full-disclosure - TCP Port 42 port scans? What the heck over...

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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200412151802.iBFI23oN012134@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: TCP Port 42 port scans? What the heck over... 

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:27:31 EST, Matt Ostiguy said:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:58:18 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
> <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:

> > Do you have any actual data showing that either of those two numbers is low
,
> > or are you relying on "if people have clue, these will be low"?
> > 
> 
> Educated guess. Some reasons:

<lots of good and valid reasons elided>

The problem with all your reasons is that they have an underlying assumption
that people have enough clue to realize things like "they don't need it",
or "they don't need more than one or two".  I'm however convinced that for
each network admin out there who understands there's times to run WINS and
times not to use it, there's at least 5 or 10 who said "ooh shiny" and clicked
on the button to install it...

And remember that those sheep can't say "firewall".. ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20041215/6e60bc2b/attachment.bin