Hi,
I see that i have multiple TCP sessions established with facebook.
They come up even after i reboot my laptop and dont login to facebook!
D:\Documents and Settings\gkentnetstat -a | more
Active Connections
Proto Local Address Foreign AddressState
TCPgkent:3974
did you start your browser before looking at your connection list?
However, you're on a window's box, so it wouldn't surprise me if they helpfully
started ie for you
If you didn't start the browser you use to go to facebook (and its not ie), its
fairly interesting.
On Sep 29, 2011, at
Use 'netstat -ao' to see which process(es) they are associated with.
Then use a sniffer to see what actual traffic they carry.
Jason
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Glen Kent glen.k...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I see that i have multiple TCP sessions established with facebook.
They come up even
( Being this is a Windows box)
Want to scare yourself silly?
. Power off the PC;
. Plug it a switch;
. Mirror the PC port into a Unix box running Wireshark;
. Boot the PC
Enjoy all the info leakages from all the apps you installed over
the years.
-
Alain Hebert
At least on a win 7 box, netstat -b gives the process that initiated the
connection.
Likely opened due to a link or something from some other web page.
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Muldoon [mailto:doon.b...@inoc.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:25 AM
To: Glen Kent
Cc:
Install Ghostery on your browsers and you'll see even more connections pages
want to make behind the scenes to tracking sites etc. It's not just javascript.
Greg
On Sep 29, 2011, at 8:57 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:43:49 +0530, Glen Kent said:
Any idea why these
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:43:49PM +0530, Glen Kent wrote:
:Hi,
:
:I see that i have multiple TCP sessions established with facebook.
:They come up even after i reboot my laptop and dont login to facebook!
:
:D:\Documents and Settings\gkentnetstat -a | more
:
:Active Connections
:
: Proto Local
Well what's making the connection? It looks like unencrypted http, if your
social security number and last known addresses are streaming by you should
be able to see them. It's a bit of a jump to say that FB (not that I'm
particularly fond of them) is spying on you from a single netstat command.
I am tearing my hair out with an issue, and I hope someone can point something
out to me that I am missing.
I am setting up 2-port LACP sets on a Cisco 2960G-24TS-L, which then need to be
802.1q trunk ports.
I have set it up as follows:
interface Port-channel1
switchport mode trunk
!
This is my first post to Nanog. I apologize if it is off-topic but I
have been driving myself crazy trying to figure this out.
Is anyone familiar with configuring LACP between Riverstone RS8000
(Running ROS 9.4.0.4) and a Cisco ASX9000.
I am attempting to bring in 2 Gigabit Fiber links from
My limited understanding and experience with port-channels is that the
member port configurations need to match the port channel
configuration, at least with respect to 'switchport mode trunk',
'switchport trunk encapsulation' and 'switchport trunk allowed vlan'.
This is between a 6500 and a
Hey all.
A little off topic, but wanted to share... I purchased a home storage Synology
DS1511+. After configuring it on the home net, I did some captures to look at
the protocols, and noticed that the DS1511+ is making outgoing connections to
59.124.41.242 (www) and 59.124.41.245 (port 81 89)
Thanks for all the suggestions.
I added the switchport mode trunk to the interfaces, and it did start working
properly after a reload of the switch.
Before the reboot, it would not work.
-Randy
- Original Message -
I am tearing my hair out with an issue, and I hope someone can
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:11:48PM -0700, Jones, Barry wrote:
A little off topic, but wanted to share... I purchased a home storage
Synology DS1511+. After configuring it on the home net, I did some
captures to look at the protocols, and noticed that the DS1511+ is making
outgoing connections
And this is why the prudent home admin runs a firewall device he or she can
trust, and has a default deny rule in place even for outgoing connections.
- Matt
The prudent home admin has a default deny rule for outgoing HTTP to port 80? I
doubt it.
- Original Message -
From: Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us
And this is why the prudent home admin runs a firewall device he or she can
trust, and has a default deny rule in place even for outgoing connections.
The prudent home admin has a default deny rule for outgoing
Yep!
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Palmer [mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:31 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Synology Disk DS211J
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:11:48PM -0700, Jones, Barry wrote:
A little off topic, but wanted to share... I
Or, open those specific ports as needed, then close. PITA though (pain in the
@ss)
-Original Message-
From: Jones, Barry [mailto:bejo...@semprautilities.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 4:14 PM
To: 'Matthew Palmer'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Synology Disk DS211J
Yep!
From: Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us
Subject: RE: Synology Disk DS211J
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:58:23 +
And this is why the prudent home admin runs a firewall device he or she
can trust, and has a default deny rule in place even for outgoing
connections.
- Matt
On 9/29/11 17:46 , Robert Bonomi wrote:
From: Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us
Subject: RE: Synology Disk DS211J
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:58:23 +
And this is why the prudent home admin runs a firewall device he or she
can trust, and has a default deny rule in place even for
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:10:10PM -0700, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 9/29/11 17:46 , Robert Bonomi wrote:
From: Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us
Subject: RE: Synology Disk DS211J
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:58:23 +
And this is why the prudent home admin runs a firewall device he
Just thought I'd share some operational info.
PFC3B will by default punt IPv6 packets with fragmentation header to RP
and route them there, with the obvious performance penalty this incurs.
Workaround is to change this behaviour, meaning ACLs won't work for
packets with fragmentation header
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
Just thought I'd share some operational info.
PFC3B will by default punt IPv6 packets with fragmentation header to RP and
route them there, with the obvious performance penalty this incurs.
when will vendors learn
23 matches
Mail list logo
