Re: port 16001 and 111

On 0, Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hash: SHA1 Good morning (from Finland). I can't remember if I've already asked this here, but this concerns me quite a bit, so I'll ask anyway. So, 'iplogger' shows me, that there has been connection attempts to port 16001 from inside my

Re: port 16001 and 111

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 0, Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what would try to connect to my system's port 16001 and 111 Good afternoon (from Australia). It's a beautiful, sunny 26 degrees here... Hih, it's snowing here.

Re: port 16001 and 111

15 Oct 2002, Jussi Ekholm wrote: Still, the connection attempt from localhost to port 111 puzzles me... Of the top of my head: Do you have any nfs services running on the machine? I seem to remember sunrpc beeing used by the nfs-server ... -- /Martin Grape Network and System Admin Trema

Re: a nessus developpers joke?

what a all full_of_crap email .. can't believe this.. statement: this is a buggy version (which seems to be true). nothing else. So, i back him up stating that this looked to be buggy version and that you'd expect to have a non buggy version (even if old), in a stable software. This is

Named daemon and port 32770? (and port 32985 on restart)

Consider this: $ sudo lsof -ni |grep named named 3267 root4u IPv4 512 UDP *:32770 named 3267 root 20u IPv4 508 UDP 127.0.0.1:domain named 3267 root 21u IPv4 509 TCP 127.0.0.1:domain (LISTEN) named 3267 root 22u IPv4

Re: port 16001 and 111

El mar, 15 de oct de 2002, a las 09:47 +0200, Martin decía que: 15 Oct 2002, Jussi Ekholm wrote: Of the top of my head: Do you have any nfs services running on the machine? I seem to remember sunrpc beeing used by the nfs-server ... -- Fin del mensaje original -- NIS too. --

GUADAGNARE DAVVERO, LEGGI E CAPIRAI!!!!

FAI ATTENZIONE PERCHE' CON QUESTO SISTEMA GUADAGNI DAVVERO ! (se il messaggio vi e' arrivato piu volte scusate ma, …leggetelo…..) Vorresti Davvero Guadagnare con Internet? Bene, la prima cosa da fare è salvare su disco questa pagina per averla a portata di mano anche se il tuo PC

Re: Named daemon and port 32770? (and port 32985 on restart)

On di, 2002-10-15 at 11:50, Christian Schuerer-Waldheim wrote: Any ideas on why there is a single UDP port open? My configuration is pretty simple, no controls configured for the name server and a 'listen-on port 53' statement in the config file As I can remember, bind is

Re: port 16001 and 111

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Jussi Ekholm wrote: So, what would try to connect to my system's port 16001 and 111 from within my own system? Should I be concerned? Should I expect the worst? port 16001 means that you are running gnome, and is perfectly normal. Port 111 is the portmapper, which means

Re: port 16001 and 111

Hi there (from Germany), Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, what would try to connect to my system's port 16001 and 111 from within my own system? Should I be concerned? Should I expect the worst? Any insight on this issue would calm me down... Port 111 is used by portmap. If you

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:33, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: Hi everybody! Now, I have finally configured all the security features that I wanted, so last night, I launched a full Nessus attack against my server, hammering on it with the possibly harmful plugins too. It survived that, but it

Re: Named daemon and port 32770? (and port 32985 on restart)

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:50:10AM +0200, Christian Schuerer-Waldheim wrote: Hi! Any ideas on why there is a single UDP port open? My configuration is pretty simple, no controls configured for the name server and a 'listen-on port 53' statement in the config file As I can

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 01:33:38PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: Hi everybody! Now, I have finally configured all the security features that I wanted, (...) Well, I don't know if I should be alarmed, I guess the whole reason for running nessus is to be alarmed, so I am... :-) And it

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:56, Yven Leist wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:33, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: And I haven't been able to downgrade (hints are welcome! :-) ), but I do not have any testing or unstable Just put the following in lines in /etc/apt/preferences Package: *

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Try to reproduce this behavior. You can launch the attacks manually using 'nasl name-of-the-script' and trace the mail server to see if it really breaks. If it does: report upstream, if it doesn't then it's a bug

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:56, Yven Leist wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:33, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: Hi everybody! Now, I have finally configured all the security features that I wanted, so last night, I launched a full Nessus attack against my server, hammering on it with the

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 14:17, you wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:56, Yven Leist wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:33, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: And I haven't been able to downgrade (hints are welcome! :-) ), but I do not have any testing or unstable Just put the

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

jOn Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 02:11:51PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Try to reproduce this behavior. You can launch the attacks manually using 'nasl name-of-the-script' and trace the mail server to see if it

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 14:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: jOn Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 02:11:51PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Try to reproduce this behavior. You can launch the attacks manually

GUADAGNARE DAVVERO ,LEGGI E CAPIRAI !!!!

