Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
port scan legal
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

port scan legal

x4Aiix4Aii Member
edited February 23 in Requests

many dedicate server needed for port scan to authorized ips for automated pentest

Comments

  • Don't disrespect your family.

    #!/Bashblog.net | Free Wordpress Hosting | If you can't idle, what's the point?

  • Thank you, we have doubled your bandwidth.

    NexusBytes is epic B) | check them out! (aff.)

  • It all begins with "legal" port scans.

    DP | Domain Names for Sale: r*.ninja / vm*.net / virt*.com / node*.org / *gigabit.net / *vpn.net


  • @x4Aii said:
    many dedicate server needed for port scan to authorized ips for automated pentest

    Congrats on your first post

    Thanked by 1tomazu

    "Linux will run happily with only 4 MB of RAM, including all of the bells and whistles such as the X Window System, Emacs, and so on." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 32)

  • @yoursunny provides dedicated servers with 10kbps traffic located in Antarctica and everything is legal in Antarctica

  • AlwaysSkintAlwaysSkint Member
    edited February 23

    Do ANY providers actually prevent port scans? I've certainly not come across one - most/all don't give a crap about port scanning neighbours, even when reported, never mind outbound scans.

    Long live LowEndInfo.com

  • @AlwaysSkint said:
    Do ANY providers actually prevent port scans? I've certainly not come across one - most/all don't give a crap about port scanning neighbours, even when reported, never mind outbound scans.

    How do you suppose provider should reliably monitor such behaviour? They only can block certain ports, but active monitoring of unmaged server is not viable.

    So, when port scan happens, abuse report is received and provider reacts or not.

    Digitalocean has some massive ces pool of port scanners.

    #!/Bashblog.net | Free Wordpress Hosting | If you can't idle, what's the point?

  • @LTniger said: Digitalocean has some massive ces pool of port scanners.

    oh and dont forget about the brute forcers

    NexusBytes is epic B) | check them out! (aff.)

  • AlwaysSkintAlwaysSkint Member
    edited February 23

    @LTniger The cess pool of port scanners extends much wider than that, Hetzner, Contabo, OVH, ColonCrossing, PonyTel, Clouvider, you name it!

    Active monitoring is not a manual process; it should be trivial to detect numerous (short interval) outbound port scans from a specific IP and null route, until the f'ker explains themselves. At it's simplest, look how many of your network neighbours are needlessly sending broadcast packets.
    It's not a question of blocking specific ports, it's the range of ports within a small timespan. The readily and freely available CSF easily tracks inbound packets from a single address. You can't tell me that something similar isn't available at switch/router level for packets that traverse networks.

    Run a "dmesg" a couple of times, for just one minute and see just how many inbound blocks come from the same source. Goes off to block censys-scanner.com ..

    The capabilities are there, it's purely a lack of willingness to tackle the issue - much like illegal (in the UK) telephone scam calls.

    Long live LowEndInfo.com

  • Hello,

    We do offer port scans but you can only scan up to 65.536 IPs per day.
    If thats okay for you, please reach out via private message.

    Thanks.



  • JioJio Member

    They do autonull if they detect outgoing scans, AFAIK

  • @AlwaysSkint said:
    Do ANY providers actually prevent port scans? I've certainly not come across one

    They can certainly detect one on-going if they look for it. I suspect some will use active port scanning as a proxy indicator of malicious activity, but will only actually look if such other activity is detected or reported to them.

    I'm not sure how you would go about detecting them at the DC level without getting a bunch of false positives to manage.

  • lentrolentro Member, Provider

    @LTniger said: unmaged server is not viable

    Managed switches for unmanaged servers.

    At least for VMs, you can monitor traffic on each port and mitigate accordingly (e.g. rate limiting to IPs outside normally accessed ones until further investigation).

    Thanked by 1AlwaysSkint

    FluidStack: Cloud GPUs finally affordable or Rent us your GPU servers | VC-backed | 2,000+ Machines (aff link)
    ISODME: Web hosting | Managed VPS services | U.S. based support | High Uptime | isodme.com

  • coldcold Member

    got your back Jack, bitches be crazy!

  • AlwaysSkintAlwaysSkint Member
    edited February 23

    @Jio said:

    They do autonull if they detect outgoing scans, AFAIK

    Well, as an indicator, I did have a blanket ban on all Hetzner (published) IPs but unfortunately some services use them for updates (Let's Encrypt, hetrixtools or something like that.)

    grep HETZNER /etc/csf/csf.blocklists
    HETZNER|86400|0|https://asn.ipinfo.app/api/text/list/AS24940

    Long live LowEndInfo.com

  • Linode or DO. Some companies use their network to do unauthorized port scanning (they say it’s for security but who knows). Those scanners have been there for quite some years so I guess it’s fine as long as no abuse mails are received.

