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

Re: Speaking of broadcasts, is this a security threat?



Well - I was more thinking that whatever service is sending these
regularly scheduled broadcasts ought to be choked. I don't have any
reason for kerberos to be on and it sort of disturbs me that I can't find
this service in either my /etc/services file or even inetd.conf.

Micah


On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 09:15:33PM +0200, Ron Rademaker wrote:
> Well, you are already telling it to 'shut up' by denying it. If you don't
> want the denies to show up in your logs, you'll just have to put off the
> logging option in ipchains.
> 
> Ron Rademaker
> 
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Micah Anderson wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Every few minutes I see the following show up in my log:
> > 
> > Aug  8 00:03:17 riseup kernel: Packet log: input DENY eth0 PROTO=17
> > +10.0.0.1:1999 255.255.255.255:1999 L=94 S=0x00 I=638 F=0x4000 T=1 (#4)   
> > Aug  8 00:49:40 riseup kernel: Packet log: input DENY eth0 PROTO=17   
> > +10.0.0.1:1999 255.255.255.255:1999 L=94 S=0x00 I=639 F=0x4000 T=1 (#4)
> > Aug  8 00:03:17 riseup kernel: Packet log: input DENY eth0 PROTO=17
> > +10.0.0.1:1999 255.255.255.255:1999 L=94 S=0x00 I=638 F=0x4000 T=1 (#4)
> > Aug  8 00:49:40 riseup kernel: Packet log: input DENY eth0 PROTO=17
> > +10.0.0.1:1999 255.255.255.255:1999 L=94 S=0x00 I=639 F=0x4000 T=1 (#4)
> > 
> > Now if I interpret this correctly this means that my internal network
> > interface is broadcasting protocol 1999 (which is like a kerberos thing? I
> > dont know, I don't have kerberos installed, enabled or anything on my
> > system) - but it seems to be blasting it out and I am trying to deny
> > it. Is this actually something on my end that I need to tell to shutup, or
> > is someone doing this to me? Either one, how can I make it stop??
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > Micah
> > 
> > 
> > --  
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-request@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> > 
> 



Reply to: