On 7/25/05, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> upnp is junk anyway.  Whoever decided it was a good idea to let some
> application on your network dynamically open ports on your firewall
> needs to share some of what they were smoking.
> 
> Ok, if it's not abused, it's better than having necessary ports open
> all the time... but the possibilities for abuse are just endless.

Heh...well worse, the original requirement (not ours) for upnp was for
applications that open dynamic ports.  You can then tell the firewall
what port you need open.  Of course, upnp is a huge security risk in a
corporate environment, but then you'd never have your firewall on the
same network segment as the clients right? :)

--Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to