Re: telnet filter and ftp filter

Jeffrey J. Mountin (sysop@mixcom.com)
Sat, 26 Apr 1997 02:56:33 -0500

At 05:32 PM 4/25/97 -0400, Dick St.Peters wrote:
>A tighter version:
>
>add filter nosyn.out
>set filter nosyn.out 1 permit tcp established
>set filter nosyn.out 2 permit udp
>set filter nosyn.out 3 permit tcp dst eq 20
>set filter nosyn.out 4 permit tcp dst eq 113
>set filter nosyn.out 5 deny tcp
>set filter nosyn.out 6 permit
>
>This blocks all sorts of servers, muds, and the like without having to
>chase each one down.
>
>Rule 2 isn't actually necessary but can save a lot of cpu when users
>do audio/video stuff.

What bothers me about this is customers that want to transfer files between
themselves is blocked. Sure it can be added, but I want to point this out,
as it is best to discourage the use of mail for the transport of large
files. Our system has had many Mb of business client's .ppt files breaking
some pop clients.

Also telnet is blocked, IMHO not a much a problem as http service and makes
the filter so communistic, thou-shalt-not, etc.

Best to have rules or metered service to prevent abuse and yet offer a more
"true" connection to the net or at least have exceptions for those that
ask, but then you have more filters

Hmmm... anyone every "strobe" their dial-up IPs on port 80? Or any
commonly used port for that matter?

On a related issue we did have a customer apply for a Verisign CERT and
really made me alert to potential abuse.

One thing that should also be considered is to allow SMTP connection to
only local server, which like spoof filters, mean that users cannot mass
mail from their dial-in accounts directly and bypass syslog.

This I plan to do, after notifying them...
My asbestos suit is on the way. ;-)

It was bad enough when we blocked relay.

-------------------------------------------
Jeff Mountin - System/Network Administrator
jeff@mixcom.net

MIX Communications
Serving the Internet since 1990