[gentoo-user] 161 UDP Constant Connections

2005-07-08 Thread Michael Thompson
This IP 212.56.68.108 has been attempting to contact Port 161 UDP for Months. No when I try and run a NMAP scan against the box, I get my own logs filled with the NMAP Scan. It is like 212.56.68.108 is mirroring to my IP Space. And I dont Understand why! The connecting IP is in my ISP range, howe

Re: [gentoo-user] 161 UDP Constant Connections

2005-07-08 Thread Tim Igoe
Michael Thompson wrote: > This IP 212.56.68.108 has been attempting to contact Port 161 UDP for > Months. Are you running SNMP on your box? Port 161 is SNMP, if you have it open to the outside world, could it be collecting data - hence often connections? > > No when I try and run a NMAP scan a

Re: [gentoo-user] 161 UDP Constant Connections

2005-07-08 Thread Michael Thompson
On Friday 08 July 2005 15:32, Tim Igoe wrote: > Michael Thompson wrote: > > This IP 212.56.68.108 has been attempting to contact Port 161 UDP for > > Months. > > Are you running SNMP on your box? Port 161 is SNMP, if you have it open > to the outside world, could it be collecting data - hence often

Re: [gentoo-user] 161 UDP Constant Connections

2005-07-08 Thread Hans-Werner Hilse
Hi, On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:46:42 +0100 Michael Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Any one got any ideas? > > > > you could just try blackholing the IP at your firewall, or as i've > > already mentioned - try and contact your ISP with all you know and see > > if htey can shed any light on it

Re: [gentoo-user] 161 UDP Constant Connections

2005-07-08 Thread Michael Thompson
On Friday 08 July 2005 16:11, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: > Well, two possibilities. > 1.) the packets are already mirrored at your own box > 2.) the packets are mirrored at the target box > > I guess it's #2, you can find out by tcptracing the wire. > > If I were to reproduce this behaviour of the re

Re: [gentoo-user] 161 UDP Constant Connections

2005-07-08 Thread Hans-Werner Hilse
Hi, On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:42:43 +0100 Michael Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Umm, quite possible. How about they have set their SNMP broadcast to a too > wide range, which includes the whole subnet? Yes, of course, I've mixed up two items you told, my fault. They're sending SNMP, and ye