RE: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner?

From: Paul Tinsley (
Date: 08/01/03

  • Next message: Makoto Shiotsuki: "Re: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner?"
    To: "'Russell Fulton'" <>, "'Schmehl, Paul L'" <>
    Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:49:36 -0600

    Turn off DCOM if you can't patch or you could possibly put a personal
    firewall on the box to block traffic to that port if you can't turn it off.
    I personally have never trusted the personal firewalls, but I guess it's an

    As far as the .... and ? ? results, I am marking those as unknown in my
    reports and making sure someone touches those machines by hand. So far
    every unknown system that has been checked has been patched.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Russell Fulton []
    Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:26 PM
    To: Schmehl, Paul L

    On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 03:30, Schmehl, Paul L wrote:
    > I have both eEye's tool and ISS's tool. I decided to run the ISS
    > commandline scanner on our entire class B last night. That way I could
    > come in this morning and have a complete report of patch compliance. Or
    > so I thought. When I got in to my office this morning, the ISS tool had
    > been running for 15 hours and had reported on a total of 99 hosts.

    I ran it on our class B a couple of days ago and after about 5 hours it
    stopped scanning after finding 7500 hosts listening on port 135. The
    process did not terminate it just hung with no more output being written
    to stdout. The output file had a truncated line at the end suggesting
    that the buffer had not been fully written.

    The number of host is close to what I would expect so I'm going to try
    again today.

    Another feature of this scanner is that it scans in random order so if
    anything goes wrong you can't simply restart from where you left off :(
    I don't know why ISS decided to do this rather than a simple sequential

    As others have mentioned the scanner does two tests and returns one of 4
    results for each: [VULN], [ptch], [....] and [ ? ? ].

    THe meaning of the first two are obvious but the others are not
    specified and I would like to have more information of exactly what they
    mean. Anyone worked it out?

    We have found some systems that are proving very difficult to patch - we
    can't get them to the requisite SP levels because of lack of disk space
    or other issues. Does anyone know of safe workarounds for such systems?

    Russell Fulton, Network Security Officer, The University of Auckland,
    New Zealand.

  • Next message: Makoto Shiotsuki: "Re: Command Line RPC vulnerability scanner?"

    Relevant Pages

    • RE: [fw-wiz] False results to DMZ
      ... Actually no RSt is received. ... My scanner has to send the RST to close the ... The destination host does said a reset, but the firewall ignores ... >> scan and TCP window scans, AND it says every port is open (what the ...
    • Re: Shame on Microsoft
      ... They specifically mentioned using the firewall on XP till the ... the port till the patch was installed. ... >> don't use a firewall or couldn't install the patch. ...
    • Re: Am I being hacked?
      ... ICMP packets aren't generally attached to a given port number. ... >> your firewall is truly reporting ICMP packets going out from port 'X' ... hop between you and the scanner. ...
    • RE: [fw-wiz] False results to DMZ
      ... with firewalls or other security devices between scanner and target ... The firewall allows anything IP from this ... > scan and TCP window scans, AND it says every port is open (what the ... > getting an ACK back for eveyr port, ...
    • Re: Port Probing
      ... according to the port scanners, ... because the firewall I have doesn't have port 25 ... If I run GFI Network Scanner from a different subnet I even see ... > internal LAN and Internet. ...