We are trying to find any information on what might cause Nessus to report 
this finding. 
We used Redhat 7.2 with Nessus 1.10 to run the scans. On the majority of 
the Win NT4 
and Win 2k servers we found:
"Microsoft Windows 95 and 98 clients have the ability to bind multiple 
TCP/IP stacks on the same MAC address, simply by having the protocol added 

more than once in the Network Control panel. The remote host has several 
TCP/IP stacks with the same IP bind"
Is this a false positive? 
What are the concerns if its not a false positive? 
What would cause this to appear on different servers running single nic's? 

Is this a software or operating system issue?
Is this a hardware (firmware) related issue with the nic? 

Jim 

A complex system that does not work is invariably found
to have evolved from a simpler system that worked just fine
- Murphy's Ninth Law of Computing 




Hugo van der Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/16/2002 02:52 PM

 
        To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Nessus scan result on multiple TCP/IP stacks


On Thu, 16 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I see this on almost all of the servers we scan but have not found a 
clear 
> explanation for what this is or information on how to correct it. 
> 
> "Microsoft Windows 95 and 98 clients have the ability to bind multiple 
> TCP/IP stacks on the same MAC address, simply by having the protocol 
added 
> more than once in the Network Control panel. The remote host has several 

> TCP/IP stacks with the same IP bind"
> 
> Any assistance is greatly appreciated. 

Perhaps you could ask the question? This is fine as a description of the 
context but it just misses the question. Which makes it rather hard to 
answer.

Hugo.

-- 
All email send to me is bound to the rules described on my homepage.
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]                             http://hvdkooij.xs4all.nl/
                     Don't meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
                     for they are subtle and quick to anger.




Reply via email to