gabriel rosenkoetter on Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:23:44 -0500 |
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:12:47PM -0500, Chad Glynn wrote: > but wouldn't named version probes happen on the named port, port 53? Yeah, but I think Beldon's just curious about what's hitting his friend. Looks like the usual broadband scans (ftpd--proftpd and wuftpd exploits are pretty recent, especially considering how many people even on this list are still running the horribly insecure default RH 6.2; linuxconf, so forth, plus some windows-specific crap). If he's got a Linksys box noticing all this, he's a cut way above most broadband customers and probably has nothing to worry about. (Unless he's a long-time @home subscriber and it's just gotten worse... in that case, um, well, there goes the neighborhood.) > Big Brother Is Watching >> nslookup 24.0.0.203 > Server: ns1.netaxs.com > Address: 207.106.1.2 > > Name: authorized-scan1.security.home.net > Address: 24.0.0.203 I can't decide whether that's more scary or reassuring. I guess it's probably a good thing, but still... what's to keep a disgruntled @home employee from making off with the logs? ~ g r @ eclipsed.net ______________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|