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

Re: port 6051: hacked?



to be totally sure, sniff and see which ICMP it returns if any ..

On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 02:46:22PM +0200, Nikolay Hristov wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ramin Motakef" <ramin@motakef.de>
> To: <debian-security@lists.debian.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 12:16 PM
> Subject: port 6051: hacked?
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> > Todays nmap run shows me:
> >
> > Interesting ports on  (xxxxxx):
> > (The 59984 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
> > Port       State       Service
> > 21/tcp     open        ftp
> > 22/tcp     open        ssh
> > 25/tcp     open        smtp
> > 53/tcp     open        domain
> > 80/tcp     open        http
> > 110/tcp    open        pop-3
> > 111/tcp    open        sunrpc
> > 143/tcp    open        imap2
> > 199/tcp    open        smux
> > 389/tcp    open        ldap
> > 443/tcp    open        https
> > 993/tcp    open        imaps
> > 995/tcp    open        pop3s
> > 3306/tcp   open        mysql
> > 5432/tcp   open        postgres
> > 6051/tcp   filtered    unknown    <--------------
> 
> 'filtered' means that yoyr ISP or your firewall filters this port .. this is
> not open port on your machine so there is nothing to worry about
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > fuser -v 6051/tcp gives no result.
> >
> > Questions:
> > Am i hacked?
> > Is there any other way i can tell which program is responsible for
> > this port?
> > What exactly is the meaning of "filtered"?
> >
> >
> > Info:
> > System is running unstable, last upgrade 07-02-2002. Kernel 2.4.5.
> > chkrootkit (latest debian) shows nothing strange .
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ramin
> >
> 
> Nikolay Hristov
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-- 

-> Jean-Francois Dive
--> jef@linuxbe.org

  There is no such thing as randomness.  Only order of infinite
  complexity.  - _The Holographic Universe_, Michael Talbot



Reply to: