-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:02:57 -0500, Michael Fratoni wrote:
On Monday 09 December 2002 09:35 pm, Jeff Stillwall wrote:
I just replaced a commercial firewall with a RH 7.3 machine running
IPTables. Several non-IT employees found comfort in
Thanks to everyone to suggested rejecting packets instead of dropping them.
I should be able to make that change soon, and I'll let you know if it
helped. Thank you!
--
Jeff Stillwall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
Slightly OFF-TOPIC,
I have a Cable Modem that dishes out a DHCP address to my Linux
Gateway/Firewall server behind which is my home network.
I used to get scanned several times a day the time until I started
dropping ICMP Echo-requests, now I only get scanned once or twice a
week, and usually
Hopefully, this is only slightly off-topic.
I just replaced a commercial firewall with a RH 7.3 machine running
IPTables. Several non-IT employees found comfort in running Gibson's port
scan (http://www.grc.com). With the old firewall in place, a port scan
showed all ports as 'stealth' (besides
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Jeff Stillwall wrote:
Hopefully, this is only slightly off-topic.
Who knows... :-)
Being that there really should be 'no evidence that these ports exist'
(because they don't!), what's the real deal here? Basically, I know not to
trust everything grc says, but I have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 09 December 2002 09:35 pm, Jeff Stillwall wrote:
Hopefully, this is only slightly off-topic.
I just replaced a commercial firewall with a RH 7.3 machine running
IPTables. Several non-IT employees found comfort in running Gibson's
port
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:02:57PM -0500, Michael Fratoni wrote:
If your firewall is refusing the connections, the scanner will show closed
ports. If the rules instead drop the packets, the ports will show up as
stealth.
Try changing the firewall rules policy from REJECT to DROP
Note that
I'll try again.
Is it normal in rh 7.2 that netbios ports 137-139 is open when I port scan
as user root, and filtered when I scan as another user.
The ports is set to filtered in iptables which I use as firewall.
Last time I asked this an rh 8.0 user said there were no diffrence in the scan
on
-Original Message-
From: linux power
Subject: Port scan question.
I'll try again.
Is it normal in rh 7.2 that netbios ports 137-139 is
open when I port scan as user root, and filtered when
I scan as another user. The ports is set to filtered in
iptables which I use as firewall
linux power wrote:
Why are more ports open when I scan the ports as root rather than as user?
This is interesting, I am not sure. I tested this on my RH 8 machine and
could not duplicate your results. My first guess was that a non-root
user would not see the listening sockets on ports less
Why are more ports open when I scan the ports as root rather than as user?
And why are more ports closed when I scan the ip 127.0.0.1 rather then the wan card ip?http://home.no.net/~knutove/knut_ove_hauge_kuren.htmPrøv betaversjonen av den nye Yahoo! Mail
Nytt design, enklere å bruke, alltid
11 matches
Mail list logo
