On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 02:33:59PM -0300, danilo lujambio wrote:
> When I scanned with nmap this server , it shuted down and rebooted.
Did it go through runlevel 6, or just simply crashed? If it was the
latter, then it's probably broken hardware (it didn't reboot when
scanning localhost, because l
It would be serious, if it were actually the case that the server,
properly configured, was rebooting due to a remote scan. However, Occam's
Razor would suggest that since one of the primary goals of server design
is reliability and a port scan (even one as thourough as a complete nmap
scan) is a
This is serious, whether or not the -O options was used is
not so relevant; it certainly should not cause the machine
to reboot.
> Where you using nmap's -O flag? If so try w/o it.
> --jordan
>
> On Thursday 10 April 2003 1:33 pm, danilo lujambio wrote:
> >
> > When
Where you using nmap's -O flag? If so try w/o it.
--jordan
On Thursday 10 April 2003 1:33 pm, danilo lujambio wrote:
> Hi ;
>
> I have experimented a strange situation in one of the servers
>
> It runs debian woody (kernel bf24)
>
> When I scanned with nmap this serv
Hi ;
I have experimented a strange situation in one of the servers
It runs debian woody (kernel bf24)
When I scanned with nmap this server , it shuted down and rebooted . I
have logged in it and scanned (localhost in this case) and nothing
happened, but when I scanned from another host it shu
I'm over in the US doing a systems job and since
in the UK our ADSL connections are straight ether,
I've not had to think much about security issues
of PPP over ether.
I'm firewalling on the ppp0 just as I would normally
on the eth1, but I'm also puzzling over whether
there are any known attacks o
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 08:56:06PM +0200, Nils Radtke wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> maybe "xinetd -d" gives a hint?
>
> kind regards,
>
> Nils Radtke
>
I figured this out. The key log messages was:
localhost xinetd[29274]: Deactivating service apt-proxy due to excessive
8 matches
Mail list logo
