Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:03:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Scheidell <me2@privacy.net> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Connection attempts (& active ids) Message-ID: <200104260303.f3Q33CK49974@caerulus.cerintha.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0104252147260.8017-100000@achilles.silby.com> "from Mike Silbersack at Apr 25, 2001 09:48:21 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Goddard wrote: > > > Simply by being sat there listening to port 111, portsentry blocks > > several probably compromised systems a day from talking to my servers. > > Why should I not use it as a part of my security strategy? > > Soooooo... if you weren't running portsentry, wouldn't they be talking to > a closed port, and hence leave you alone as well? Sooooooo... if I lock all my doors and windows, and they don't get it, I should be happy, right? The problem is, if I don't keep an eye on what is going on, I don't know they are trying. If I don't know they are trying, they WILL get in. read about the $50,000 hacker chalange? Guess what With enough incentive, they will get in. locked doors and windows are not enough anymore. We need alarms and armed guards. I sure wish I could send a 240vt spike down the link on each and every one. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104260303.f3Q33CK49974>