From: Paul O'Neil (poneil at domain dbiassociates.net)
Date: Tue 23 Jul 2002 - 02:37:25 IST
Awesome, thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Reilly [mailto:jr at domain inconspicuous.org]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 7:18 AM
To: Paul O'Neil; ilug at domain linux.ie
Subject: Re: [ILUG] nmap results
As far as I can remember, the fact that the IPID is zero was introduced into
2.4 was to introduce correct behaviour, i.e. in the case where it is not
needed, it is set to zero. This was discussed on bugtraq a while
ago....lemme see...
http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/archive/bugtraq/2002/03/msg00372.html shows a
message from nmap's author on the subject. The only thing having IPID==0
achieves is that you have one more criteria on which to base your OS
fingerprint which isn't really much of a problem to be honest.
Stop worrying about it :)
Cheers,
jr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul O'Neil" <poneil at domain dbiassociates.net>
To: <ilug at domain linux.ie>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:50 PM
Subject: [ILUG] nmap results
> I had posted previously about the 2.4 kernel using iptables I ran nmap
> against. The IPID sequence generation was all zeros. Someone said this was
> indicative of earlier kernels but was fixed about 2.4.5 version. Since I'm
> running the latest what is causing this? I ran nmap against a 2.2 kernel
> using chains and it had better results than the stock 2.4 kernel.
>
> --
> Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug at domain linux.ie
> http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription
information.
> List maintainer: listmaster at domain linux.ie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:18:01 GMT