FAI ATTENZIONE PERCHE' CON QUESTO SISTEMA GUADAGNI DAVVERO ! (se il messaggio vi e' arrivato piu volte scusate ma, …leggetelo…..) Vorresti Davvero Guadagnare con Internet? Bene, la prima cosa da fare è salvare su disco questa pagina per averla a portata di mano anche se il tuo PC

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

Quoting Yven Leist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): PS: I hope you are aware of the fact that testing is security-wise really the worst distribution to run, much worse than unstable! This is what I've always understood to be the case: Package quarantining means you don't get new software immediately

apache and postgresql in woody still have a security problem?

Hello, is it correct that apache and postgresql are still waiting for a DSA fix? see: postgresql #155419 and #163311 apache #163228 thx. -- Noèl Köthe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Security on an old machine

I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will this work? And if it does work will it make the system any less secure? _ MSN Photos is the easiest

Re: port 16001 and 111

Specifically, port 16001 is ESD (ESound) IIRC.. On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 10:55, Giacomo Mulas wrote: On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Jussi Ekholm wrote: So, what would try to connect to my system's port 16001 and 111 from within my own system? Should I be concerned? Should I expect the worst? port

Re: Security on an old machine

Steve Meyer grabbed a keyboard and typed... I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will this work? And if it does work will it make the system any less secure? Since it's Debian, you don't need to stick it

Re: Security on an old machine

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 01:48:14PM -0500, Steve Meyer wrote: I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will this work? And if it does work will it make the system any less secure? I did this with a 486 that

RE: Security on an old machine

yes it should work Ive done this a few times due to various issues like a broken bios not allowing boot off a floppy or cdrom. It should not effect your security any worse than doing it straight off, the debian hardening howto should be followed to make it secure afterwards. regards Steven

Re: Security on an old machine

Steve Meyer wrote: I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will this work? And if it does work will it make the system any less secure? _

Re: log_analysis configuration

Hi Mathias, Thanks that's helpful if I'm workign on ONE machine. The problem is I can't get this working for our loghost which gets all the files. All I get is this: Other hosts syslogging to us: 290374 host1.example.edu 283974 host2.example.edu 289307 host3.example.edu And so on.. no matter

Re: Security on an old machine

You could also pull out the cdrom from a machine and plug it in temporarily...some 486's don't like cdroms though. On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 18:48, Steve Meyer wrote: I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will

Re: Security on an old machine

As already mentioned, base install from floppy would be an option as would NFS install from another system, and then just follow the hardening procedures to disable / remove the NFS packages. Either of these would be easier than moving around a hard drive in two different machines. David ---

Unidentified subject!

You wrote: Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 20:13:15 +0200 From: Noel Koethe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: apache and postgresql in woody still have a security problem? Hello, is it correct that apache and postgresql are still waiting for a DSA fix? see: postgresql #155419 and

Re: Security on an old machine

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 10:37:01AM +1300, Jones, Steven wrote: Having done this (floppy install) its a pain to find enough floppies and time consuming. removing hd and shoving it in another machine is way quicker, a netboot install is the other option. I have a 486DX100 with 8 Mb of RAM,

port 16001 and 111

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Good morning (from Finland). I can't remember if I've already asked this here, but this concerns me quite a bit, so I'll ask anyway. So, 'iplogger' shows me, that there has been connection attempts to port 16001 from inside my system (127.0.0.1) from

Re: port 16001 and 111

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what would try to connect to my system's port 16001 and 111 from within my own system? Should I be concerned? Should I expect the worst? Any insight on this issue would calm me down... Oh, and I forgot to

A message from the future...???? (was: Re: synchronized pings)

On 25.07.2018 0:00 Uhr thou speakest, P.Ook these words: ^ ?? You don't mean it serious, do you? Or have I've been sleeping really so long?! :-))) Like Michelle said: please add a correct date-header in your mails. It is really hard to even sort the emails with this date

Re: port 16001 and 111

On 0, Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hash: SHA1 Good morning (from Finland). I can't remember if I've already asked this here, but this concerns me quite a bit, so I'll ask anyway. So, 'iplogger' shows me, that there has been connection attempts to port 16001 from inside my system

Re: port 16001 and 111

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 0, Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what would try to connect to my system's port 16001 and 111 Good afternoon (from Australia). It's a beautiful, sunny 26 degrees here... Hih, it's snowing here.

