Anton Chuvakin wrote:
>> Any port between 1 and 65000 are known to be bad at least some of the time.

> Holy cow! Is this for real? Somebody still asking a question like that?
> It feels like a bit that would be posted to celebrate this list's 10th
> anniversary or something :-)
> But! I think for the outbound access the question borders on making
> [some] sense. Yes, the general "block all that are not needed based on
> the policy" is still there, but I almost feel that it makes sense to
> spell out some of the *especially* ugly ports to watch, kind of like
> telnet for inbound 10 years ago ... Or maybe not :-)
> Best,

You've officially made me feel old. 10 years... 10 years of Mr. Ranum!?
(kidding MR)

================================================== ==
J. Oquendo
sil . infiltrated @ net

The happiness of society is the end of government.
John Adams

firewall-wizards mailing list