It's part of it. On Sun, 2002-03-03 at 18:05, Dennis Stout wrote: > > Murphy's law I thought, was that if anything could possibly go wrong, it > would, and at hte most inconvienient time as well? > > Dennis Stout > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Danil Sholokhov" <danil@prikid.com> > To: <security-discuss@linuxsecurity.com> > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:58 PM > Subject: RE: new to list, wuestion about firewalling ports over 1024 > > > > I think the name of the law is Murphy's law. > ;0) > Danil Sholokhov > -----Original Message----- > From: listadmin@linuxsecurity.com [mailto:listadmin@linuxsecurity.com]On > Behalf Of Dennis Stout > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 3:23 PM > To: security-discuss@linuxsecurity.com > Subject: Re: new to list, wuestion about firewalling ports over 1024 > > > > Nevermind, I found a doc.... What law is that? The one where you bang your > head around on something, ask for help, then suddenly don't need it anymore? > Hrm. I'll nickname it Stout's Law until someone tells me otherwise :) > > So I cna open ranges but MSN is still broken. Oh well =P Proberbly a > module out there for it... > > Dennis Stout > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Troy Billington" <doshelp@doshelp.com> > To: <security-discuss@linuxsecurity.com> > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 6:30 AM > Subject: RE: new to list, wuestion about firewalling ports over 1024 > > > > You may need a very limited number of "dynamic ports", generally speaking it > would be something like 1024-5000 not all the way to 65535 that's leaving > way too much room for trojans/backdoors to operate freely. > > If I were you, id spend time examining your services for their port > requirements and allocate only those range of ports. > > -----Original Message----- > From: listadmin@linuxsecurity.com [mailto:listadmin@linuxsecurity.com]On > Behalf Of Martin Kacerovsky > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:53 AM > To: security-discuss@linuxsecurity.com > Subject: new to list, wuestion about firewalling ports over 1024 > > And here's my question (if somebody can explain me), how is it with > ports over 1024? I've read it's secure to leave them open, but I thing > it will be more secure to close them :) So is it possible to choose > exactly these ports I really need? > > For example I am running sshd, ftpd, netbios-* and talkd and with iptables I > accept everything on ports over 1024 and below 1024 I refuse everything > with exceptions on ports 21,22,... > > TIA > > -- > Regards > Martin Kacerovsky, student of the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics > at the Charles University in Prague, in the Czech Republic, in Europe, > on Earth, in the Universe where Linux operating system rules... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe email security-discuss-request@linuxsecurity.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject of the message. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe email security-discuss-request@linuxsecurity.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject of the message. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe email security-discuss-request@linuxsecurity.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject of the message. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe email security-discuss-request@linuxsecurity.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject of the message. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe email security-discuss-request@linuxsecurity.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject of the message. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe email security-discuss-request@linuxsecurity.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject of the message.