Re: port 16001 and 111

15 Oct 2002, Jussi Ekholm wrote: Still, the connection attempt from localhost to port 111 puzzles me... Of the top of my head: Do you have any nfs services running on the machine? I seem to remember sunrpc beeing used by the nfs-server ... -- /Martin Grape Network and System Admin Trema

Re: a nessus developpers joke?

what a all full_of_crap email .. can't believe this.. statement: this is a buggy version (which seems to be true). nothing else. So, i back him up stating that this looked to be buggy version and that you'd expect to have a non buggy version (even if old), in a stable software. This is

Named daemon and port 32770? (and port 32985 on restart)

Consider this: $ sudo lsof -ni |grep named named 3267 root4u IPv4 512 UDP *:32770 named 3267 root 20u IPv4 508 UDP 127.0.0.1:domain named 3267 root 21u IPv4 509 TCP 127.0.0.1:domain (LISTEN) named 3267 root 22u IPv4

Re: port 16001 and 111

El mar, 15 de oct de 2002, a las 09:47 +0200, Martin decía que: 15 Oct 2002, Jussi Ekholm wrote: Of the top of my head: Do you have any nfs services running on the machine? I seem to remember sunrpc beeing used by the nfs-server ... -- Fin del mensaje original -- NIS too. --

GUADAGNARE DAVVERO, LEGGI E CAPIRAI!!!!

FAI ATTENZIONE PERCHE' CON QUESTO SISTEMA GUADAGNI DAVVERO ! (se il messaggio vi e' arrivato piu volte scusate ma, …leggetelo…..) Vorresti Davvero Guadagnare con Internet? Bene, la prima cosa da fare è salvare su disco questa pagina per averla a portata di mano anche se il tuo PC

Re: Named daemon and port 32770? (and port 32985 on restart)

Hi! Any ideas on why there is a single UDP port open? My configuration is pretty simple, no controls configured for the name server and a 'listen-on port 53' statement in the config file As I can remember, bind is controlled (start, stop, etc) via an extra daemon. For this it would need

Re: Named daemon and port 32770? (and port 32985 on restart)

On di, 2002-10-15 at 11:50, Christian Schuerer-Waldheim wrote: Any ideas on why there is a single UDP port open? My configuration is pretty simple, no controls configured for the name server and a 'listen-on port 53' statement in the config file As I can remember, bind is controlled

Re: port 16001 and 111

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Jussi Ekholm wrote: So, what would try to connect to my system's port 16001 and 111 from within my own system? Should I be concerned? Should I expect the worst? port 16001 means that you are running gnome, and is perfectly normal. Port 111 is the portmapper, which means

Re: port 16001 and 111

Hi there (from Germany), Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, what would try to connect to my system's port 16001 and 111 from within my own system? Should I be concerned? Should I expect the worst? Any insight on this issue would calm me down... Port 111 is used by portmap. If you

Re: Named daemon and port 32770? (and port 32985 on restart)

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is the first open port reasonable? I wonder why named is listening on UDP port 32770 which, after a brief google search, comes up as a port usually used by Solaris' rpcbind (which used to be vulnerable). IIRC, this port (could be any

Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

Hi everybody! Now, I have finally configured all the security features that I wanted, so last night, I launched a full Nessus attack against my server, hammering on it with the possibly harmful plugins too. It survived that, but it also reports two vulnerabilities on the port 25. I've got

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:33, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: Hi everybody! Now, I have finally configured all the security features that I wanted, so last night, I launched a full Nessus attack against my server, hammering on it with the possibly harmful plugins too. It survived that, but it

Re: Named daemon and port 32770? (and port 32985 on restart)

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:50:10AM +0200, Christian Schuerer-Waldheim wrote: Hi! Any ideas on why there is a single UDP port open? My configuration is pretty simple, no controls configured for the name server and a 'listen-on port 53' statement in the config file As I can

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 01:33:38PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: Hi everybody! Now, I have finally configured all the security features that I wanted, (...) Well, I don't know if I should be alarmed, I guess the whole reason for running nessus is to be alarmed, so I am... :-) And it

