[Snort-users] The truth about Napster
agent33 at ...187...
Wed Oct 4 10:34:30 EDT 2000
I don't allow it on my network. Here is why:
1) Wasted bandwidth.
2) <rant> The Napster server, installed by default, allows the enduser to
share a directory, or directories, of their choice. While this may not be a
direct security risk, it certainly is a potential one. Who wants an
end-user controlled service serving data? Us netadmin type guys spend our
lives patrolling bugtraq and other lists for potential compromises to the
services we are running, constantly patching and upgrading and reconfiguring
to maintain our security. Although it doesn't exist now, some day, some
hacker may come up with an exploit to napster. Good security policy states
not to run any services that you don't need. Napster definetely falls into
the "don't need" category. </rant>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jess at ...521... [mailto:jess at ...521...]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 12:31 PM
> To: snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Snort-users] The truth about Napster
> Thanks for all the info about the Large ICMP packets issue.
> Well, I hope this question is not too off-topic, but I
> started to
> get Napster alerts from snort ("Napster 7777 Data"). One of
> my users had
> installed Napster in a Linux box in which he has root priviledges.
> I've being trying to gather some info about the real risks of
> running Napster but found nothing very conclusive except for
> bugs. I want to be able to decide if I can allow hime to run
> Napster or
> not, i.e. if it's safe to run it, and if not, I would like to have the
> right arguments.
> I guess that if there is a rule for Napster it means
> that Napster
> is dangerous. Can you point out some references/opinions on this?
> Snort-users mailing list
> Snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Snort-users