Re: Attempts to poison bayesian systems

2003-12-24 Thread Dale Amon
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:08:14AM +, Nick Boyce wrote: > Merry Happy Season Of Jollyness everyone > Nick Boyce > Bristol, UK I'll second that: A Merry Christmas and a bug-free New Year to all! Dale Amon Belfast, UK and/or Ireland ;-^ -- -

Re: IPSec WinXP interop

2003-12-24 Thread Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 00:49:31 +, Antony Gelberg wrote: > When I try to log in, I get "Error 792: The L2TP connection attempt > failed because security negotiation timed out." I don't get any > "verifying username..." message. > Why do you need freeswan if you are trying to set

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread outsider
Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 07:01:01PM +0100, outsider wrote: Last time I frequently get messages like "smbd[949]: refused connect from " in my /var/log/syslog. Every time with new IP-address. What are these connections? Is somebody trying to scan me or what is the reason fo

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread Noah L. Meyerhans
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:33:54PM +0100, outsider wrote: > But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another > IP-address. The worms are targetting random IP addresses. The IP address you have tomorrow is just as likely to get scanned as the one you have today. (Technically not

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 15:33:54 +0100, outsider wrote: > But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another > IP-address. > There is no end of viruses, worms, and people with too much free time and too little brain under their hulls out there. So having a dynamic IP a

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread Christian Storch
That's typical: IP's are really scanned like ..., 1.2.3.4, 1.2.3.5, 1.2.3.6, ... etc. > > You are being scanned. Get used to it. You're not specifically being > > targetted, but rather your IP address was randomly generated by some > > worm on some Windows box and a connection attempt was made.

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread Dale Amon
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:33:54PM +0100, outsider wrote: > But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another > IP-address. Besides what everyone else said... I've also seen it happen that someone pulls an address from dhcp that was perhaps minutes before being used by someone ru

Re: Attempts to poison bayesian systems

2003-12-24 Thread Simon Huggins
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:00:43PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: > On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:36:20PM +, Dale Amon wrote: > > > I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get > > > quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam. > > I can't think of any other rea

Re: IPSec WinXP interop

2003-12-24 Thread Antony Gelberg
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 01:40:46PM +0100, Jose Luis Domingo Lopez wrote: > On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 00:49:31 +, > Antony Gelberg wrote: > > > When I try to log in, I get "Error 792: The L2TP connection attempt > > failed because security negotiation timed out." I don't get any > > "

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread Alvin Oga
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Jose Luis Domingo Lopez wrote: > On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 15:33:54 +0100, > outsider wrote: > > > But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another > > IP-address. > > > There is no end of viruses, worms, and people with too much free time > and

Re: IPSec WinXP interop

2003-12-24 Thread cd
Sorry, but tunnel ipsec in l2tp is quite normal. You need it to turn around the nat problem of ipsec. - Original Message - From: "Jose Luis Domingo Lopez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: Re: IPSec WinXP interop > On Wednesd

Re: Attempts to poison bayesian systems

2003-12-24 Thread Dale Amon
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:08:14AM +, Nick Boyce wrote: > Merry Happy Season Of Jollyness everyone > Nick Boyce > Bristol, UK I'll second that: A Merry Christmas and a bug-free New Year to all! Dale Amon Belfast, UK and/or Ireland ;-^ -- -

Re: IPSec WinXP interop

2003-12-24 Thread Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 00:49:31 +, Antony Gelberg wrote: > When I try to log in, I get "Error 792: The L2TP connection attempt > failed because security negotiation timed out." I don't get any > "verifying username..." message. > Why do you need freeswan if you are trying to set

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread outsider
Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 07:01:01PM +0100, outsider wrote: Last time I frequently get messages like "smbd[949]: refused connect from " in my /var/log/syslog. Every time with new IP-address. What are these connections? Is somebody trying to scan me or what is the reason

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread Noah L. Meyerhans
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:33:54PM +0100, outsider wrote: > But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another > IP-address. The worms are targetting random IP addresses. The IP address you have tomorrow is just as likely to get scanned as the one you have today. (Technically not

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread Christian Storch
That's typical: IP's are really scanned like ..., 1.2.3.4, 1.2.3.5, 1.2.3.6, ... etc. > > You are being scanned. Get used to it. You're not specifically being > > targetted, but rather your IP address was randomly generated by some > > worm on some Windows box and a connection attempt was made.

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 15:33:54 +0100, outsider wrote: > But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another > IP-address. > There is no end of viruses, worms, and people with too much free time and too little brain under their hulls out there. So having a dynamic IP a

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread Dale Amon
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:33:54PM +0100, outsider wrote: > But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another > IP-address. Besides what everyone else said... I've also seen it happen that someone pulls an address from dhcp that was perhaps minutes before being used by someone ru

Re: Attempts to poison bayesian systems

2003-12-24 Thread Simon Huggins
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:00:43PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: > On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:36:20PM +, Dale Amon wrote: > > > I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get > > > quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam. > > I can't think of any other rea

Re: IPSec WinXP interop

2003-12-24 Thread Antony Gelberg
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 01:40:46PM +0100, Jose Luis Domingo Lopez wrote: > On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 00:49:31 +, > Antony Gelberg wrote: > > > When I try to log in, I get "Error 792: The L2TP connection attempt > > failed because security negotiation timed out." I don't get any > > "

Re: suspicious smbd connections

2003-12-24 Thread Alvin Oga
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Jose Luis Domingo Lopez wrote: > On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 15:33:54 +0100, > outsider wrote: > > > But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another > > IP-address. > > > There is no end of viruses, worms, and people with too much free time > and

Re: IPSec WinXP interop

2003-12-24 Thread cd
Sorry, but tunnel ipsec in l2tp is quite normal. You need it to turn around the nat problem of ipsec. - Original Message - From: "Jose Luis Domingo Lopez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: Re: IPSec WinXP interop > On Wednesday, 24 December 200