Re: EXAMPLE: ### xxx Canada detected a penetration attempt from 209.123.x.229. Incident# xxxx

From: Greg Poirier (no email)
Date: Fri Oct 26 2001 - 16:22:41 EDT


On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:57:55PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
>
> I think that Alex's point is that if you want to *really* have a secure
> network, you can't do it by sending out automated mails every time a stray
> packet hits your network. That's likely to cause way more annoyance than any
> good it could possibly do.
>
> A much more effective way of proceeding would be to have a person looking at
> each and every incident, deciding whether it merits a notice to the offending
> network, and then sending a personal, non-threatening mail.
>
> --Adam
> --
> Adam McKenna <> | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA
> http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A

Now I think that might be a bit much.. but you are right.. Sending out
e-mails like this is rather annoying. Instead of reporting every little
http request, maybe filter it so that only very suspicious ports are
reported?

Not that they're here to hear advice, but it's the thought that counts.

-- 
Greg Poirier                       System Administrator
EarthLink, Inc.              Multi-Function Engineering
(404) 748-7106                              Atlanta, GA







Hosted Email Solutions

Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD