Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 5 Feb 2006 18:55:13 -0500
From:      David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.com>
To:        fbsd_user <fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com>
Cc:        "Daniel A." <ldrada@gmail.com>, questions@freebsd.org, "Michael A. Alestock" <michaela@maa-net.net>
Subject:   Re: IP Banning (Using IPFW)
Message-ID:  <20060205235513.GA20707@panix.com>
In-Reply-To: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGIELNHMAA.fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com>
References:  <5ceb5d550602051357r27f07864lb408168902a68e12@mail.gmail.com> <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGIELNHMAA.fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:38:11PM -0500, fbsd_user wrote:
> 
> You missed to whole meaning.
> Attackers only scan for the published service port numbers,
> that is what is meant by "portscan the box".
> Those high order port numbers are dynamically
> used during normal session conversation.
> So any response from those port numbers if an
> attacker scanned that high would be meaningless.
> Please check your facts before commenting.

Nonsense.  There may be some people that only scan well-known ports,
but it's much more common to scan every port on a machine.  If you're
running a server on a non-standard port, an attacker will find it.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060205235513.GA20707>