Re: Not so much a bug as a warning of new brute force attack

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: simes@tcp.co.uk: "Re: brute force"
• Previous message: Ze'ev Maor: "Re: brute force"
• Maybe in reply to: Brett L. Hawn: "Not so much a bug as a warning of new brute force attack"
• Next in thread: Albert Lunde: "Re: Not so much a bug as a warning of new brute force attack"
• Next in thread: John Orthoefer: "Re: Not so much a bug as a warning of new brute force attack"

Seguridad <cdcsegu2@cdcnet.uniandes.edu.co> writes about POP3 attacks:
>I think the solution isnt disable this port, the solution is just limit
>the number of tries to enter the valid user/password (3 times max)..

My solution was to decouple the POP passwords from the account
passwords by having a separate POP password file.

However, isn't there a safer way of sending passwords over the network?
What's up with CHAP?
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

           What we see depends on mainly what we look for.

• Next message: simes@tcp.co.uk: "Re: brute force"
• Previous message: Ze'ev Maor: "Re: brute force"
• Maybe in reply to: Brett L. Hawn: "Not so much a bug as a warning of new brute force attack"
• Next in thread: Albert Lunde: "Re: Not so much a bug as a warning of new brute force attack"
• Next in thread: John Orthoefer: "Re: Not so much a bug as a warning of new brute force attack"