🚀 go-pugleaf

[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]

In <0e0e9ts2uoeq7iqmuqjdhjv70ilacvlied@4ax.com>, rtoledo@gte.net wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:29:52 GMT,  John Navas
><spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>>
>>In <z3zl6.2631$Ms3.427356@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net>, "Justin Emalius"
>><notta.name@notta.server.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Frankly, I didn't know there were legitimate reasons for scanning ports.  ...
>>
>>There aren't.
>
>	There are reasons,  I scan port 21 on my son's machine at his
>house and if he has the server down I call him and tell him to turn it
>on!

The difference is that you are authorized.  You aren't authorized to
scan my system.  ( But then you already know that -- you're just being
argumentative. ;)

>	Besides there doesn't have to be any legitimate reasons
>anyway, you chose to put that computer on the internet, the government
>didn't make you did they? anyone on the internet WITHOUT A FIREWALL is
>like a person without a lock on their door that has a tunnel all the
>way to the street with a sign saying come in, all are invited!

Nonsense.

>>Complacency is antithetical to security.(c)
>
>If you start with DENY ALL and only allow access to one or 2 things
>you can be very sure, also for example on my Gnatbox firewall I also
>DENY outbound traffic to port 137,138,139 and many others and only
>allow those I do use, besides that I use "software" firewalls on my
>Windows machine ( Atguard 3.22.11 ) to insure I know What programs
>have access to that Winsock in the first place!

ROTFL.  I can't tell you how many people have made that kind of claim
only to be compromised.  

"Security is a process, not a product."
                  - Bruce Schneier

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>