Re: iptables / reject vs drop
From: Fritz Bayer (fritz-bayer_at_web.de)
Date: 10/28/04
- Previous message: Mike: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 27 Oct 2004 23:48:54 -0700
Mike <honey@michaelmoyse.co.uk> wrote in message news:<clm2fr$3mj$1@thorium.cix.co.uk>...
> Fritz Bayer wrote:
>
> > What could be the reason that I get those "filtered" messages? Of
> > course I want that lines containing the "filtered" message disappear.
> Why? If a port is closed it's closed, i.e not open
Well, I think my question has not been really understood. Probably I
have not been clear enough on what seems strange to me.
On my local pc the very similiar services run as on our dedicated
server in the internet. Some of those services are blocked on both
pc's using iptables DROP target.
Scanning the ports of my local pc from the dedicated host yields the
following:
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp open ssh
443/tcp open https
940/tcp open unknown
987/tcp open unknown
6667/tcp filtered irc
Scanning the port of our dedicated host from my local pc yields these
results:
22/tcp open ssh
25/tcp open smtp
80/tcp open http
110/tcp open pop3
143/tcp open imap
3306/tcp filtered mysql
4444/tcp filtered krb524
5432/tcp filtered postgres
6667/tcp filtered irc
8009/tcp filtered ajp13
8443/tcp open https-alt
10000/tcp filtered snet-sensor-mgmt
Now my question was: Why are the mysql, posgres and ajp13 ports
showing up as "filtered" on the dedicated host compared to not showing
up at all on the local pc on which they are also running??
I mean since the rules are the same I would expect to see them as
filtered too on my local pc where they don't show up and seem to be
completely hidde from "nmap"!?!
- Previous message: Mike: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: iptables / reject vs drop"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
