RE: Port 113 requests?

From: Brian Cervenka (brianat_private)
Date: Fri Dec 07 2001 - 12:37:37 PST

  • Next message: Steve Stearns: "RE: Port 113 requests?"

    > > It's a trade. If you drop the auth attempts silently, you usually then
    > > have to wait for the attempts to time out before whatever you did to
    > > prompt the auth attempt can proceed. If you send a RST or
    > > ICMP-unreachable, you don't have to wait for the time out.
    > >
    > > In this case, it's someone's mail server getting the auth connection
    > > attempt. Everyone knows where everybody else's mail servers are
    > > (receiving hubs have MX records, senders are in the mail
    > > headers). Sending RSTs on port 113 is just telling the world that you
    > > don't want their auth requests; you are not really giving anything
    > > away to an intruder.
    
    It almost would be nice if we could get a stateful module for iptables and
    other firewall systems that allows us to send rst or
    icmp-port-unreachable to sites we connect to for mail, etc...and drop for
    others.
    
    --brian
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
    For more information on this free incident handling, management 
    and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 20:31:03 PST