From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ken A Subject: Re: a whitelist for outgoing syn port 80, 443 traffic for hosting Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:04:53 -0800 Message-ID: <45CB7455.4070200@pacific.net> References: <45CA0B2A.7010704@pacific.net> <45CA1D0E.2040603@yahoo.co.uk> <45CA23D0.5050702@pacific.net> <45CA356A.3000706@yahoo.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mail List - Netfilter R. DuFresne wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, franck wrote: > >> --[PinePGP]--------------------------------------------------[begin]-- >> Ken A wrote: >>>>>> Is anyone aware of a whitelist of hostnames of port 80,443 OUTGOING >>>>>> traffic that should be considered 'normal' in a hosting environment? >>>>>> ie: SYN traffic to ups.com, authorize.net, technorati, for ecommerce, >>>>>> blogging, etc.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Categorizing traffic as good/bad is useful in this day of many php >>>>>> remote file include bugs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>> >>> Maybe this is what you are looking for : >>> >>> http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/ >>> >>>> Thanks, but I'm looking for a whitelist for a fairly wide range of web >>>> applications, not a blacklist. There are plenty of good blacklists out >>>> there. surbl.org, uribl.com , etc. :-) >>>> Ken >> >> >> As a matter of fact, I thought something you can put in a blacklist >> could be useful, because it cannot be in the whitelist you are looking >> for. But, thinking about it again, it is quite clear I would prefer a >> small whitelist rather than a very huge blacklist. >> > > > Would this not require that one beable to conclude that such "whitelist" > ensures tha the hosts in it are "secure" have never been compromised, > and never will be compromised? If this is what is sought, such a list > would be impossible to build. What I need is a list of hosts that are commonly connected to via port 80,443 by common web applications in a common web hosting environment, with blogs & shopping carts. Perhaps 'whitelist' was a bad choice of words? I don't think the DoD would use this list. The security of remote systems in such a list is of significant importance, but, the difference between allowing outgoing SYN packets to ups.com as opposed to geocities.com is level of trust. Ken A. Pacific.Net It is not possible to ensure the > integrity of a system over time, only at a point in time to the dregree > the server was audited to. > > Thanks, > > Ron DuFresne