Beldon Dominello on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:37:12 -0400 |
Happy to oblige! "Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) Host pcp01770803pcs.audubn01.nj.comcast.net (68.46.172.168) appears to be up ... good. Initiating Connect() Scan against pcp01770803pcs.audubn01.nj.comcast.net (68.46.172.168) The Connect() Scan took 292 seconds to scan 1150 ports. All 1150 scanned ports on pcp01770803pcs.audubn01.nj.comcast.net (68.46.172.168) are: filtered Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 292 seconds" HTH -Beldon On Monday 22 September 2003 18:37, Paul wrote: > Request for scan: > > My current IP address is > > 68.46.172.168 > > Will someone please do a port scan or security scan against my > firewall? I just threw together a firewall using the "Shoreline > Firewall" utility. Some simple config file changes and I now have 4 1/2 > printed pages of iptables rules. I'd like to know if the rules are at > least providing basic protection from the Internet. > > The internal LAN (one PC) is trusted and masqueraded. > > On the wireless side (one laptop) all I have is MAC and IP verification > to limit access. Otherwise, the wireless network is trusted and > masqueraded. I'm hoping to further limit access to VPN traffic. I'm > assuming 128-bit WEP is almost pointless. (?) > > http://www.shorewall.net/ > http://hostap.epitest.fi/ > http://www.freeswan.org/ > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org > Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce > General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug -- "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley _________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|