[80416] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Sat Apr 30 23:33:56 2005
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 09:02:04 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: Jerry Pasker <info@n-connect.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <a06200704be94c35dbb4b@66.6.34.245>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 4/27/05, Jerry Pasker <info@n-connect.net> 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.=20
http://www.circleid.com/article/1039_0_1_0_C/
--srs
--=20
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
