From owner-freebsd-security Mon Mar 5 17:22:46 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from silby.com (adam042-060.resnet.wisc.edu [146.151.42.60]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5076B37B719 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:22:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 10165 invoked by uid 1000); 6 Mar 2001 01:22:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Mar 2001 01:22:41 -0000 Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 19:22:41 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: "Giovanni P. Tirloni" Cc: Subject: Re: 31337 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Giovanni P. Tirloni wrote: > Hi folks, > > Just to add some extra info I'd like to say that I've seen nmap reporting > such open ports a lot of times while doing port scans on my machines and > friend's machines too. > > Mainly I was certifying myself of which ports I had left open after a > _fresh_ install so, IMO, this is something related to nmap itself > reporting such ports wrongly and not with any kind of h4x0r 4ct1v1ty. > Perhaps, in some way, FreeBSD sends some kind of packet with options > that make nmap report it that way. I really don't know. BIND likes to use a port in area above 1024 for outgoing queries, so you're going to see nmap hit that pretty consistantly. Other than that, I don't think you should be seeing any false positives. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message