Comments on: Bold face lie in a clash at FCC hearing – port139online.com:139 http://blog.phishme.com/2008/02/bold-face-lie-in-a-clash-at-fcc-hearing-port139onlinecom139/ Internet Security Professionals comment on innovative phishing ploys, social engineering techniques, and the latest hacks. Bashing or bowing to the latest and greatest news in the security community. Keep up to speed with what phishers, hackers, and spammers are doing or just listen in on the latest geek rants. PhishMe is your one stop blog for the latest in anti-phishing and security news. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:32:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: higB http://blog.phishme.com/2008/02/bold-face-lie-in-a-clash-at-fcc-hearing-port139onlinecom139/comment-page-1/#comment-212 higB Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:34:40 +0000 http://blog.phishme.com/2008/02/bold-face-lie-in-a-clash-at-fcc-hearing-port139onlinecom139/#comment-212 networkguru, We made a specific slide for guys like you. (Slide #32). When shmoocon makes the slides and video available I encourage you to check it out. You might find out that we know a thing or two about the lower bowels of ISPs. -higB networkguru,

We made a specific slide for guys like you. (Slide #32). When shmoocon makes the slides and video available I encourage you to check it out. You might find out that we know a thing or two about the lower bowels of ISPs.

-higB

]]> By: Annonymous http://blog.phishme.com/2008/02/bold-face-lie-in-a-clash-at-fcc-hearing-port139onlinecom139/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Annonymous Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:46:06 +0000 http://blog.phishme.com/2008/02/bold-face-lie-in-a-clash-at-fcc-hearing-port139onlinecom139/#comment-211 It's doubtful you, mister "networkguru", know anything other then using google to find quick things to poke fun at (Even without comprehensive knowlege of the subject.) by skimming through lists of info. The point of this whole thing is that nearly ALL ports out there in common use today are not _officially_ assigned for any specific purpose, and should be usable for whatever purpose you damn well please, even if they are _commonly_ used for a different purpose. Not only that, but your thoughts betray your know-how implying name (Not that any serious person would ever actually _put_ "guru" in their name, let alone describe their own "role" to try and leave no question to as their 'correct-ness'). It is doubtful that many, if _any_ real IT people would ever agree with your thoughts, simply because it betrays the underlying nature of the internet, as in, the whole "control not what passes through these networks, and allow entirety of access for all.". (Not an actual quote, of course.) Just because it _can_ be a vulnerability for UNPATCHED, RPM INSTALLS OF OLDER WINDOWS, does not mean that the we all must suffer some such loss, even if we will never encounter it without such probing. Yes, I admit, you do have somewhat of a valid point, but it is entirely destroyed by the fact that it shouldn't be happening in the first place, and much more so without the customer being directly informed of such matters. Anyways, if you need to resort to swearing at someone to make your point, chances are, your point doesn't need to be heard. Now that that's out of the way, let me just point out that I _am_ behind a Comcast connection and I can confirm that this blocking is occurring. Of course, it is common knowledge that Comcast does all sorts of traffic alteration, so this comes as no surprise to me, but I suppose there's nothing I can do about it at the current time. It’s doubtful you, mister “networkguru”, know anything other then using google to find quick things to poke fun at (Even without comprehensive knowlege of the subject.) by skimming through lists of info. The point of this whole thing is that nearly ALL ports out there in common use today are not _officially_ assigned for any specific purpose, and should be usable for whatever purpose you damn well please, even if they are _commonly_ used for a different purpose. Not only that, but your thoughts betray your know-how implying name (Not that any serious person would ever actually _put_ “guru” in their name, let alone describe their own “role” to try and leave no question to as their ‘correct-ness’). It is doubtful that many, if _any_ real IT people would ever agree with your thoughts, simply because it betrays the underlying nature of the internet, as in, the whole “control not what passes through these networks, and allow entirety of access for all.”. (Not an actual quote, of course.)

Just because it _can_ be a vulnerability for UNPATCHED, RPM INSTALLS OF OLDER WINDOWS, does not mean that the we all must suffer some such loss, even if we will never encounter it without such probing. Yes, I admit, you do have somewhat of a valid point, but it is entirely destroyed by the fact that it shouldn’t be happening in the first place, and much more so without the customer being directly informed of such matters.

Anyways, if you need to resort to swearing at someone to make your point, chances are, your point doesn’t need to be heard.

Now that that’s out of the way, let me just point out that I _am_ behind a Comcast connection and I can confirm that this blocking is occurring. Of course, it is common knowledge that Comcast does all sorts of traffic alteration, so this comes as no surprise to me, but I suppose there’s nothing I can do about it at the current time.

]]> By: networkguru http://blog.phishme.com/2008/02/bold-face-lie-in-a-clash-at-fcc-hearing-port139onlinecom139/comment-page-1/#comment-210 networkguru Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:03:54 +0000 http://blog.phishme.com/2008/02/bold-face-lie-in-a-clash-at-fcc-hearing-port139onlinecom139/#comment-210 youre a fucking moron, tcp port 139 is netbios/Windows filesharing there is no fucking reason this port needs to be broadcast online or accessable online as it can be a vulnerability youre a fucking moron, tcp port 139 is netbios/Windows filesharing there is no fucking reason this port needs to be broadcast online or accessable online as it can be a vulnerability

]]>