On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:40:45AM +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > > I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian
> > > developer.
> >
> > We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers.
> >
> Unnghhh...
> 'Card-carrying' sound
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:40:45AM +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > > I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian
> > > developer.
> >
> > We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers.
> >
> Unnghhh...
> 'Card-carrying' soun
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian
> > developer.
>
> We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers.
>
Unnghhh...
'Card-carrying' sounds like fiery-eyed anarchist or extreme left
revolutionary, some kind of luddite th
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:49:02AM -0600, orly-fu wrote:
> First of all nmap does not scan only the services listed in /etc/services, if
> you were to have bothered reading the manual before answering you would have
> read, and I quote:
> "The default is to scan all ports between 1 and 1
Are they both around 20 years of age and steaming hot ? - like the ones we
all hope wish we had as receptionists in our corps ? =)
-xbud
On Sunday 21 October 2001 04:52 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thoma
Excuse your arrogance, but let me correct you in some points you made!
First of all nmap does not scan only the services listed in /etc/services, if
you were to have bothered reading the manual before answering you would have
read, and I quote:
"The default is to scan all ports between 1
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:49:02AM -0600, orly-fu wrote:
> First of all nmap does not scan only the services listed in /etc/services, if
> you were to have bothered reading the manual before answering you would have
> read, and I quote:
> "The default is to scan all ports between 1 and
Are they both around 20 years of age and steaming hot ? - like the ones we
all hope wish we had as receptionists in our corps ? =)
-xbud
On Sunday 21 October 2001 04:52 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thom
Excuse your arrogance, but let me correct you in some points you made!
First of all nmap does not scan only the services listed in /etc/services, if
you were to have bothered reading the manual before answering you would have
read, and I quote:
"The default is to scan all ports between 1
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 04:41:17PM -0500, Mike Renfro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 03:26:18PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 06:06:34PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Has debian released a new ssh dpkg yet?
> >
> > no
>
> If this is about the buffer overflow exp
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> > >
> > >No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "f
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> >
> >No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
> >blood" in the team. Working on security can c
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 03:26:18PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 06:06:34PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Has debian released a new ssh dpkg yet?
>
> no
If this is about the buffer overflow exploit that's supposed to be
going around now, wasn't this fixed in the follo
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 04:41:17PM -0500, Mike Renfro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 03:26:18PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 06:06:34PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Has debian released a new ssh dpkg yet?
> >
> > no
>
> If this is about the buffer overflow ex
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> > >
> > >No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
> >
> >No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
> >blood" in the team. Working on security can
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 03:26:18PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 06:06:34PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Has debian released a new ssh dpkg yet?
>
> no
If this is about the buffer overflow exploit that's supposed to be
going around now, wasn't this fixed in the foll
Wow! Craig...you are the MAN! This explains a number of other
questions I had too. Thank you very much!
jc
Craig McPherson, 2001-Oct-21 10:45 -0500:
> I can't believe nobody has answered this correctly yet. UDP is
> different than TCP in that it is a stateless protocol, and that means
> you
"Scott Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just out of curiosity, but isnt this comercicial spam and subject to
> Debian's Spam policy... I dont know.. maybe debian should go to collect its
> money from this person.
It's not commercial, for the simple reason that it's a serious crime.
If they'r
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
>
>No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
>blood" in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time,
>thus it could even be helpful not being a Debian developer
thanks for your explanation.
regards,
Volker
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 10:45:28AM -0500,
Craig McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't believe nobody has answered this correctly yet. UDP is
> different than TCP in that it is a stateless protocol, and that means
> you have to understand a
Wow! Craig...you are the MAN! This explains a number of other
questions I had too. Thank you very much!
jc
Craig McPherson, 2001-Oct-21 10:45 -0500:
> I can't believe nobody has answered this correctly yet. UDP is
> different than TCP in that it is a stateless protocol, and that means
> yo
I can't believe nobody has answered this correctly yet. UDP is
different than TCP in that it is a stateless protocol, and that means
you have to understand a few things to interpret UDP port scan results
correctly. With TCP scans, you get one of three results: OPEN
(meaning that the TCP hand
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 05:47:11PM +0200,
Petre Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> also netstat -n -p -t --listening | grep ":PORT"
sure, but it shows you only tcp connections.
