---
F R E N D Z of martian
---
I'm sure the sysadmins on the list will have something to say, but surely
if the sysadmins blocked all the ports except the ones actually in use by
something other than napster, then even if napster tried to use other
ports (or users configured it to), the ports are already occupied.
(email/other tunnelling excepted...)
Although I can completely understand it on the level of "you're stealing
your company's expensive bandwidth"
As a company director *and* network (such as it is) administrator, I'm
afraid I can sympathise with your BOFH.
martian
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Richard Murphy wrote:
> ---
> F R E N D Z of martian
> ---
> My company has just banned the use of Napster and any program like it as our
> network administrator says it poses a risk to our security by opening up the
> firewall and therefore makes some of our servers vulnerable. I'm not a
> network administrator so I have no argument against this - though I thought
> Napster was pretty secure - only opening up a shared folder on my machine.
>
> Does anyone know anything about this? Is it really a risk? I need some
> argument against this one. Its really pissed me off.
>
> Magna
>
>
>
> --
> Sent to you via the frendz list at marsbard.com
>
> The archive is at http://www.mail-archive.com/frendz@marsbard.com/
>
--
Sent to you via the frendz list at marsbard.com
The archive is at http://www.mail-archive.com/frendz@marsbard.com/
