Nmap Security Scanner
*Intro
*Ref Guide
*Install Guide
*Download
*Changelog
*Book
*Docs
Security Lists
*Nmap Hackers
*Nmap Dev
*Bugtraq
*Full Disclosure
*Pen Test
*Basics
*More
Security Tools
*Pass crackers
*Sniffers
*Vuln Scanners
*Web scanners
*Wireless
*Exploitation
*Packet crafters
*More
Site News
Site Search:
Exploit World
Advertising
About/Contact
Credits
Sponsors:




firewall-wizards logo Firewall Wizards mailing list archives

tunnel vs open a hole
From: "Anton A. Chuvakin" <anton () chuvakin org>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:53:36 -0500 (EST)

All,

Sorry for this somewhat generic query, but I'd really want to know the
general consensus on the issue from the esteemed list members. I have
seen that such debates often spark on the list, and I think summary (which
might arise as a result of my query) would be useful for everybody, so...

...if to run a new application you'd have to either:

1. open a new port
2. accept tunneling over already open port/protocol

which would you choose?

To clarify, imagine you have to have something that need to talk thru a
firewall from a less secure compartment to a more secure one. And the
options are: open TCP port XXXXX (to the required host only, of course),
or tunnel over currently open (or proxied) port 80?

Best,
-- 
  Anton A. Chuvakin, Ph.D., GCI*
     http://www.chuvakin.org
   http://www.info-secure.org

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]