[32323] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Operational impact of filtering SMB/NETBIOS traffic?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Sun Nov 19 05:39:28 2000
Message-ID: <47FE39302BF73B4C93BC84B87341282C1EFC@condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: 'Jim Mercer' <jim@reptiles.org>, Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: 'Scott Call' <scall@devolution.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:38:04 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> From: Jim Mercer [mailto:jim@reptiles.org]
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 8:49 PM
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 08:19:12PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > You are considering killing off a whole bunch of legitimate
> use because
> > some are too brain-dead to not have unintentional shares on
> the internet?
>
> well, maybe if there was a global filter on SMB then the
> brain-dead company
> that produces the brain-dead software will wake up and
> realize that maybe
> it shouldn't produce software that by default leaves their users open
> to intrusion or viruses.
You are assuming (wrongly) that microshit is the only one using that
protocol. Have you never heard of the samba project? I remember explicitly
referencing smb.conf files. That's Unix/Samba bud. I also mentioned that it
works better than NFS. I don't recall microshit-anything shipping with NFS.
Believe it or not, one or two of us actually know what we're doing.
> geez, if the filter was there, are you saying that people who
> _need_ SMB
> shares are too brain-dead to come up with a straight forward
> way to make
> it get around the filter?
There is no straight-forward way around a filter, by definition the
straight-forward way is to not have the filter!
