Has anyone ever heard of a malicious exploit involving Port 0? If not, is it theoretically possible?
Sandboxie + LUA + SRP + DEP + SuRun
Windows Firewall + NAT Router + IPSec (on-demand)
Drive SnapShot (on-demand)
The only issues I've heard of awhile back was some DOS attacks on unix servers using Port 0. Other than that I thought port 0 wasn't used.
- Posts : 37
Join date : 2010-04-20
Stealthing ports doesn't make you any safer than closed ports. Ridiculous FUD spread by firewall developers.Dude111 wrote:ANY PORTS OPEN OR EVEN 'CLOSED',having them 'stealthed' is the safest!!
I know the argument "If you don't respond at ALL, the attacker will think you don't exist which is safer."
There are two kinds of attackers:
1) Port scanning on a particular port for a whole range of IPs, looking for one listening. Stealth = Closed
2) Dedicated hacker attacking your IP directly. Already knows you exist. Stealth = Closed
Nobody is there saying "Well, I scanned 188.8.131.52 to 184.108.40.206 on port 80 but no vulnerable ports were found, HOWEVER, 220.127.116.11 didn't respond at all, so I'll exclude it from future scans"
Look, I guess stealthing ports doesn't hurt in any way but it's NO safer than closed ports and even open ports (as long as you're not listening with a program/service that has a vulnerability).
FUD filled comments like yours "Dude111" are more than a bit over the top.
Admin note:Please try not to make personal comments in future, finger pointing etc is not acceptable on this forum.
Last edited by patrick on 9/7/2011, 17:45; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typo)
- Posts : 34
Join date : 2010-10-18
Location : Melbourne, Australia
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum