At 10:01 AM 1/3/2002, John Sage wrote: >The issue of dialups as an underlying base of infected, unpatched hosts is underappreciated, IMHO.. > >As an examle of the scope of the problem, at home I'm on a dialup to AT&T through their Seattle WA pop, with a dynamic IP in the 12.82.x.x range of AT&T's 12.x.x.x class A. We NAT our transient (as opposed to full-time) dialups for this reason: It protects users from all such attacks. Users who run servers are, of course, expected to know more about what they're doing. However, we do our best protect them as well; our log monitor firewalls worms out of the network as soon as they are detected. --Brett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 : Thu Jan 03 2002 - 13:06:47 PST