Tom Eastep wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 10:09, Jim Ford wrote:
Now I'm all snug and cosy behind my Leaf Bering firewall (thanks to the
helpful folk on this forum), I'd like to see just how secure it appears
from the outside. There are various sites, some of them commercial, that
give
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 10:09, Jim Ford wrote:
> Now I'm all snug and cosy behind my Leaf Bering firewall (thanks to the
> helpful folk on this forum), I'd like to see just how secure it appears
> from the outside. There are various sites, some of them commercial, that
> give a free firewall
Dale Long, 2001-06-29 09:58 +0930
>On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > >Do you still need me to complete the scanning task, or is the web
> > >based scanner enough for each user/leader to do?
>
> > Yes. I think they will provide a good reference for users to compare
> > there setup with. Al
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> >Do you still need me to complete the scanning task, or is the web based
> >scanner enough for each user/leader to do?
> Yes. I think they will provide a good reference for users to compare there
> setup with. Also, scans from the DMZ, and the internal ne
Dale Long, 2001-06-28 13:19 +0930
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > There are a couple of other quality scanning sites.
> >
> > Web Links Main / Security Audits
> > http://leaf.sourceforge.net/links.php?op=viewlink&cid=6
>
>Do you still need me to complete the scanning task, or is the w
"Sean E. Covel" wrote:
> I've been conversing with the "Expert Team" at PC Flank
> (http://www.pcflank.com./) about their scanner. So far they have asked
> for additional information about my firewall, but have not defended the
> results.
>
> So How can I verify that a certain port is/is no
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Tony wrote:
> netstat -an ought to do it.
That only gives the "which services are running" part of the picture.
Use "ipchains -L -n" to find out how the firewall is configured. You
probably want to concentrate on the input list, and work your way down the
list one rule at
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> >I checked this site, questionable results. It successfully determined
> >I have port 80 open. Didn't report any ports as being open that
> >really aren't, but it missed ssh, whois, and smtp. So, out of four
> >ports I know are open, it missed three, and
netstat -an ought to do it.
Tony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Sean E. Covel
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 14:52
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Leaf-user] Firewall testing
>
>
> I've been conversing with the "Expert Team"
Port 3128 is the default for the squid caching proxy
(http://www.squid-cache.org). Chances are you aren't running that if
you didn't know it, and that scanner is in fact as useful as peering at
your computer through a toilet paper tube, at least for finding
security flaws.
--- Dan <[EMAIL PROTEC
Jonathan Rawson, 2001-06-26 23:27 -0400
>I checked this site, questionable results. It successfully determined
>I have port 80 open. Didn't report any ports as being open that
>really aren't, but it missed ssh, whois, and smtp. So, out of four
>ports I know are open, it missed three, and only h
Hmmm
I guess I'll have to try some of these.
Thanks,
Glenn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> > I'm a newbie also. I have a question. Doesn't using these "testing" sites say;
> > hey, here I am come and get me?
> > I mean are they really to
as these are Windows default networking ports.
> >
> > As far as the 1080, that's SOCKS --- I don't know why it is showing for all
> > of us (myself included). I am definitely NOT running any such proxy here.
> > Port 3128 is not one I can find any info on.
> >
> > My l
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:
> Hey,
> I'm a newbie also. I have a question. Doesn't using these "testing" sites say;
> hey, here I am come and get me?
> I mean are they really to be trusted? I know it's nice to know how secure you
> are but I'm afraid to use them.
You should
ly NOT running any such proxy here.
> Port 3128 is not one I can find any info on.
>
> My last guess is this: the probe app is a POS, and not to be trusted.
>
> Dan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert
>
--Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert
Chambers
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 11:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Firewall testing
I have also tried this site, and the same for me open ports 135, 137, 138,
139 and visab
I have also tried this site, and the same for me open ports 135, 137, 138,
139 and visable ports 1080, 3128. I am also running Eigerstien2beta.
When I test my system with Steve Gibson's site grc.com it says that I am a
hard target and all ports that are tested are in stealth mode.
Robert Chambers
27;d stick with shieldsup and dslreports.
Jonathan Rawson
-Original Message-
From: Michael Leone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Firewall testing
>On 09 Jun 2001 08:55:01 -0400,
On 09 Jun 2001 08:55:01 -0400, Sean E. Covel wrote:
> To all,
>
> This is an interesting new test site. Uses IP Spoofing, so it does not
> set off portsentry (first test that DIDN'T) It was also the first test
> ever to say I had ports open/visible. I'm using EB2 LRP, and have been
> on it awh
19 matches
Mail list logo
