)...
No matter what Cox does (not that I care), I just don't see a single
reason anymore to deploy Windows ever again.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
i am willing to make the mistakes
if someone else is willing to learn from them.
PGP signature