[Dshield] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Windows Messenger PopupSpamonUDP Port 1026
B-Morgan at concentric.net
Thu Jun 26 16:03:55 GMT 2003
I agree with you 100%. I was about to chime in but I couldn't say it any
better. Everyone needs a firewall and ISPs should be offering one which the
user can decline if they have the knowledge to do it themselves.
Arbitrary blocking or blocking without notice isn't the answer, and ISPs
that do so will lose customers.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: list-bounces at dshield.org [mailto:list-bounces at dshield.org] On Behalf
> Of Stephane Grobety
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:09 AM
> To: Rick Leske
> Cc: General DShield Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Dshield] Re: [Full-Disclosure] Windows Messenger
> PopupSpamonUDP Port 1026
> I think that everyone in this discussion (including me) has failed to
> bring up an important point: not all users are equals.
> I am sitting behind my corporate firewall, tightly loaded with
> security features and filters that allows me (and my coworkers) to
> enjoy usage of Internet without much of it's hassle. Yes, some things
> still get through but that's way less than what I'd have without that
> At home, I have a DSL router configured to do NAT and that includes a
> crude but effective firewalling feature. That means I can also be
> relatively sure that I'm blocking most of the net's nastiness. Same
> goes for all the friends and family member who have asked me to take
> care of their connection to Internet.
> Now, this means that I'm not in need of my provider blocking any ports
> in or out: I can do that myself. But this isn't the norm, as far as I
> can tell: many people, including all of these that needs to "disable
> the messenger service" are not as well protected as I am. These are
> the ones that need to be protected.
> So why not apply to port blocking what was sucessfuly applied to other
> area of computing: by default, have the ISP block dangerous ports and
> allow them to disable this feature. It even shouldn't be that complex:
> my ISP has a similar way of handling transparent web cache: it's
> enabled by default but you can go to your account's web page and for
> it to be disabled.
> I would think of it as an acceptable solution and I think many of you
> would too (fee free to disagree, of course).
> Another option is simply to have different contracts for "home users"
> and for "experts and business".
> Comments ?
> Good luck,
More information about the list