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).