> 135-139/TCP/UDP to be open to the Internet? How about port 445/UDP? That should read 445/TCP
> No, you wouldn't, because DNS servers talk on port 53, and they wouldn't > negotiate port 1434 because it's reserved for SQL. By blocking 1434/UDP you run the risk of block a small number of DNS queries. Anything above 1023 is fair game. David On Wednesday 05 February 2003 10:38, Paul Schmehl wrote: > On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 06:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > How the ports are managed by the ISPs is up to them. We have a managed > > router where we block everything we can without breaking legitimate > > access. However, not having a practical option to block certain ports is > > a problem. My point was on the allocation and use by TCP/IP stacks. > > Can you think of a legitimate reason why ISPs should allow ports > 135-139/TCP/UDP to be open to the Internet? How about port 445/UDP? > Many ISPs now block port 25/TCP (for obvious reasons.) Why not other > service ports? What about the ISPs whose policy it is to not allow > customers to run servers? Why should they allow any traffic at all from > the service ports? > > > Sure, you can block 1434 udp inbound, but what if your DNS server (that > > doesn't run SQL server) picks that port randomly for incoming data from > > other DNS servers? You'll get failures when you shouldn't. > > No, you wouldn't, because DNS servers talk on port 53, and they wouldn't > negotiate port 1434 because it's reserved for SQL. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
