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.




Network Security Pen-Test
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: Strange ports

Subject: Re: Re: Strange ports
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 01:56:29 -0400 (EDT)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Tim Shea wrote:


Per the original note - this was a scan of an external firewall.

There is no reason for udp/53 to be open unless this is a stateless
firewall (doubtful per the scan).  Internal clients would be coming
through the internal interface of the firewall and udp/53 would need to be
opened on that interface not the external interface.

But to be quite frank - I am shocked how many people are weighing in on
what "needs to be opened" without knowing one single requirement.  He
asked an opinion on a couple of ports.  What is opened or not depends upon
that companies architecture and how they have things deployed.  He needs
to work with those folks to determine what is valid or not.


Wasn;t here only concerned about a single port? the 3k range port?

I was under the impression he said it was his home firewall, scanned from work, perhaps I misread. If I did not, sure looks alot like a windows based firewalled system, from the tcp side. Others sugggested outright port 53 should be blocked or was unnessecary, and in most cases access to port 53 to some extent is pretty muych required for a smooth comfy cruise of the net. Gets cludgy in the head otherwise. 53 can be restrictive and still show open, either upd or tcp, and might well be very nessecary, likle extremely nessecary without a HUGE brain, or lasrge /etc/hosts file...

Thing is though, again if I was right, the FW owner should know his settings quite well one would think, and so know all the port reported as open on it? Or have an idea of what was allowed as well to pass through?

Here, I was more concerned about the other windows based ports that appeared to be open then 53 <tcp or udp>. I'm not one to allow windows based services to pass inside out nor outside in <not even to the DMZ in most cases>, keep em local, or pass through VPN only in select cases. But, that's me and I know what I allow input and forward via the FW.

With the limited info provided, perhaps all responding made some assumptions? <shrug> Kinda like a blind pen test!

My blanket merely covered the first one tossed out! <gryn>


Thanks,

Ron DuFresne
- -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
admin & senior security consultant: sysinfo.com
http://sysinfo.com
Key fingerprint = 9401 4B13 B918 164C 647A E838 B2DF AFCC 94B0 6629


...We waste time looking for the perfect lover
instead of creating the perfect love.

                -Tom Robbins <Still Life With Woodpecker>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGfLYPst+vzJSwZikRAvOIAKCVy5IEyJvj++h1lMZYW5bo0sK/OQCcClmW
ypO2vOrWc9Y9O2r8HOAYZLQ=
=gBZP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Cenzic

Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic
See HOW Now with our 20/20 program!

http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>