Re: Security report question

2007-10-01 Thread Kurt Buff
On 9/30/07, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:41:00 -0700 Kurt Buff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/30/07, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Kurt Buff wrote: > > > [ ... ] > > > > +Limiting closed port RST response from 283 to 200 packets/sec > > > >

Re: Security report question

2007-09-30 Thread Ian Smith
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:41:00 -0700 Kurt Buff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/30/07, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kurt Buff wrote: > > [ ... ] > > > +Limiting closed port RST response from 283 to 200 packets/sec > > > > > > I don't know what this means, though I suspect it cou

Re: Security report question

2007-09-30 Thread Kurt Buff
On 9/30/07, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kurt Buff wrote: > [ ... ] > > +Limiting closed port RST response from 283 to 200 packets/sec > > > > I don't know what this means, though I suspect it could mean that I'm > > being port scanned. Is this a reasonable guess? > > Yes. It could al

Re: Security report question

2007-09-30 Thread Chuck Swiger
Kurt Buff wrote: [ ... ] +Limiting closed port RST response from 283 to 200 packets/sec I don't know what this means, though I suspect it could mean that I'm being port scanned. Is this a reasonable guess? Yes. It could also be something beating really hard on a single closed port, too. --

Security report question

2007-09-29 Thread Kurt Buff
I've noted in a security mail from one of my machines the following log entries: +++ /tmp/security.yEepp7hR Sat Sep 29 03:02:07 2007 +Limiting closed port RST response from 253 to 200 packets/sec +Limiting closed port RST response from 233 to 200 packets/sec +Limiting closed port RST response