regards,
Volker
> VD> You can also use "netstat -pan" to find out which process is listening on
> VD> which p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
also netstat -n -p -t --listening | grep ":PORT"
VD> Hi,
VD> On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 09:22:57PM -0700,
VD> tony mancill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Marc Wilson wrote:
>>
>> > Adding or removing lines in /etc/services doesn't op
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
well,first you gotta chill..:>>
do you have a lan there? is your debian a gateway/router for the lan?
maybe you use a masquerade for some of those computers..
there can be an aplication in windows that connects through that port
to the internet.
so like
"Scott Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just out of curiosity, but isnt this comercicial spam and subject to
> Debian's Spam policy... I dont know.. maybe debian should go to collect its
> money from this person.
It's not commercial, for the simple reason that it's a serious crime.
If they'
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer?
>
>No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have "fresh
>blood" in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time,
>thus it could even be helpful not being a Debian developer
thanks for your explanation.
regards,
Volker
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 10:45:28AM -0500,
Craig McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't believe nobody has answered this correctly yet. UDP is
> different than TCP in that it is a stateless protocol, and that means
> you have to understand
I can't believe nobody has answered this correctly yet. UDP is
different than TCP in that it is a stateless protocol, and that means
you have to understand a few things to interpret UDP port scan results
correctly. With TCP scans, you get one of three results: OPEN
(meaning that the TCP han
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 05:47:11PM +0200,
Petre Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> also netstat -n -p -t --listening | grep ":PORT"
sure, but it shows you only tcp connections.
regards,
Volker
> VD> You can also use "netstat -pan" to find out which process is listening on
> VD> which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> hi, when I make nmap I read my open ports more one suspect (every
> time is one new port). So I make nmap another time and I read my
> realy open ports without the last.
I saw this, too. That nmap version (at least the one from Potato)
seems to be buggy. To verify that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
also netstat -n -p -t --listening | grep ":PORT"
VD> Hi,
VD> On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 09:22:57PM -0700,
VD> tony mancill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Marc Wilson wrote:
>>
>> > Adding or removing lines in /etc/services doesn't o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
well,first you gotta chill..:>>
do you have a lan there? is your debian a gateway/router for the lan?
maybe you use a masquerade for some of those computers..
there can be an aplication in windows that connects through that port
to the internet.
so lik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> hi, when I make nmap I read my open ports more one suspect (every
> time is one new port). So I make nmap another time and I read my
> realy open ports without the last.
I saw this, too. That nmap version (at least the one from Potato)
seems to be buggy. To verify tha
hi, when I make nmap I read my open ports more one suspect (every time is
one new port). So I make nmap another time and I read my realy open ports
without the last.
?
what is it ?
example:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ nmap debian
Starting nmap V. 2.12 by Fyodor ([EMAIL PROTECTED], www.insecure
Hi!
Take a look at "/etc/inetd.conf". There are some services you
are looking for. Try to comment thoose services and make a restart of
the "inetd" daemon. (Something as `/etc/init.d/inetd stop` &
`/etc/init.d/inetd start')
Bye
--
-
hi, when I make nmap I read my open ports more one suspect (every time is
one new port). So I make nmap another time and I read my realy open ports
without the last.
?
what is it ?
example:
seba@debian:~$ nmap debian
Starting nmap V. 2.12 by Fyodor ([EMAIL PROTECTED], www.insecure.org/
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 09:22:57PM -0700,
tony mancill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
> > Adding or removing lines in /etc/services doesn't open or close ports...
> > this is a common misconception. Removing what's listening on a particular
> > port is
Hi!
Take a look at "/etc/inetd.conf". There are some services you
are looking for. Try to comment thoose services and make a restart of
the "inetd" daemon. (Something as `/etc/init.d/inetd stop` &
`/etc/init.d/inetd start')
Bye
--
40 matches
Mail list logo
