Henry, from the email address I'm assuming youre not trolling and are therefore missing a few facts, IP!=IPX, that is.. ports arent in the routing table It is not the ports below that cause the security issues, it is the applications which are using them, you need to either fix the apps or take the apps off the Internet Nobody owns ports, they are arbitrary, some may get given a special purpose by the IANA but theres nothing to say they -have- to use those numbers.. therefore you cannot get a list of them.. and if they're dynamic or private (if I understand what you mean) then by defintion they arent static and cant be documented? Steve On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Here are a list of very active ports that attempt to hack into peoples systesm from various parts of the world China in particular.
I think unassigned ports should be dropped from routing tables unless they are registered with the host and or providers as to their legitimate use....
smpnameres 901/tcp SMPNAMERES smpnameres 901/udp SMPNAMERES blackjack 1025/tcp network blackjack blackjack 1025/udp network blackjack cap 1026/tcp Calender Access Protocol cap 1026/udp Calender Access Protocol exosee 1027/tcp ExoSee exosee 1027/udp ExoSee # 1124-1154 Unassigned ssslic-mgr 1203/tcp License Validation ssslic-mgr 1203/udp License Validation ms-sql-s 1433/tcp Microsoft-SQL-Server ms-sql-s 1433/udp Microsoft-SQL-Server ms-sql-m 1434/tcp Microsoft-SQL-Monitor ms-sql-m 1434/udp Microsoft-SQL-Monitor # 6851-6887 Unassigned monkeycom 9898/tcp MonkeyCom monkeycom 9898/udp MonkeyCom
And I need a list that shows who or what owns Dynamic and/or Private Ports
-Henry
--- "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Andy Dills wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Jeff Shultz wrote:
But ultimately, _you_ are responsible for your own systems.
Even if the water company is sending me 85% TriChlorEthane?
Right. Got it. The victim is always responsible.
There you have it folks.
Change the word "victim" to "negligent party" and you're correct.
Ignoring all of the analogies and metaphors, the bottom line is that ISPs are _not responsible_ for the negligence of their customers, and that ISPs are _not responsible_ for the _content_ of the packets we deliver. In fact, blocking the packets based on content would run counter to our sole responsibility: delivering the well-formed packets (ip verify unicast reverse-path) where they belong.
Remember, we're service providers, not content providers. Unless your AUP or customer contract spells out security services provided (most actually go the other way and limit the liability of the service provider specifically in this event), then your customers have to pay you to secure their network (unless you feel like doing it for free), or they are responsible, period.
As far as I'm concerned, that guy would have a better shot at suing Microsoft then challenging his bandwidth bill.
Andy
--- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
How many more of these do I need, do you think?
-- Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio