22 replies to this topic

[hayton2k3]

i try scanning and all i get is dead,how is it dead then its my IP?

anyone know why this would be?

[n3xg3n]

perhaps you have a firewall blocking all your ports and have nothing listening on your computer.

Try using something that isn't on your LAN to get an attackers prospective.
http://nmap-online.com/

[hayton2k3]

perhaps you have a firewall blocking all your ports and have nothing listening on your computer.

Try using something that isn't on your LAN to get an attackers prospective.
http://nmap-online.com/

just tried that and it said host seems down,

does that mean i am fairly safe from attacks?

[hdcase]

It means you are safe from the perspective of not showing up as an exposed box with open ports on the net. You may still be vulnerable to a myriad of other attacks or exploits.

[Ohm]

Scanning your external IP address from a non-routable network with NAT often does not work. "Your" IP address will probably be a 192.168.0.0/24 address, but "your" IP address when viewed from the outside will be different.

Read about NAT.

Scanning yourself from the same computer isn't very useful anyway. Which ports are "open" depends on not only programs bound to the port and listening for connections, but also software firewalls and any network hardware between you and whoever is scanning you. If you wish to scan yourself, have someone else run an nmap scan on your external IP address. If you're using NAT, it'll probably come up with nothing at all if you have no ports forwarded.

To simply see which ports have programs listening on them, you can use the netstat command.

So you need to clarify your question. Is your question "How do I see which ports are reachable from the Internet" or "How do I see which ports have programs listening on them?"

[seven]

You can do netstat -a to show all ports open or closed.

[hayton2k3]

You can do netstat -a to show all ports open or closed.

thanks just done it

first i got it wrong because i just wrote netstat

got it right 2nd time with netstat -a

[wirefire]

if your using windows take a look at fport/tcpview. It will display the same as netstat but map sockets to processes which is pretty good.

[hayton2k3]

if your using windows take a look at fport/tcpview. It will display the same as netstat but map sockets to processes which is pretty good.

hi i used netstat, how do i find fport/tcpview?

do i just search for it?

[Lord Wud]

i believe the classic answer to this question is https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

[hayton2k3]

i have bookmarked it for later

[wirefire]

if your using windows take a look at fport/tcpview. It will display the same as netstat but map sockets to processes which is pretty good.

hi i used netstat, how do i find fport/tcpview?

do i just search for it?

yeah they are both freeware just google them.

fport is from foundstone and tcpview is from microsoft formelly sysinternals

[hayton2k3]

if your using windows take a look at fport/tcpview. It will display the same as netstat but map sockets to processes which is pretty good.

hi i used netstat, how do i find fport/tcpview?

do i just search for it?

yeah they are both freeware just google them.

fport is from foundstone and tcpview is from microsoft formelly sysinternals

great info,i just want to scan my network so i can learn things

[wirefire]

i believe the classic answer to this question is https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

The problem with shields up is it only scans the first 1024 ports by default. Considering you have 65535 ports it does not give you the big picture which could lead you to a false sense of security. Even if you chose to use one of there custom scans it would take you forever as you cant specify a big port range.


You could however use it with your findings from netstat to determine how good your firewall policies are.

[hayton2k3]

i believe the classic answer to this question is https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

The problem with shields up is it only scans the first 1024 ports by default. Considering you have 65535 ports it does not give you the big picture which could lead you to a false sense of security. Even if you chose to use one of there custom scans it would take you forever as you cant specify a big port range.


You could however use it with your findings from netstat to determine how good your firewall policies are.

i know what your saying but is it possible to scan a few at a time then start from where my last port was and then keep doing that?if you know what i mean

[hayton2k3]

i believe the classic answer to this question is https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

The problem with shields up is it only scans the first 1024 ports by default. Considering you have 65535 ports it does not give you the big picture which could lead you to a false sense of security. Even if you chose to use one of there custom scans it would take you forever as you cant specify a big port range.


You could however use it with your findings from netstat to determine how good your firewall policies are.

os is it best downloading the things you said and use them?

[wirefire]

i believe the classic answer to this question is https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

The problem with shields up is it only scans the first 1024 ports by default. Considering you have 65535 ports it does not give you the big picture which could lead you to a false sense of security. Even if you chose to use one of there custom scans it would take you forever as you cant specify a big port range.


You could however use it with your findings from netstat to determine how good your firewall policies are.

i know what your saying but is it possible to scan a few at a time then start from where my last port was and then keep doing that?if you know what i mean

You could do that but at a maximum it will allow you to do 1024 ports at a time. I actually think its less than that on the custom scan, however if you were to do that for all 65535 ports it would take you.

65535 / 1024 = 63.99

64 manual scans? i would not waste my time!

[hayton2k3]

[/quote]

You could do that but at a maximum it will allow you to do 1024 ports at a time. I actually think its less than that on the custom scan, however if you were to do that for all 65535 ports it would take you.

65535 / 1024 = 63.99

64 manual scans? i would not waste my time!
[/quote]
i know your right seems like a waste of time

[inaequitas]

You could do that but at a maximum it will allow you to do 1024 ports at a time. I actually think its less than that on the custom scan, however if you were to do that for all 65535 ports it would take you.

65535 / 1024 = 63.99

64 manual scans? i would not waste my time!

Remember: when in computing, count from 0. One would expect that the number of ports is a power of 2 [2^16 in this case] so there are 65536 ports.

2^16 / 2^10 = 2^6 = 64 [it was the .99 that drew my attention in the first place]

I know, I know, I'm being pedantic...

[wirefire]

You could do that but at a maximum it will allow you to do 1024 ports at a time. I actually think its less than that on the custom scan, however if you were to do that for all 65535 ports it would take you.

65535 / 1024 = 63.99

64 manual scans? i would not waste my time!

Remember: when in computing, count from 0. One would expect that the number of ports is a power of 2 [2^16 in this case] so there are 65536 ports.

2^16 / 2^10 = 2^6 = 64 [it was the .99 that drew my attention in the first place]

I know, I know, I'm being pedantic...

Your right, school boy error my bad.