Re: Strange connection

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 16:15, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Scot L. Harris wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 14:25, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >  
> >
> [what should I do?]
> 
> BTW, should probably have mentioned my setup. I have one (1)
> computer running FC2 with a fixed IP address, connected to a
> router (D-LINK) set up to accept DHCP connected to a DSL
> modem (SPEEDSTREAM 5100) to an ADSL.

Good standard setup.

> That is a wonderful site.
> 
> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055
>                                                                                 
> 
>     0 Ports Open
>     1 Ports Closed
>  1055 Ports Stealth
> ---------------------
>  1056 Ports Tested
>                                                                                 
> 
> NO PORTS were found to be OPEN.
>                                                                                 
> 
> The port found to be CLOSED was: 113
>                                                                                 

> Apparently, 113 is used for some old e-mail query/response. Since
> that port is closed, I'm probably ok on that score.
> 

Port 113 is suppose to be used for ident services.  RFC 1413 provides
the details.  This should not be a problem, however your router should
stealth this port as well.  Have seen this before.  Depends on the
router implementation.  Not sure why they don't stealth that port as
well as all the others.

The only thing this does is let someone know that there is a machine at
your IP address.  They can then waste additional time trying to see if
there is any other ports open at that address.  If port 113 did not
respond at all then no one would know there was a computer at your IP
address.


> How do I check that port? I guess I could just stealth it on my router, 
> if I poked
> around some. Actually, since I'm behind my router, I'm not even really 
> looking at
> my machine. I'm looking at the firewall in my router.
> 

Correct, this is a port that is closed on your firewall, not your
computer.  To run a full test against your systems you would really need
another system on your LAN running nmap or nessus to run a full port
scan.  


> I used the default. The output from iptables is rather long, so I won't 
> post it here,
> but how do I check exactly what is open? The output is a little confusing.
> 

service iptables status

should list the current rule set that is running.  If you have the
default and have not opened any ports then it should be relatively
short.  One grip I had was in past versions of FC ntp would cut holes in
the firewall when it started.  Not sure this is still the case or not. 
I suspect other applications cut their own holes in the firewall also. 
IMHO this is a bad thing.  The firewall should have one place to open up
ports and that should be under the admins control.  Not some program
that happens to get installed and started at boot time.

> >Run chkrootkit and rkhunter, setup tripwire and review the reports
> >daily.  Monitor your log files and check netstat periodically for
> >anything strange.
> >  
> >
> Hmm, I seem not to have chkrootkit, rkhunter, nor tripwire installed.
> 

Believe you should find these in extras or in the base install.  I know
tripwire is in extras.  


> I don't know how to "lock down" iptables, but if no ports are exposed, 
> how can
> anything get in? Except by doing something like overflowing my browser
> buffer on a request I make (or email buffer, etc.)? I've got Java and 
> Javascript
> disabled. OTOH, I have heard of "evil" .png problems. I do accept images.
> 

If you have the default iptables rules then things should be blocked
from getting in.  Additional steps can be taken to have iptables limit
what can go out of your system.  Only those applications that you use
that need network access should be allowed out of the system.  Very few
people actually take this step.  But doing this would likely prevent you
from inadvertently downloading some script, png, or executable and
running it on your system.  Such a piece of code would then establish a
connection from inside your network to an IRC channel or some other
server where the hacker waits for his payload to call home.  He then has
a shell on to your system through which additional programs can be
downloaded and run possibly allowing escalation of privileges on your
system.

If your iptables blocks outgoing ports it becomes much more difficult
for such code to call home and initiate the next step in compromising
your system.
 

> My browser reports that localhost refused the connection.
> The find (ghastly idea to search the whole system) did not
> find anything, after about 20 minutes.

:)

But it proved that you did not have that file on your system.  :)

>From what you have described you are fairly well protected.  Just think
of security in layers, router/firewall, iptables, selinux, strong
passwords, disable services, etc.


-- 
Scot L. Harris
webid@xxxxxxxxxx

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one.
		-- John Fisher 


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux