Quite true. And since the question was valid, here's the answer. Define a net object on your Firewall using the following IP address 205.188.153.0 with a mask of 255.255.255.0. Make a rule stating, ANY ICQ-NET ANY DROP It will stop ICQ2000 from going anywhere. We use it here. It works. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: a ea?e 23 2000 17:59 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Absurdity Continues (Was: "Re: icq") > > I only have one problem with this thread..... It has nothing to do with > what was originally asked. The original question was what ports to block > so > that users could not use ICQ. At no time was there ever a request for a > judgment call or moral debate on the aspects of his actions. > > I have seen at least 10 messages telling him it was none of his business > if > users were using ICQ. For all you know, the departments managers could > have > asked him to block all outgoing ICQ Connections. > > Just my input... but what do I know. > > Chris Patterson > Network Administrator > Axiom Systems > Http://Www.AxiomSys.Com > > > > The Truth Is Out There. Go Find It. Http://Www.2600.Com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 11:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Absurdity Continues (Was: "Re: icq") > > > There are two different aspects to this ICQ debate that I think are > causing > some confusion in this conversation: > > 1. ICQ is a network security risk. It is possible to have a host > compromise or a virus issue due to ICQ. This is an infosec issue. > > 2. ICQ, in most cases, is not directly related to employees' work, and > thus > can be considered a waste of company time. Employees are paid to work, > not > to chat with their buddies. This is a human resources issue. > > To clarify #2 above, imagine instead of ICQ, that an employee brings a > deck > of cards to work and plays poker with a few of his/her friends in the > middle > of the work day. This is, quite simply, a loss of productivity. It is > not > a security issue, > it is a management/HR issue. > > Just because something occurs on a company's network, it is not > necessarily > an infosec issue. If you have employees that are not working when they > are > supposed to be, regardless of what it is they are doing, refer it to > management/HR. > > -Ryan > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I would say that computer security does not relate to people wasting > their > time > > in the Internet. You can prevent certain types of abuse of Internet > resources, > > but if the fundamental problem is that people spend their time in > something that > > is not productive, you will not solve that problem with "computer > security" and > > you will end up in an arms race against people that seem to have nothing > else to > > do and no boss looking over their shoulder, and you will always lose. > > > > I think you must put some obvious controls, and let people know that > they > are > > being logged and that the logs WILL be analyzed. A good report is better > than a > > sophisticated hand-made filter that will always have an interesting > hole. > > > > Finally, I agree, HR is no panacea, but I think that the resource being > most > > abused in this case is actually the human resource - am I right? I think > it is > > their job to manage it. > > > > Carlos > > > > "Albrechtas, Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> con fecha 23/06/2000 11:37:25 > > > > Destinatarios: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > CC: (cci: Carlos Moran/LAG/LSR/LAR/CPC) > > > > Asunto: RE: Absurdity Continues > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > I would say it has nothing to do with HR since it is strictly a > > computer security issue (or even a QoS, at a stretch). I guess it > > all depends on who is ultimitely responsible for System Security, > > Data Security, and QoS in your organization. It is my belief that HR > > should have nothing to do with computer security since they rarely > > (if ever) have any knowledge in the area. > > > > - -----Original Message----- > > From: D Clyde Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 10:14 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: Re: Absurdity Continues > > > > "Norman R. Bottom" wrote: > > > > > > RE: "Turn It Over To Human Resources" > > > > > > In difficult matters, fathers say, "See your Mother." Some firewall > > > folks say, "Turn it over to HR.." What a joke ! Anyone who has been > > > involved with security for a year or two, knows that Human > > > Resources is not a friend to good security. Period. :-> > > > > > > Blessings, > > > > > > Norman > > > > Dealing with what employees do during office hours is not a security > > matter. Unless, of course, > > they're stealing data or cracking servers. If it is against HR policy > > for users to look at certain > > types of material on the Internet, then it is HR's responsibility to > > deal with that policy. > > > > If your HR dept is not helping you with *security* matters. Then you > > need to get that fixed. > > - - > > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> > > > > iQA/AwUBOVN3DdTbJ7zCVqawEQLpfQCfU+3KgWK6ykAUlD3G8WRM89u2ioQAoOpC > > 29WG3L9aOsE5eX8Aolfm9ufG > > =OKT7 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > - > > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] > > > > "E-mail Server" made the following > > annotations on 06/23/00 10:46:56 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > -- > > Bestfoods is not responsible for the content of incoming messages which > may > > contain offensive or unauthorized material. Please contact > 1-800-462-0562 > if > > this should happen. > > > > > ========================================================================== > == > == > > > > "E-mail Server" made the following > > annotations on 06/23/00 11:05:38 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > -- > > May contain confidential and trade secret information of Bestfoods, and > may be subject to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. For recipient's use > only. If you have received this message in error, please delete > immediately, > and alert the sender. > > > > > ========================================================================== > == > == > > > > - > > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] > > - > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] > - > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] - [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
