North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Blocking port 135?
Subject: Re: Blocking port 135? Date: Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:09:47AM -0500 Quoting Jack Bates (firstname.lastname@example.org): > Depends on why you block and interfere. Intention plays a large part > according to law. If people can sue McDonalds for hot coffee, everything is possible. I'm European, so this does not apply, but I'd try to be very careful in .us. > > Many AUP/TOS aggreements have interesting no-server clauses. Not mine. And, I generally think that with such AUPen, one gets something one step better than Minitel or I-Mode, which is not Internet. Yes, I'm one of those loud end-to-end guys. > - Setup detection systems and perform immediate contact on accounts that > trigger the system to determine if it's legitimate or not. If not, bye > bye. That is wiretapping in Sweden, and illegal without a court order. I believe. Nobody has gone even close to taking it to court, and I stay far away from it. > Of course, this only stops outbound issues. It does nothing to prevent > inbound, and in the event of a worm, you'd better make sure you have > double and triple methodologies in place to stabalize your network. Some of our thinner access lines were up to 50% full when the Slammer hit. If there comes a much more evil worm than so, we do have OOB access to the entire core.. -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE CHUBBY CHECKER just had a CHICKEN SANDWICH in downtown DULUTH!