At 01:33 AM 9/18/2002 -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
3. SMTPAUTH does not require an alternate port, yet it is sufficient for
ensuring accountability. Hence it is sufficient for dealing with the
reason that port 25 is blocked, without requiring that it be blocked.
I don't understand this
A little flavor of what I'd alluded to in some of the previous
threads. Any guesses what the proposal to change both BGP and DNS to
improve security might entail??
White House tackles cybersecurity
By Declan McCullagh Special to ZDNet News September 16, 2002, 6:58 PM
PT
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A little flavor of what I'd alluded to in some of the previous
threads. Any guesses what the proposal to change both BGP and DNS to
improve security might entail??
The official document should be posted on WhiteHouse.GOV later today. An
almost
on 9/18/2002 10:12 AM Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A little flavor of what I'd alluded to in some of the previous
threads. Any guesses what the proposal to change both BGP and DNS to
improve security might entail??
The official document should be
At 11:27 AM 9/18/2002 -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
NO. Remote port-25 access, with or without SMTPAUTH, implies raw
unencrypted plain old TCP/IPv4, in which case there is no connection
integrity and thus no accountability.
I guess the last 20 years of Internet use have been entirely invalid
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric A. Hall writes:
on 9/18/2002 10:12 AM Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A little flavor of what I'd alluded to in some of the previous
threads. Any guesses what the proposal to change both BGP and DNS to
improve security
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/
Wow, we should all start using out of band management. Anyone think it is
feasible to do management of an IP network exclusively out of band?
And BGP should be more secure. What is the problem we should be
At 01:09 PM 9/18/2002 -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
I guess the last 20 years of Internet use have been entirely invalid
then.
Not necessarily -- it's a matter of what level of risk is acceptable in
a given scenario.
Thank you. That was my point.
It therefore is essential to pay attention
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 07:31:41PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/
Wow, we should all start using out of band management. Anyone think it is
feasible to do management of an IP network exclusively
On September 18, 2002 at 00:01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Crocker) wrote:
the claim is that outbound 25 is blocked to prevent spam. however
accessing a remote 25 with smtpauth ensures full accountability and,
therefore, prevents spam. blocking 25 disables use of this mechanism.
Part of
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 08:35:03PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
Much more complex to implement and manage; doesn't scale well. The fewer
decisions the anti-spam system has to make, the better it will work. If it
only has to decide whether or not a specific IP/port combination has
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Jared Mauch wrote:
And BGP should be more secure. What is the problem we should be trying to
fix here? There is a Secure BGP draft:
http://www.ir.bbn.com/projects/sbgp/draft-clynn-s-bgp-protocol-00a.txt
I think the problem that people are attempting to address
FYI.seeing the discussion today I thought I'd offer this to the group as
well. Cheers, rf
Original with contextual reference URLS located at:
http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2002-11.html
America's National Cybersecurity Strategy: Same Stuff, Different
Administration
Richard Forno
(c)
I know that the capacity throughout the network I was working on
at the time was designed to handle peak loads with a comfortable
margin, and I would surmise that that is the case on many, if not
most networks. It seems obvious that the scope of the analysis of
this issue must include
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Wow, we should all start using out of band management. Anyone think it is
feasible to do management of an IP network exclusively out of band?
Welcome to my nightmare.
Getting ISPs to participate is always difficult. I encourage ISPs to read
15 matches
Mail list logo
