If they do it like Comcast has it implemented even clients on the same cable router can't speak on the "windows" ports to each other. Last I checked they were blocking 137-139 and have been for some time. > Off topic: > > This won't help much at all. Windows 2000/XP run Microsoft SMB over TCP on > 445 as well (reduced overhead then 135/etc, no NetBIOS layer). When a > client > tries to connect to a remote host for file/print sharing/etc it connects > on > both ports 135 and 445, if a response is recieved from port 445 it drops > the > connection to 135. THe attack works quite well against client systems > using > port 445. If Cox blocks both ports 135 and 445 that will be semi-effective > (except of course for internal users who spread a worm/etc, such as > laptops > that move around). THis may block a few of the more stupid attacks but not > for long. > > Kurt Seifried, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > A15B BEE5 B391 B9AD B0EF > AEB0 AD63 0B4E AD56 E574 > http://seifried.org/security/ > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
