Re: [swinog] Re: blocking ports? - swinog

13 Apr 2007

: if(windows) then block else allow? :)

This would be my preference.  >;-)  I doubt my pointy-clickey co-workers would like
that.  I'm seen as weird here since I despise Micro$loth and love *nix.

scott

--- daniel(a)lorch.cc wrote:

From: Daniel Lorch &lt;daniel(a)lorch.cc&gt;
To: swinog(a)swinog.ch
Subject: Re: [swinog] Re: blocking ports?
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:04:31 +0200

Hi

...
  This is what I was saying to the guys here at my work.
We just need a
 small proof that the customer isn't a spammer and we open it up.
 However, most of our customers are less-technical savy home folks. Did
 you have to prove to your ISP that you weren't spamming? If so, how did
 they have you do that? 
There is a "passive OS fingerprinting" module for iptables (see
http://ippersonality.sourceforge.net/). How about treating connections
differently depending on the OS they're coming from? if(windows) then
block else allow? :) Or is the OS fingerprint lost through NAT? I don't
know.

Daniel
_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list
swinog(a)lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog