Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: Port scan |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:40:44 -0600 |
I ran into this problem the other day running a port scan (1-65535) on
a firewall (which dropped all packets - no open or closed ports)
Considering what happened, I suspect that your firewall does not "drop" packets but rather "rejects" them with ICMP messages.
I was aware of the limitations of ICMP messages, and have seen that before (mostly w/ nmap). In fact, that would have explained the situation for me. I can tell you that of the packets that I saw b/w the two hosts, I never saw any ICMP messages coming from the firewall. I did actually save a partial packet capture from my initial scan and I went back through it and filtered for this one host. Below is a representative sample. I have roughly 3800 SYN's to this host without one reply (ICMP or RST). I believe this was nessus_tcp_scanner src.x.x.x.38212 > dstx.x.x.x.3838: S 3208167900:3208167900(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 862864247 0,nop,wscale 2> src.x.x.x.49767 > dst.x.x.x.3891: S 3204817310:3204817310(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 862864247 0,nop,wscale 2> src.x.x.x.43774 > dst.x.x.x.3944: S 3205253786:3205253786(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 862864247 0,nop,wscale 2> src.x.x.x.39130 > dst.x.x.x.3997: S 3201729308:3201729308(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 862864247 0,nop,wscale 2> src.x.x.x.41805 > dst.x.x.x.4050: S 3198041800:3198041800(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 862864247 0,nop,wscale 2> src.x.x.x.35136 > dst.x.x.x.4103: S 3214628214:3214628214(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 862864247 0,nop,wscale 2> src.x.x.x.53891 > dst.x.x.x.4156: S 3200384851:3200384851(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 862864247 0,nop,wscale 2> src.x.x.x.54316 > dst.x.x.x.4209: S 3206064725:3206064725(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp 862864247 0,nop,wscale 2>
Any idea on the remote host OS and packet filter? Which was the value of max_check?
The information I have says it is 'supposed' to be a Netscreen firewall. Max_checks = 4 _______________________________________________ Nessus mailing list Nessus@list.nessus.org http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: SSH Login - Test, Richard Moore |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: SSH Login - Test, George A. Theall |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Port scan, Renaud Deraison |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Port scan, Michel Arboi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |