iB::Topic::open ports

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » Damn Small Linux » Networking » open ports

		Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
		Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic

Pages: (5) </ 1 2 [3] 4 5 >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: open ports, portscan showed several ports open Web

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

roberts

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Dec. 27 2005,18:40

There would have to be a process running on those ports.
There are no such processes in base DSL
Instead of my buddy why not use
http://www.dslreports.com/scan

gray

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: Dec. 2005

Posted: Dec. 27 2005,18:54

just one last comment - I went to Shields Up at www.grc.com and found that the first 1056 port were closed but:

Solicited TCP Packets: RECEIVED (FAILED) — As detailed in the port report below, one or more of your system's ports actively responded to our deliberate attempts to establish a connection. It is generally possible to increase your system's security by hiding it from the probes of potentially hostile hackers. Please see the details presented by the specific port links below, as well as the various resources on this site, and in our extremely helpful and active user community.

Unsolicited Packets: PASSED — No Internet packets of any sort were received from your system as a side-effect of our attempts to elicit some response from any of the ports listed above. Some questionable personal security systems expose their users by attempting to "counter-probe the prober", thus revealing themselves. But your system remained wisely silent. (Except for the fact that not all of its ports are completely stealthed as shown below.)

Ping Reply: RECEIVED (FAILED) — Your system REPLIED to our Ping (ICMP Echo) requests, making it visible on the Internet. Most personal firewalls can be configured to block, drop, and ignore such ping requests in order to better hide systems from hackers. This is highly recommended since "Ping" is among the oldest and most common methods used to locate systems prior to further exploitation.

Again this leaves me confused but once again submit it in the hopes it might be of use - Gray

cbagger01

Group: Members
Posts: 4264
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Dec. 27 2005,19:48

Shields UP! is unnecessarily paranoid.

A rejected response to a port request or a "ping" response is not a security problem in and of itself.

It is only a problem if you are running an OS+services that are vulnerable to certain exploits, and even that is not a problem if you keep your security up to date.

The Shields Up! guy is a known FUD antagonist who likes to create fear in order to sell you his company's products for a profit.

vees

Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Dec. 27 2005,20:44

Quote (gray @ Dec. 27 2005,13:38)

OK the portscan has been done. Ports to be considered are:

port 554 which is for Real Time Stream Control Protocol
and 1755 which is Streaming ASF with TCP In/Out designated for Windows Media

totally weird !!! - at least port 68 is closed, so I learnt something there...

I have to admit I'm confused, but have submitted the above in the hope that it might be useful anyway. best wishes - Gray

you gotta be kiddin'?!

are you sure you are scanning the right machine?

maybe your windows box has a problem somewhere...

what do you see when you do "netstat -lp" ?

--------------
Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world

gray

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: Dec. 2005

Posted: Dec. 28 2005,18:52

Hello, to answer you query, I'm running a dual-boot here. ie: XP for games and some version of Linux on the other side, Gentoo, DSL, Debian or SUSE.

When the second round of scans was done I was running the live-CD of DSL 2.1 RC2 in ram - not physically installed at that time - all I did was configure the dial-up, e-mail and login in here with Firefox. I had DSL 2.0 installed to hard drive when I FIRST started this thread however and was all excited as I thought I had found the zappiest OS yet, then wiped it to try SUSE 9.3 as a test of my friend's portscanner - ie: if he was doing something wrong the result should have been the same in all cases, such as if he somehow had scanned his own system (unlikely as networking is his job, but worthwhile checking anyway).

A portscan was done of SUSE 9.3, then I rebooted into XP and a portscan was done of that. In each case I sent an e-mail to the friend doing the port-scan so he could get my IP address and in each case the portscan showed no ports open and in fact stealthed.

Guys and Gals, I get the impression that all I am really doing here is making enemies and generally irritating the devs and admins working with DSL and this forum.

I have stated what has happened, I have tried to be as clear as possible about the situation and how the tests have been done. I am sorry if there seems to be mis-information or an attempt to run down DSL, but all I have posted is my experiences and results.

I am not a tecchie with an agenda or similar - I work for a newpaper making adverts on an Apple Mac all day. I try out various Linux versions in the hopes of escaping Old Bill and his OS, and DSL comes very close. Quite what the prob is I am not qualified to say.

My best wishes to you all and goodbye.
Gray

24 replies since Dec. 25 2005,09:14

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (5) </ 1 2 [3] 4 5 >/

Damn Small Linux Board » Damn Small Linux » Networking » open ports