On Mon, 28 May 2001, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> On 27 May 2001, Ed Robitaille wrote:
> > One of the nice things about the fetchmail->procmail->mutt->sendmail(?)
> > is that procmail puts weeds out a lot of chaff
>
> I agree, and use fetchmail and procmail in a similar configuration myself.
> At work, final delivery is done on a mail server which is then accessed via
> IMAP. I can access that mail collection from any number of systems using any
> number of programs. Gotta love IMAP. At home, I simply deliver to a number
> of local Unix mailboxes, and access them directly using my MUA (Pine).
>
> > As I am sitting as a home user on the internet connected to my ISP
> > (strictly dial-up), what vulnerabilities do I have ?
>
> All of them.
>
> Seriously. You are no less vulnerable to attacks on a transient dialup
> connection than you are on any other kind of connection. You might think that
> because you are not connected full-time, you are safer. While that might be
> true statistically, under real life conditions, the statistical probability
> becomes one. I have a deny-by-default firewall on my transient dynamic
> attended dialup link, and I get probed every time I connect. When ever I
> configure a firewall for a customer at work, I see probes for well-known
> vulnerabilities *within minutes*, every single time.
>
> Let me repeat: When you connect to the Internet, you will be attacked within
> minutes.
>
I have to chime in on this. I have port-sentry running and while I don't see
an attack *every* time I dial in, I'd have to say it's close to once every half
hour or so, usually in closely spaced groups. I have been rooted too, in spite
of port-sentry.
---
Tom Rauschenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All your base are belong to us
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
