Take at look at ISS's Internet Security Scanner or Network Associates'
Cybercop Scanner, both are go od but ISS's reporting is a little better.
Internet Scanner 6.0 from ISS was recently released. They added several
more reports, as well as simplified the GUI quite a bit with setting the
policy
I agree with you. Time Warner (RoadRunner cable modems) told me there is
absolutely NO security between customers and the Internet. You are ON the
Internet and security is the customer's problem, not theirs. They would do
nothing to help me. I was told this by multiple technicians at Time
See the JMU website computer science information security
www.cs.jmu.edu and follow the pointers to infosec
On Wed, 13 Oct
1999, Javier Romero wrote:
Hi folks
Do u know courses about Security Management, Security Assessment,
response to hacking, or another one?
TIA
-
[To
I've been following the scanner thread as it relates to NT...
As an admin of a turnkey OS/2-based system, I'd like to identify more
of my vulnerabilities. Is there an OS/2 scanner out there?
Recommendations, pointers to HOWTOs, whatever, all greatly
appreciated!
Thanks,
Dave
--
Dave Runkle
I suggest you pick up a few books from oreilly publishers
Building internet firewalls, and Pratical unix and internet sercurity
Mike
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Weijie Zhang wrote:
Hi, Experts:
Newer to firewall. Would you please teach me in plain language(is it
possible? I have some working
At 10:25 PM 10/13/99 -0400, Davis Ford wrote:
The first issue I had was that it would not compile the authsrv. First, it
was missing a header. I found the header, and now, it won't link the
obj...fails at ld. This is only an issue if I wanted to use the authsrv
module for auth (which I did),
I disagree it is the responsibility only of the ISP. It is a matter of
*personal* responsibility, unless specifically outsourced.
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Kevin Johnston wrote:
I agree with you. Time Warner (RoadRunner cable modems) told me there is
absolutely NO
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:34:35 +0200 (MET DST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_Kronf=E4lt?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: pix vs checkpoint
Pardon me
In release 5 of the PIX software, you got IPSec VPN compability and dont
need any hardware card at any end. Version 5 was released like a week ago
or
Jason, do you really want to suggest that Microsnot get involved with
Security hardware God help us all...
No sir, no siree. I was just thinking a built-in no-brainer option to lock
down their stack the way probably 90%+ of their consumer customers want it
done. Preferable to whiny
Ron DuFresne wrote:
I disagree it is the responsibility only of the ISP. It is a matter of
*personal* responsibility, unless specifically outsourced.
I'd say it is both.
What is clear is that the ISP has the ability to do certain things very
easily and inexpensively that may be quite
Try:
http://www.thievco.com/conf/fw1confguide.html
http://www.geek-speak.net/fw1/fw1_properties.html
-- Joe
At 04:14 PM 10/14/99 +0330, Ali Mahjur wrote:
I am looking for this software. Is there any site offering some
information about it?
--
All The Best
A. Mahjur
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Jason Leonard (Fuzz) wrote:
Eric wrote:
Of course, what I really don't understand is why the cable company
doesn't block the netbios traffic wherever and whenever possible.
Bite yo' tongue! The last thing we need is some big corporation restricting
our access to
There is supposedly a stateful filtering add-on to ipchains at
ftp://ftp.interlinx.bc.ca/pub/spf.
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Conrad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: October 13, 1999 16:33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Firewall for
Just to add my $0.02, which if I'm lucky is worth half
that, the cable companies are wise to not put a firewall
between you and the net. Once they have done that, they
are legally responsible for your safety, and they also
don't have to run tech support when the latest streaming
application
http://www.checkpoint.com
Check Point Firewall-1 will drop all traffic not explicitely allowed. There are
multiple ways to limit or allow traffic through this firewall. I recommend that you
employ the services of a Check Point certified engineer or at least attend a CCSA
training class in
Ha ha, that's hysterical! Definitely check out any company before going with
them... I was just throwing out ideas.
"Tetlow Charles MSgt 12CS/SCBBN" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 10/14/99
11:30:14 AM
To: Rob Walker/SV/AUS/HARCOURT@HARCOURT
cc:
Subject: RE: Courses of Security
Yep,
The
Time-Warner's not a real service provider anyway. A real provider would be very
concerned about the security of their customers.
If you have the money to through at it, you could set up a firewall between the
cable modem and your network.
"Kevin Johnston" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 10/14/99
Wouldn't that be something like expecting the highway dept. to keep
thieves out of your house?
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Kevin Johnston wrote:
I agree with you. Time Warner (RoadRunner cable modems) told me there is
absolutely NO security between customers and the Internet. You are ON the
I've never been to it, but I've been told that it's about 10% hackers and 90%
government officials. So there should be some good info there.
"Baribault, Gary" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 10/14/99 06:30:53 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rob Walker/SV/AUS/HARCOURT@HARCOURT
cc:
I'd love to throw up a firewall between my PC and the Cable modem but it
rubs me the wrong way
when they expect me to pay for an extra computer on the wire.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kevin Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 14,
That's why you get a proxy firewall. Do NAT and you can run any amount of
computers you want behind it.
