Re: Open ports on FW1

From: beldridgat_private
Date: Wed Jan 19 2000 - 12:28:51 PST

Next message: Darren Reed: "Re: Y2K fix for 'elm' (Was: Re: How should NAT terminate ?)"

Previous message: Joseph S D Yao: "Y2K fix for 'elm' (Was: Re: How should NAT terminate ?)"
Maybe in reply to: Simon Elliot: "Open ports on FW1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Simon Elliot wrote:

> I was interested in a previous messge you received regarding TCP ports
> 256,257,258 on Firewall 1. What security implication can rise from
> these ports being open?

I've got a quick paper at http://members.home.net/beldridg/turnoff.txt
which explains what each port is used for and how to turn it off.

- brett

Next message: Darren Reed: "Re: Y2K fix for 'elm' (Was: Re: How should NAT terminate ?)"
Previous message: Joseph S D Yao: "Y2K fix for 'elm' (Was: Re: How should NAT terminate ?)"
Maybe in reply to: Simon Elliot: "Open ports on FW1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:58:39 PDT