July 30, 2003 at 2:51 pm
Hello all,
I was just curious if I blocked port 135 at my firewall, would that in any way adversely affect SQL Server, communication from server to server, or communication from client to server?
Jason
July 31, 2003 at 7:22 am
I don't see why it should since SQL uses (default) TCP 1433.
Check the BOL, use the INDEX tab and enter TCP/IP and select the sub-topic connecting to SQL Server.
-SQLBill
July 31, 2003 at 9:37 am
Thanks for the info SQLBill! I guess I'm more concerned about the following statement from the Technet website:
"... Block RPC interface ports at your firewall.
Port 135 is used to initiate an RPC connection with a remote computer. In addition, there are other RPC interface ports that could be used by an attacker to remotely exploit this vulnerability. Blocking the following ports at the firewall will help prevent systems behind that firewall from being attacked by attempts to exploit this vulnerability:
TCP/UDP Port 135
TCP/UDP Port 139
TCP/UDP Port 445 ..."
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-026.asp)
Since we're replicating data between 2 servers located in 2 different cities, I just didn't know how blocking this port, which initiates the RPC request, would affect the communication (replication) between these servers.
Jason
July 31, 2003 at 11:03 am
SQL should still run, but keep in mind that if some machine on your LAN gets infected it could pass this along to your SQL Server.
We blocked 1433 at the firewalls, but VPN, remote access, etc. ways allowed the SQLSlammer worm to hit our network. You need to be sure you patch systems
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/bkelley/sqlserversecuritywhysecurityisimportant.asp
Steve Jones
August 1, 2003 at 8:08 am
Thanks for your comments guys! We went ahead and blocked port 135 and it appears that everything regarding replication is still working!
Jason
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply