Mailing List ArchiveSupport open source code!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: canna port security
- To: tlug@example.com
- Subject: Re: canna port security
- From: Joss Winn <joss@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:03:29 +0900
- Content-Disposition: inline
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- In-Reply-To: <200105220823.f4M8Nlh29223@example.com>; from tlug-digest-request@example.com on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:23:47PM +0900
- References: <200105220823.f4M8Nlh29223@example.com>
- Reply-To: tlug@example.com
- Resent-From: tlug@example.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <po38ND.A.4LH.7xiC7@example.com>
- Resent-Sender: tlug-request@example.com
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:23:47PM +0900, tlug-digest-request@example.com wrote: > Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 23:28:47 -0400 > To: tlug@example.com > From: John Seebach <jseebach@example.com> > Subject: Re: canna port security > > On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 10:02:23PM +0900, Joss Winn wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I noticed that one of the ports listed as open on my machine is the > > canna port. Is there any way to close this port to scannners like > > nmap and still have it function for me as a user on my home machine. > > I am not providing services to anyone but myself. > > > $ man cannaserver > $ man cshost > > The easy answer is that /etc/hosts.canna ought to contain something > like this: > > unix > localhost > > I don't have another machine handy at the moment from which to > portscan this one, and since I allow this machine to connect to its > own cannaserver, I can't tell you how the port (5680, I belive) looks > to the outside world. > > There was a security issue reported a while ago, involving a buffer > overflow that could allow remote users to get root by connecting to > the cannaserver. You might want to look into this if you're concerned > about this sort of thing. I'm using a debian package that claims to > have fixed this, but I haven't delved really closely into whether or > not this involved fixing the problem or simply changing the default > so that remote users weren't allowed to connect. Someone who knows > more than I will have to help you with that one. > > > -- > john seebach ~ "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were > jseebach@example.com ~ a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." > ~ -- Mark Twain Thanks, John. I'd already tried that and still the port is open. There was no /etc/hosts.cannna file so I created one. No joy though. I get this from cshost: Connected to unix access control enabled HOST NAME:localhost ALL USER HOST NAME:unix ALL USER but nmap still shows the port open on 5680 cheers Joss -- http://www.josswinn.org
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: canna port security
- From: B0Ti <9915104t@example.com>
- Re: canna port security
- From: Marc Christensen <marc@example.com>
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Re: Mini-nomikai Friday
- Next by Date: Re: Mini-nomikai Friday
- Prev by thread: Re: canna port security
- Next by thread: Re: canna port security
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links