"Kevin Johnston" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 10/14/99 12:14:13 PM
To: Rob Walker/SV/AUS/HARCOURT@HARCOURT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Unknown internet traffic
I'd love to throw
I agree with your 2 cents worth. I am just frustrated they won't even
acknowledge the issue.
They offer no suggestions and seem completely incompetent on the subject. I
suggested they post security issues on their web pages and possibly make a
deal with a software vendor that could offer
Hi,
I'm running a mixed site of Linux and Solaris machines. What I'd like
is some sort of keystroke logger that could have it's output piped to
a remote loghost (if someone does get in, I'd like to know what they
did / how they did it).
Trouble is, as much as I've searched, all I can find are
Try SANS.
www.sans.org
The site has good info also.
I have been to RSA, defcon, CSI, SANS and several others.
All of them are good SANS has been the most beneficial for me.
Gary L. Mills
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
"Mullen, Patrick" wrote:
On the plus side, unless you download
a trojan, the only vulnerability most Windows users
have is the plethora of DoS attacks out there.
Not that there is anything that a simple firewall
could do for the problem but Windows has a lot
more than DOS vulnerabilities:
I have several webcams running and I want to publish the stream on the
web. How can I control the access to this? The simplest thing that I can
imagine is a username and password to the website but that would be also
simple to sniff.
And if I can control the access I am afraid that it is
Eric wrote:
What is clear is that the ISP has the ability to do certain things very
easily and inexpensively that may be quite difficult for most customers
to do. For example, using access-lists to deny non-established
access to certain ports frequently scanned by script kiddies is quite
use a firewall that hids internal addresses and you should be able to get
it to work. (and in many cases the cable company would not know how to
support multiple machines anyway)
David Lang
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Kevin Johnston
wrote:
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:14:13 -0400
From: Kevin
I prefer that the cable company NOT attempt to "protect" me. I have
americast cable and they decided that they need to block access to port 23
and 53 (among others) for my own "protection". I have a firewall in place
to protect myself thank you and their "security" does nothing to protect
me
Only if your network IP's are routeable (i.e. valid internet IP's; not
192.168. or 172.16-31 or 10. If you are trying to route private IP's you
will need a NAT package (do a search for NAT32.. I think it's free).
Carric Dooley CNE
COM2:Interactive Media
http://www.com2usa.com
"In theory,
But think about all of those lusers that keep their credit card info in Quicken
or in Notepad. There is all sorts of nifty information that you can pull off of
a home users computer. I do agree that education is the best idea. Cable
companies or even ISPs shouldn't be responsible for
Can anyone recommend a good computer/internet security mailing list? I like
this mailing list a lot, but it only focuses on firewalls.
Thanks.
-Robert
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
We have recently purchased a PIX firewall and are in the process of
configuring it.
What is the use of the GUI configuration tool? Is it worth using?
How difficult is the command line language to learn with reasonable
experience configuring cisco routers?
Any help would be greatly
SANS - See www.sans.org, next one is 12/11-16 in San Francisco.
Lisa
Lisa Lorenzin
InterLan Technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
I wrote:
On at least some Cisco routers, you can even associate access-lists with
users on a user by user basis. It would be quite easy for ISPs using
those routers to apply access-lists to those customers interested in
greater security.
I may be wrong about this point. The access-lists
I'd have to agree with Ron. Firewalls or any other security
control implements policy. There is no way an ISP is going
to be able to implement a policy that everyone agrees with.
Don't want to get "attacked" by telnet attempts and password
guessing? OK, we'll block incoming telnet requests.
Oh,
Sol wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Jason Leonard (Fuzz) wrote:
Eric wrote:
Of course, what I really don't understand is why the cable company
doesn't block the netbios traffic wherever and whenever possible.
Bite yo' tongue! The last thing we need is some big corporation
There are lots. It mostly depends on how much e-mail you want to get.
Check out http://www.geek-speak.net/mail_lists.html
http://xforce.iss.net/maillists/
I am sure you'll be inundated with more lists by others on this list.
At 02:46 PM 10/14/1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone
The same company who had an instructor ask me why he couldn't run RedHat
Linux on top of his Windows?!?!?! He thought it was some type of
application! And he was scheduled to begin teaching a Linux System
Administrator's course two weeks later.
ahh but you can do this...
see here:
Greetings,
I have a client who, for reasons they do not wish to share, do
not wish a cisco product for Internet connection. I am a cisco
zealot and can't figure out why, but that is not my issue.
So, my question -- Can someone recommend a router or two
that would compare with security and
Again, whose responsibility is it here? Certainly it has to be one of
personal responsibility. Folks, you had the spoon feeding stop after HS,
from then on, you were considered an adult, and capable of being self
responsible.
This would be like saying that the ISP owes you training on how to
41 matches
Mail list logo
