Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:22:34 +0100 From: Chris Howells <howells@kde.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nmap'ing myself Message-ID: <200410072322.42534.howells@kde.org> In-Reply-To: <4165AD88.6030109@etherealconsulting.com> References: <416595F3.1030601@etherealconsulting.com> <4165A1FF.5080906@mac.com> <4165AD88.6030109@etherealconsulting.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thursday 07 October 2004 21:56, Norm Vilmer wrote: > Sorry about the ambiguity, i was referring to loosening my firewall rules > and other settings to allow nmap to work properly. If it "should" work, No. Why would you want to deliberately make it easy to make a port scan work? If you're a script kiddie, and randomly port scanning boxes, and one comes up with loads of wide open ports, and a few comes up with either closed or "stealth" ports, which one do you think you're going to try and attack? > then I have things either misconfigured or tightened down too much. Tighten down too much? What is that? -- Cheers, Chris Howells -- chris@chrishowells.co.uk, howells@kde.org Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP ID: 0x33795A2C KDE/Qt/C++/PHP Developer: http://www.kde.org [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBBZcGyF8Iu1zN5WiwRAmZ7AKCbKspTyJa9lyp4+HMYZB7TMIhFNQCdH7De Ta0UpAvK0ZFEFDfCoc8bhG0= =bULa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410072322.42534.howells>