Home page logo
/

pen-test logo Penetration Testing mailing list archives

Re: Port 4662 exploitation
From: "James Bensley" <jwbensley () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:20:22 +0000

Wel you telnet to that port do you get a heading in return?

or when you say a shell do you actually get a prompt to start entering
commands, whats the prompt you get if so? Also if ti is a full shell
can you run any commands, what is the output when you run "whoami" ??

Use the netstat command to list any connections (irrelivent of their
state i.e. established or listening) and display the program
responsible for the connection so you can see where it is comming
from?

Send us your results ;)

2008/12/13 Jorge L. Vazquez <jlvazquez825 () gmail com>:
when you telnet into an unknown port you are not doing it to get a
shell, but to get a tcp header and know what services might be running
on that port..

-j0rg3
blog: www.pctechtips.org


Mohamad M wrote:
Hi again,

I agree it looks very weird; I simply started a Syn scan with nmap, and got
that tcp 4662 is open; when I telneted to 4662, I got shell, but then did
not know how to proceed, hence my email.

Thanks,

-----Original Message-----
From: ArcSighter Elite [mailto:arcsighter () gmail com]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:43 PM
To: Mohamad M
Cc: pen-test () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: Port 4662 exploitation

Mohamad M wrote:
Hello All,

I'm doing a vulnerability assessment for my company, and saw that port
4662
(edonkey) is open on 1 device facing the internet. I telneted to
4662, and
I
got connected; since I'm new to this domain, what are the steps
needed in
order to exploit this vulnerability?

Thanks,

./Lgpmsec


------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is sponsored by: Cenzic

Security Trends Report from Cenzic
Stay Ahead of the Hacker Curve!
Get the latest Q2 2008 Trends Report now

www.cenzic.com/landing/trends-report
------------------------------------------------------------------------



An open port is never a vulnerability, only if the running service that
binds to that port is actually vulnerable. What makes me ask, have you
actually done a service fingerprint to determine is e-donkey?, cause
that looks pretty weird to me.

Sincerely.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is sponsored by: Cenzic

Security Trends Report from Cenzic
Stay Ahead of the Hacker Curve!
Get the latest Q2 2008 Trends Report now

www.cenzic.com/landing/trends-report
------------------------------------------------------------------------





------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is sponsored by: Cenzic

Security Trends Report from Cenzic
Stay Ahead of the Hacker Curve!
Get the latest Q2 2008 Trends Report now

www.cenzic.com/landing/trends-report
------------------------------------------------------------------------





-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
  Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/U dpu s: a--> C++>$ U+> L++> B-> P+> E?> W+++>$ N K W++ O M++>$ V-
PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP t 5 X+ R- tv+ b+> DI D+++ G+ e(+++++) h--(++) r++ z++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is sponsored by: Cenzic

Security Trends Report from Cenzic
Stay Ahead of the Hacker Curve!
Get the latest Q2 2008 Trends Report now

www.cenzic.com/landing/trends-report
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  By Date           By Thread  

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