Security Incidents mailing list archives
RE: TCP port 5000 syn increasing
From: Frank Knobbe <frank () knobbe us>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:45:50 -0500
On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 10:18, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Of course with the cut and paste worms that are coming out these days, who can say what it really might be?
That begs the question if it isn't becoming useless nowadays to count port scans. Perhaps we should focus instead on catching the worms and provide payload, or payload hashes. Otherwise, how would you pick up the new strain of SQL slammer amongst all the existing SQL port scans? Regards, Frank
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- TCP port 5000 syn increasing Rohny Jotton (May 17)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Andreas (May 17)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing ANDREW STREULE (May 17)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Paul Schmehl (May 17)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Noel Cuillandre (May 17)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Mike Barushok (May 18)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing ANDREW STREULE (May 17)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Andreas (May 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Terence Runge (May 17)
- RE: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Jose Nazario (May 18)
- RE: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Paul Schmehl (May 18)
- RE: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Frank Knobbe (May 18)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Valdis . Kletnieks (May 18)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Andreas (May 19)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Harlan Carvey (May 19)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Valdis . Kletnieks (May 19)
- Re: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Harlan Carvey (May 19)
- RE: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Jose Nazario (May 18)
- RE: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Nick FitzGerald (May 19)
- RE: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Nick FitzGerald (May 19)
- RE: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Paul Schmehl (May 19)
- RE: [Securityfocus-incidents] RE: TCP port 5000 syn increasing Remko Lodder (May 18)
