Re: use ipchains to block all ports > 60,000
From: Tim Haynes (usenet-20030827_at_stirfried.vegetable.org.uk)
Date: 08/27/03
- Next message: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Poor people's OS?"
- Previous message: Tim Haynes: "Re: use ipchains to block all ports > 60,000"
- In reply to: Neil Sandow: "Re: use ipchains to block all ports > 60,000"
- Next in thread: Tim Haynes: "Re: use ipchains to block all ports > 60,000"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:55:54 +0100
Neil Sandow <rxlist@rxlist.com> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Chris McDonald wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.security you write:
>>
>> >Hmmm very different.
>>
>> >`ls /proc/[0-9]* | wc -l' returns 377 (every time)
>>
>> >`ps auxww | wc -l' returns 28 (every time)
>>
>>
>> Try: ls -d /proc/[0-9]* | wc -l'
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks, now I'm getting 27's and 28's should they always match? -ns
Yes they should, to within 1 (depending on race-conditions whether the ls
and wc processes are around long enough to count themselves, but more often
than not they're equal).
This is a favourable sign, assuming that you don't have an LKM loaded
masking the contents of /proc.
~Tim
-- I never knew that the |piglet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk light of ages breaks the way before us |http://spodzone.org.uk/
- Next message: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Poor people's OS?"
- Previous message: Tim Haynes: "Re: use ipchains to block all ports > 60,000"
- In reply to: Neil Sandow: "Re: use ipchains to block all ports > 60,000"
- Next in thread: Tim Haynes: "Re: use ipchains to block all ports > 60,000"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]