[bittorrent] BT, Nats, and hackers at the door...
Olaf van der Spek
olafvdspek at gmail.com
Sun May 29 15:25:21 EDT 2005
On 5/29/05, Bill Cox <bill at viasic.com> wrote:
> Hi, Olaf.
> On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 13:57 +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On 5/29/05, Bill Cox <bill at viasic.com> wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I'm a big fan of p2p networking, and think it has great potential. I've
> > > posted some of my concerns here about NAT translators going away with
> > > IPv6 adoption, which is good for p2p, and bad for security.
> > What prevents you from replacing your NAT with a stateful firewall?
> I think I will. However, installing and managing a stateful firewall
> requires more networking skill than the average mom has. It'll work for
Why would it require more skill than setting up NAT?
> me, but what about the masses? How can they be protected if they have
> open p2p ports and fixed IPv6 addresses?
What's the vulnerability of open p2p ports?
> > > Just to play around a bit, I've started running a Linux server at home
> > > on a fixed IP address, with just a few ports open (ssh, mail, web, and
> > > of course BT). It's probably already been hacked, but new hacking
> > Why would it be hacked already?
> I haven't been able to find any evidence that the hacking attempts have
> succeeded. However, how would I know? Clearly there are several groups
> of hackers who are trying...
To be honest, I don't know. I'd expect 'offline' integrity scans (boot
and run from CD) to exist that should be able to tell you.
> > > hacking the mail ports from Taiwan, Korea, and China. And, of course,
> > > root on this machine gets spammed!
> > :( indeed. But what's the relation with open ports?
> They spam my open mail server port.
Then bind it to localhost.
More information about the BitTorrent