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:56, Yven Leist wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:33, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: And I haven't been able to downgrade (hints are welcome! :-) ), but I do not have any testing or unstable Just put the following in lines in /etc/apt/preferences Package: * Pin:

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Try to reproduce this behavior. You can launch the attacks manually using 'nasl name-of-the-script' and trace the mail server to see if it really breaks. If it does: report upstream, if it doesn't then it's a bug

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:56, Yven Leist wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:33, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: Hi everybody! Now, I have finally configured all the security features that I wanted, so last night, I launched a full Nessus attack against my server, hammering on it with the

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 14:17, you wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:56, Yven Leist wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:33, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: And I haven't been able to downgrade (hints are welcome! :-) ), but I do not have any testing or unstable Just put the following

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

jOn Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 02:11:51PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Try to reproduce this behavior. You can launch the attacks manually using 'nasl name-of-the-script' and trace the mail server to see if it really

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

On Tuesday 15 October 2002 14:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: jOn Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 02:11:51PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 13:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: Try to reproduce this behavior. You can launch the attacks manually

GUADAGNARE DAVVERO ,LEGGI E CAPIRAI !!!!

FAI ATTENZIONE PERCHE' CON QUESTO SISTEMA GUADAGNI DAVVERO ! (se il messaggio vi e' arrivato piu volte scusate ma, …leggetelo…..) Vorresti Davvero Guadagnare con Internet? Bene, la prima cosa da fare è salvare su disco questa pagina per averla a portata di mano anche se il tuo PC

Re: Vulnerabilities found by Nessus

Quoting Yven Leist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): PS: I hope you are aware of the fact that testing is security-wise really the worst distribution to run, much worse than unstable! This is what I've always understood to be the case: Package quarantining means you don't get new software immediately

Security on an old machine

I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will this work? And if it does work will it make the system any less secure? _ MSN Photos is the easiest

Re: port 16001 and 111

Specifically, port 16001 is ESD (ESound) IIRC.. On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 10:55, Giacomo Mulas wrote: On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Jussi Ekholm wrote: So, what would try to connect to my system's port 16001 and 111 from within my own system? Should I be concerned? Should I expect the worst? port

Re: Security on an old machine

Steve Meyer grabbed a keyboard and typed... I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will this work? And if it does work will it make the system any less secure? Since it's Debian, you don't need to stick it in

Re: Security on an old machine

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 01:48:14PM -0500, Steve Meyer wrote: I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will this work? And if it does work will it make the system any less secure? I did this with a 486 that

RE: Security on an old machine

yes it should work Ive done this a few times due to various issues like a broken bios not allowing boot off a floppy or cdrom. It should not effect your security any worse than doing it straight off, the debian hardening howto should be followed to make it secure afterwards. regards Steven

Re: Security on an old machine

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 at 01:48:14PM -0500, Steve Meyer wrote: I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will this work? You may need to use different modules for the different hardware...but yes. It will work.

Re: Security on an old machine

Steve Meyer wrote: I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will this work? And if it does work will it make the system any less secure? _ MSN

RE: Security on an old machine

Having done this (floppy install) its a pain to find enough floppies and time consuming. removing hd and shoving it in another machine is way quicker, a netboot install is the other option. regards Thing Since it's Debian, you don't need to stick it in a separate machine. Just get enough

Re: log_analysis configuration

Hi Mathias, Thanks that's helpful if I'm workign on ONE machine. The problem is I can't get this working for our loghost which gets all the files. All I get is this: Other hosts syslogging to us: 290374 host1.example.edu 283974 host2.example.edu 289307 host3.example.edu And so on.. no matter

Re: Security on an old machine

You could also pull out the cdrom from a machine and plug it in temporarily...some 486's don't like cdroms though. On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 18:48, Steve Meyer wrote: I have an old 486 without a cdrom in it. If I pull the hard drive and stick it in another machine to perform the install will

Re: Security on an old machine

As already mentioned, base install from floppy would be an option as would NFS install from another system, and then just follow the hardening procedures to disable / remove the NFS packages. Either of these would be easier than moving around a hard drive in two different machines. David ---

Unidentified subject!

You wrote: Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 20:13:15 +0200 From: Noel Koethe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-security@lists.debian.org Subject: apache and postgresql in woody still have a security problem? Hello, is it correct that apache and postgresql are still waiting for a DSA fix? see: postgresql