On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> are a little incorrect. But there is no way of tracing 'traceroute' these
> addresses. So how does anyone expect to get a response to a command from a
> 192.168.x.x address across the internet?
> Interestingly, even though the UDP message from 192.168.5.192 is stopped by
> the firewall (RULE is DENY) this system attempts to respond with an ICMP/3
> back to 192.168.5.192 (in this case) but is blocked by the fw-out rules
> (and logged)!!
> Neat huh.
>
> To date I have had 2740 hits - admittedly over a period of a few weeks.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce.
>
Sorry to revisit an old thread, but was just troubleshooting some
masq-related problems and noticed that we were getting packets trying to
go to 192.0.0.192. If you do a reverse lookup on that address, you get:
Name: 192.0.0.0-is-used-for-printservices-discovery----illegally.iana.net
Address: 192.0.0.192
The network in question did have a lot of printing (netbios) activity on
it.
Anyway, something to look for leaking from any Win* based network.
-d
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David E. Wach |
Senior Systems Administrator |
ClipperNet Internet Access Services | "Zeros and ones will take
541.431.3360 | us there..."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
http://www.clipper.net |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
