1 |
Am Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2004 13:06 schrieb mir gonzalo: |
2 |
> 1/8/04 8:50 AM, Oliver Schad escribio: |
3 |
> > Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2004 23:05 schrieb mir Mark Hurst: |
4 |
> >> It's much better to have a firewall than just have ports not open. |
5 |
> >> Even though a port is not open it can reveal the presence of your |
6 |
> >> machine by the manner in which the IP stack responds to a connection |
7 |
> >> attempt. Using a firewall you can drop those packets, making all |
8 |
> >> your closed ports invisible. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > If you want to invisible, the next router to you have to send an ICMP |
11 |
> > packet with "host unreachable". If you say nothing anybody with some |
12 |
> > brain between his ears knows there is a very intelligent guy that |
13 |
> > want to be invisible. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> AFAIK they appear as "filtered",that's the difference between a closed |
16 |
> and a filtered port. The first responds with a "negative", the second |
17 |
> doesn't respond. Am I wrong? |
18 |
|
19 |
That's right. But no answer means there is somebody who doesn't answer. |
20 |
Only if the last router before the target says "Hey, there is nobody", |
21 |
then there is nobody (or there is an really intelligent guy, that wants |
22 |
to hide his host). |
23 |
|
24 |
To hide a host is always very stupid, why should you do this? There is no |
25 |
advantage. If you "hide" your computer an attacker knows there is an |
26 |
stupid guy who doesn't know anything about network security. |
27 |
|
28 |
mfg |
29 |
Oli |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |