* Quoting Zelko Slamaj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> What I realized is:
> .) 'till now it is safe to leave it that way but
> .) those kiddies scan your computer and think that these ports _are_ indeed
> open, so you have more attack-tries, which results in longer log-files and
> longer ip-chains.
Plus
On 25.07.2002 0:47 Uhr thou speakest, Crawford Rainwater these words:
[..cut portsentry descr..]
Hi!
well, this is the way portsentry works: it "opens" the ports to the outside,
but is the only daemon behind listening to the ports. And if something
"naughty" (in portsentry's opinion) is going on
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 at 22:47:32 +, Crawford Rainwater wrote:
>
> I was experimenting with Portsentry for the first time in a while,
> using nmap to help scan for the open ports on a beta test box (Debian
> 3.0 upgraded).
>
> What I noticed beforehand, ports were closed beyond 1024 (did
> nma
run "lsof -i -P" and you will see what process(es) is/are bound to the
open port(s).
On 24 Jul 2002, Crawford Rainwater wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I was experimenting with Portsentry for the first time in a while,
> using nmap to help scan for the open ports on a beta test box (Debian
> 3.0 upgraded).
Folks,
I was experimenting with Portsentry for the first time in a while,
using nmap to help scan for the open ports on a beta test box (Debian
3.0 upgraded).
What I noticed beforehand, ports were closed beyond 1024 (did
nmap -sU -sT ). After installing Portsentry, there were
about 10-20 ports
5 matches
Mail list logo
