From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 18 20:54:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B4816A4E2 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:54:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from claim@rinux.net) Received: from rinux.net (rinux.net [81.169.157.144]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A90B43D45 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:54:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from claim@rinux.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D4335309A; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:54:55 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using F-Prot/ClamAV at rinux.net Received: from rinux.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rinux.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zefaDWfXHEvX; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:54:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.0.0.3] (i5387891F.versanet.de [83.135.137.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89019353073; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:54:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44BD4A9D.3090704@rinux.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:54:53 +0200 From: Clemens Renner User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Andrews References: <44BD0846.6060405@rinux.net> <44BD2CEF.4050504@bit0.com> In-Reply-To: <44BD2CEF.4050504@bit0.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port scan from Apache? X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:54:59 -0000 Hi Mike, thank you for your sympathy and your thorough comments. :) I had that specific feeling when I read the mail for the first time. I'll try reducing the keepalive time to get rid of further complaints. The question is: Why do the "port scans" still come in on their machine? Should I advise them to restart their "we-take-care-don't-you-worry" hardware? Regards Clemens