North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Sat Apr 30 23:35:05 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=WDsYkWkd9zIz2183/TZJ9f81hk8VTPE79QXYpH5iLObwIuP0QhpV8yXn5005lTqtLlpwmTBQylt/+Y4/jIRO45aL7h8Ts2AyjpUb9PiqkUHqXR7pYpLMNxpCqsuzRbePPvQx0FXHcewBQ35d9NQ05GimRJgaq1sJRzN/ll9xsoU=
On 4/27/05, Jerry Pasker <[email protected]> wrote:
> It means 10 different things to 10 different people.  The article was
> vague.  "Security" could mean blocking a few ports, simple Proxy/NAT,
> blocking port 25 (or 139... or 53.. heh heh) or a thousand different
> things.  There is a market for this, it's called "managed services."

Speaking of port 25 blocking for end users [note: not for transit
feeds or raw pipes] - here's my take on it. 
http://www.circleid.com/article/1039_0_1_0_C/

--srs
-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian ([email protected])