From owner-freebsd-security Sat Aug 19 11:17: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from drwho.xnet.com (drwho.xnet.com [205.243.140.183]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9490737B422 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.segfault.lan (sun.segfault.lan [192.168.16.4]) by drwho.xnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA09304 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:17:02 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200008191817.NAA09304@drwho.xnet.com> Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:18:13 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael Maxwell Reply-To: Michael Maxwell Subject: Re: Log message improvement for rpc.statd To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-MD5: 76zpfCqq/m/tIMX/rkdImQ== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 CDE Version 1.3 SunOS 5.7 sun4m sparc Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >Just noticed that someone decided to try to be annoying with >my rpc.statd: Is there any particular reason you *need* to have RPC visible to the outside? If not, you would be well advised to firewall this stuff, especially ports 111, 2049, etc... If there *is* a reason you need it open, then first try to find another solution. Otherwise, you'll just have to live with it. RPC is, by nature, insecure. Michael Maxwell | Certified Unix Geek: BSD/Solaris/SCO drwho @ xnet . com | "I'm not wearing any pants..." Film at eleven. home.xnet.com/~drwho | "Four legs good, two legs bad." -G. Orwell/Animal Farm To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message