🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dr. Apocalypse" <nospambikerlad@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<3d52d7a6$0$8508$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>...
> "Machiel Appel" <machiel@the3rdlayer.com> wrote in message
> news:ul5imr1d46j868@corp.supernews.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Maybe this site can be of any use, you can better block on a port base
> > rather than including any source/destination IP addresses use ip any any
> > statements.
> 
> The problem is that a lot now will try different ports if the original one
> is unavailable. MSM will try port 80 if it can't use port 1863. Makes it a
> lot harder to block :( Blocking the server range is the only way around it,
> but not ideal.
> 
> Do the best you can, send out a good security policy and ensure everyone
> follows it! Simple huh! :)
> 
> M.

I agree this is one area where policy is really key, since the IM
software designers are always trying to find ways to route around
firewall blocks.

The coverstory of this month's InfoSecurity Magazine is on IM, and
includes a table of suggested countermeasures.

http://www.infosecuritymag.com/2002/aug/cover.shtml

-- Richard Akerman
TCP/IP Ports discussion
http://www.quicktopic.com/12/H/kEJgdn6FFtZ2b
TCP/IP Port Table
http://www.akerman.ca/port-table.html