lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
From: k.lichtenwalder at computer.org (Klaus Lichtenwalder)
Subject: Anyone else exoeriencing blasts o' port 6129
	TCP?

These are my results, since last sunday, 3:00 CUT:
the ip's originating the probe:

      2 12.18.102.139
      2 129.24.31.243
      2 193.175.236.28
      2 194.42.22.134
      3 195.110.84.82
      2 195.199.185.1
      2 199.0.194.131
      2 204.87.98.143
      1 206.135.39.149
      2 211.106.27.225
      2 212.100.101.200
      2 212.234.28.5
      4 213.32.96.239
      2 217.218.247.3
     11 217.232.181.21
      2 24.132.39.38
      1 24.136.103.158
      2 61.133.213.167
      2 65.210.193.5
      1 66.139.132.122


Am Sa, 2004-01-03 um 20.35 schrieb Gregory A. Gilliss:
> Yep, got some Happy New Years traffic, although I wouldn't call it "blasts":
> 
> Jan  1 03:44:04 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 66.141.180.72:1616
> Jan  1 05:35:16 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 212.125.229.164:54031
> Jan  1 08:47:24 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 130.232.56.173:3560
> Jan  1 09:28:19 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 203.202.187.211:2580
> Jan  1 16:53:54 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 80.136.224.152:3414
> Jan  2 00:48:25 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 80.100.90.53:41020
> Jan  2 20:32:14 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 213.254.170.80:4778
> Jan  3 03:28:28 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 80.81.125.227:32833
> Jan  3 08:28:23 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 24.85.32.185:3007
> 
> All blocked of course; looks like a 'bot. Bet the sources are spoofed, but
> if anyone wants to track 'em, go ahead ;-)
> 
> G
> 
> On or about 2004.01.03 09:37:38 +0000, Jim Race (caferace@...l.com) said:
> 
> > I noticed some action the previous 48 hours, and on checking logs this 
> > morning it seems that port 6129 (DameWare Remote Admin) was the common 
> > factor. ISC seems to have it on the top of their trends list:
> > 
> > http://isc.sans.org/top10.html
> > 
> > hmmmm.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 Klaus Lichtenwalder, Dipl. Inform.,       http://www.webforum.de/Klaus/
 Fax +49-(0)89-9103579                             Lichtenwalder@....org
 NIC: KL2100, KL76-RIPE                     K.Lichtenwalder@...puter.org
 PGP Key fingerprint =4194 C7B8 C74E C607 E440  F075 BCA0 6B94 1B33 3FB7
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040103/869192cd/attachment.bin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists