The other minor point would be that even if the proxy only listened on 'web proxy' ports if the destination port was permitted to be anything else, youre wide open for SMTP abuse to start with.. But we should all know this :) 64.231.72.5 - - [23/Mar/2003:20:56:28 +1200] "CONNECT maila.microsoft.com:25 / HTTP/1.0" 400 375 218.16.252.172 - - [23/Mar/2003:23:26:10 +1200] "CONNECT 207.46.181.13:25 HTTP/1.1" 405 319 Theres certainly a fairly aggressive online search for open webservers/proxies... At 10:08 25/03/2003 +1200, David Clarke wrote:
It may have been an open web proxy only, not capable of abusing SMTP or IRC.
Quote from the Herald article:
"He goes on to say that Net4U services, including his dial-up and server co-location customers, his "home link" and his "KaZaA" ... were all operated with stolen bandwidth for a "six-month" period."
That reference to KaZaA would intimate that it wasn't merely web. Of course we possibly shouldn't believe the word of someone who'd stoop to stealing bandwidth.
-- David Clarke Tech :wq
#include
_______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog