1 |
Wrong. |
2 |
|
3 |
1) If you don't receive "destination unreachable" packet, you know |
4 |
nothing about the target host yet. This is not perfect-network world. |
5 |
There can be other fw/router anywhere in the way, killing this type of |
6 |
icmp traffic. |
7 |
|
8 |
2) It slows scans a lot. You can of course do scannig in parallel, but |
9 |
don't be surprised, when you find yourself killed with no mercy by IDS, |
10 |
after matching SYN threshold. 1000+ syns/sec form IP adress to monitored |
11 |
system is sure ban. |
12 |
|
13 |
Daniel Privratsky |
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
Oliver Schad wrote: |
18 |
|
19 |
> Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2004 23:05 schrieb mir Mark Hurst: |
20 |
> |
21 |
>>It's much better to have a firewall than just have ports not open. Even |
22 |
>>though a port is not open it can reveal the presence of your machine by |
23 |
>>the manner in which the IP stack responds to a connection attempt. |
24 |
>>Using a firewall you can drop those packets, making all your closed |
25 |
>>ports invisible. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> |
28 |
> If you want to invisible, the next router to you have to send an ICMP |
29 |
> packet with "host unreachable". If you say nothing anybody with some |
30 |
> brain between his ears knows there is a very intelligent guy that want to |
31 |
> be invisible. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> mfg |
34 |
> Oli |
35 |
> |
36 |
> -- |
37 |
> gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
38 |
> |
39 |
> |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |