Fabrice Bauzac wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 12 sept. 2020 14:09:14 Dan Ritter :
>
> > John Conover wrote:
> >>
> >> Does portsentry(1) make any sense in systems with ipv6 connectivity?
> >>
> > Yes and no. If you want to know that machines are scanning
> > ports, yes. If you want to effectively block IPs
Hello,
12 sept. 2020 14:09:14 Dan Ritter :
> John Conover wrote:
>>
>> Does portsentry(1) make any sense in systems with ipv6 connectivity?
>>
> Yes and no. If you want to know that machines are scanning
> ports, yes. If you want to effectively block IPs, no.
Why would it not be able to block ip
John Conover wrote:
>
> Does portsentry(1) make any sense in systems with ipv6 connectivity?
>
Yes and no. If you want to know that machines are scanning
ports, yes. If you want to effectively block IPs, no.
You can, of course, block well known IPv6 addresses -- I block
Google's DNS resolvers
> Vadim
> Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:27:57 -0700
> I am running portsentry and courier, and I am getting this error in my syslog:
>
> imapd-ssl: pmap_getmaps rpc problem: RPC: Unable to receive; errno =
> Connection reset
> by peer
>
> If I stop either of the services, error stops. There is no mention
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 10:19:48PM +0200, Jochen Kaechelin wrote:
> A bug or a feature?
Probably a feature. My educated guess is that the IP is being added to
portsentry.ignore after being dropped, and that file is only cleared
when restarting the daemon.
It seems like you might get friendly host
Thomas Shemanske, 2002-Mar-11 16:46 -0500:
> I have a sid system and installed portsentry on it (and several other
> woody machines in the department).
>
> I left it in log-only mode, but immediately after starting it up, I
> discovered that a machine of a colleague of mine is
> banging away (ev
* John Galt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010718 05:28]:
>
> locutus:~# dpkg -l|grep snort
> ii snort 1.7-9 Flexible NIDS (Network Intrusion Detection S
> locutus:~# dpkg -l|grep portsentry
> ii portsentry 1.0-2 Portscan detection daemon
> locutus:~#
For future reference,
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Sam Varghese wrote:
>This is a bit off-topic. Yesterday I read a piece
>at the following URL:
>
>http://www.linux.ie/articles/portsentryandsnortcompared.php
>
>comparing portsentry and snort.
Next on their list is to compare apples and oranges...
>It is the first time I have
> It is the first time I have read anything negative about portsentry.
while a lot of what the author is saying is true portsentry and snort are
two quite different things. really the only thing they have in common is
that they are designed to improve the security of your network/server.
portse
9 matches
Mail list logo
