| Basic Port Scan Vulnerability Test |
|
Report ID: 1020155111 View
Created On: Apr 30, 2002 08:25 GMT |
| |
|
Host address(es):194.93.145.51 |
| |
| Report Contents |
 |
| |
Risk Classification Summary |
| |
Comparative Security Rating |
| |
Vulnerability Category Summary |
| |
Vulnerability Title Summary |
| |
Vulnerability Details |
| |
Open Ports and Services |
| |
Appendix A: Risk Definitions |
| |
| Risk Classification Summary |
 |
| Vulnerabilities are classified according
to the risk they present to the network/host on which they are
found. The following chart summarizes how the different issues
we found are spread across the different risk classes. For a detailed
explanation of how vulnerabilities are classified, see Appendix A: Risk Definitions |
|
 |
| |
| Comparative Security Rating |
 |
| The comparative security rating assesses
your host's security in comparison to the thousands of other audits
we have run in the past 12 months. By assigning a score to your
audit result, and then comparing it to other scores, you get a
percentage rating. For example, if your rating is 90%, then you
scored better than 90% of the audits we ran. Obviously, you want
your rating as close to 100% as possible.
Your rating is: |
|
 |
| Users should note that this rating is meant
as a guide only, and is relative to other audits run in the past 12
months. A rating of 100% does not guarantee you are secure, nor does
a lower rating mean you have a vulnerability that someone will take
advantage of. |
| |
| Vulnerability Category Summary |
 |
The vulnerability category summary shows how
the various issues that were reported are distributed across the
different test categories.
|
|
| Category |
High |
Med |
Low |
Other |
| CGI abuses |
|
|
|
|
| Denial of Service |
|
|
|
|
| Windows |
|
|
|
|
| General |
|
|
|
|
| Gain root remotely |
|
|
|
|
| Misc. |
|
|
|
|
| FTP |
|
|
|
|
| RPC |
|
|
|
|
| Remote file access |
|
|
|
|
| Backdoors |
|
|
|
|
| Gain a shell remotely |
|
|
|
|
| SMTP problems |
|
|
|
|
| Windows : User management |
|
|
|
|
| Useless services |
|
|
|
|
| Firewalls |
|
|
|
|
| SNMP |
|
|
|
|
| Finger abuses |
|
|
|
|
| Untested |
|
|
|
|
| Settings |
|
|
|
|
| Port scanners |
|
|
|
|
| NIS |
|
|
|
|
| Totals: |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | |
| |
|
|
| |
| Vulnerability Title Summary |
 |
| High Risk
Vulnerabilities |
| |
| Medium Risk
Vulnerabilities |
| |
| Low Risk Vulnerabilities |
| |
| Other Items to be
Considered |
| |
| |
| Details of High Risk
Vulnerabilities |
| ID |
Service/Description |
 |
| |
| Details of Medium Risk
Vulnerabilities |
| ID |
Service/Description |
 |
| |
| Details of Low Risk
Vulnerabilities |
| ID |
Service/Description |
 |
| |
| Details of Other Items to
be Considered |
| ID |
Service/Description |
 |
| |
| |
| Open Ports and Services on 194.93.145.51 |
| Port |
Protocol |
Probable Service |
 |
| 21 |
TCP |
ftp |
| |
You appear to be running an ftp server. You should
take care of the following potential problem areas:
Logins If you are allowing people to ftp to their
account, their userid and password is traveling clear text over the
internet. This means anyone sniffing network traffic has easy access
to userid/password.
Writable directories If you allow document uploads via
anonymous ftp, you might be used as an "exchange point" for illicit
materials.
Bounce-attack scans If you are running an older version
of ftp on a network, you may be susceptible to a type of port scan
known as a bounce attack, that completely bypasses any firewalls you
have in place. This attack makes use of some ftp servers' ability to
initiate outbound connections to any IP address. From the nmap
documentation:
FTP bounce attack : An interesting "feature" of the ftp
protocol (RFC 959) is support for "proxy" ftp connections. In
other words, I should be able to connect from evil.com to the
FTP server-PI (protocol interpreter) of target.com to establish
the control communication connection. Then I should be able
to request that the server-PI initiate an active server-DTP
(data transfer process) to send a file ANYWHERE on the internet!
Presumably to a User-DTP, although the RFC specifically states
that asking one server to send a file to another is OK. Now
this may have worked well in 1985 when the RFC was just written.
But nowadays, we can't have people hijacking ftp servers and
requesting that data be spit out to arbitrary points on the
internet. As *Hobbit* wrote back in 1995, this protocol flaw
"can be used to post virtually untraceable mail and news, hammer
on servers at various sites, fill up disks, try to hop firewalls,
and generally be annoying and hard to track down at the same
time." What we will exploit this for is to (surprise, surprise)
scan TCP ports from a "proxy" ftp server. Thus you could connect
to an ftp server behind a firewall, and then scan ports that
are more likely to be blocked (139 is a good one). If the ftp
server allows reading from and writing to a directory (such
as /incoming), you can send arbitrary data to ports that you
do find open.
For port scanning, our technique is to use the PORT command to
declare that our passive "User-DTP" is listening on the target box
at a certain port number. Then we try to LIST the current
directory, and the result is sent over the Server-DTP channel. If
our target host is listening on the specified port, the transfer
will be successful (generating a 150 and a 226 response).
Otherwise we will get "425 Can't build data connection: Connection
refused." Then we issue another PORT command to try the next port
on the target host. The advantages to this approach are obvious
(harder to trace, potential to bypass firewalls). The main
disadvantages are that it is slow, and that some FTP servers have
finally got a clue and disabled the proxy "feature".
|
| |
| 80 |
TCP |
http |
| |
It appears that you are running a web server. If you
have not done so, we recommend that you run the latest version of a
popular web server. Many "fringe market" web servers have known bugs
that are slow to be fixed because few people care about the
problems. These problems can often leave you open to someone
accessing/modifying files on your system that they shouldn't. By
running a popular web server, you lower the risk of this type of
problem, and when problems are found, it is likely that a patch will
be made available rapidly to fix the problem. Check our survey to see what the most
popular web servers are. |
| |
| 3389 |
TCP |
msrdp |
| |
No description available for this port at this time.
|
| |
 |
| Number of open ports found by port scan:3 |
| |
| |
| Appendix A: Risk Definitions |
 |
| Users should note that test classifications
are subjective, although we do our best to make appropriate
classifications. If you spot an inconsistency, please let us know so that we can make
the appropriate corrections. |
| |
| High Risk
Vulnerabilities |
|
We view this class as any test that can be used to
breach the integrity of the system, or take the system off line
(DoS). These types of vulnerabilities are typically very easy for
malicious users to take advantage of. |
| |
| Medium Risk
Vulnerabilities |
|
We view this class as any test that may be able to
access inappropriate data in the system, which may in turn be
combined with other information to provide a subsequent compromise.
Although more difficult to take advantage of, these problems should
still be rectified. |
| |
| Low Risk Vulnerabilities |
|
We view these vulnerabilities as problems typically
only if the information they provide or access granted can be used
in conjuntion with a one or more other vulnerabilities to compromise
your system or network. These vulnerabilities are usually not
problems in their own right, but could potentially lead to problems
in conjunction with other services. |
| |
| Other Items to be
Considered |
|
This class of problems is used both to display
informational items that are usually not problems but that you
should be aware of (e.g. the "traceroute" determined from our
systems to your site). |
| |