  • jarjar Provider
    edited February 24

    My position has always been that port scans for white hat reasons are fine and acceptable, and people getting pissed off because they don't know how to tune CSF to not email them about every little thing that doesn't matter is their own problem (and these are ALWAYS the people mad about it).

    Researchers outing people for public facing MongoDB was a great example of a problem that was publicized based on port scanning before everyone vulnerable had been taken advantage of. I love efforts like that and the stats they provide. When I was at DO we were able to save thousands of customers from a problem we didn't know they had, because someone port scanned.

    If you don't want people to know the port is open, don't leave it open. If you don't know what's open, you're not in a strong place to dictate how others define security. If you know you're secure, stand there with your dick out and let everyone admire it.

  • jarjar Provider
    edited February 24

    @AlwaysSkint said:
    You can't tell me that something similar isn't available at switch/router level for packets that traverse networks.

    It's the overhead. Most people work their switches and routers to the bone. Doubling up on the hardware to do the job just isn't worth it financially for most. The demand is somewhere around one customer out of hundreds of thousands, and they're typically worth a max of $15/m revenue.

  • JioJio Member

    @jar said: If you don't want people to know the port is open, don't leave it open. If you don't know what's open, you're not in a strong place to dictate how others define security. If you know you're secure, stand there with your dick out and let everyone admire it.

    I'm more upset that the strechoid unidentified brute-forcer is still operating on DO, with no working opt out page, from all over DO space so I can't do anything other than block all of DO, and they're hitting my small vm's with 100k pps from multiple countries. I know the port is open, that doesn't mean you make 10GB worth of access.log and auth.log for no fucking reason >:[

    Thanked by 1AlwaysSkint
  • jarjar Provider
    edited February 24

    @Jio said:

    @jar said: If you don't want people to know the port is open, don't leave it open. If you don't know what's open, you're not in a strong place to dictate how others define security. If you know you're secure, stand there with your dick out and let everyone admire it.

    I'm more upset that the strechoid unidentified brute-forcer is still operating on DO, with no working opt out page, from all over DO space so I can't do anything other than block all of DO, and they're hitting my small vm's with 100k pps from multiple countries. I know the port is open, that doesn't mean you make 10GB worth of access.log and auth.log for no fucking reason >:[

    VPN provider, thousands of accounts under different identities and seeming to be from different locations, white hat organization with their blessing. Likely one of those.

    It's easy to think you'd put a stop to it right away in their shoes, but having been there... the reality of what malicious people do and how far they'll push you is more than most people sign up for.

  • SplitIceSplitIce Member, Provider

    In my eyes there is a big difference between automated port scanning and automated pen testing...

    X4B - DDoS Protection: Affordable Anycast DDoS mitigation with PoPs in the Europe, Asia, North and South America.
    Latest Offer: Brazil Launch 2020 Offer
  • OP did say "to authorized IPs"... Maybe he is running a security evaluation service.

    If he was really sketchy wouldn't be just say nothing and buy a cheap vps?

  • LTnigerLTniger Member
    edited February 24

    @randomq said:
    OP did say "to authorized IPs"... Maybe he is running a security evaluation service.

    If he was really sketchy wouldn't be just say nothing and buy a cheap vps?

    He is sketchy enough to ask such services on LET.

    #!/Bashblog.net | Free Wordpress Hosting | If you can't idle, what's the point?

  • stefemanstefeman Member
    edited February 24

    There are exactly 4 common reasons for portscanning.

    1. Pentesting individual IP
    2. Security Research and publishing of info (i.e. netscout, caida, Shadowserver)
    3. DDoS Amplification purposes. (i.e. scanning all 32414 ports from 1.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255 for vulnerable plex servers and then turn the results into an IP list which can be used with DDoS amplification script to amplify DDoS traffic originating from IP-spoofed servers against some target. There are exactly this many active vectors: https://github.com/Phenomite/AMP-Research
    4. Scanning specific IoT related port from 1.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255 into an IP list which you then load into a bruteforce script or exploit toolkit which then hooks the said device into a botnet.

    The fact that OP asks for automated internet-wide scanning, we can safely assume that he either wants to do 3. or 4.

    Thanked by 1AlwaysSkint
  • @stefeman said: There are exactly 4 common reasons for portscanning.

    All but (1) needs to be blocked/culled, IMHO.

    @Jio said: 10GB worth of access.log and auth.log

    This, though logrotate at a 1000th of the size.

    @jar said: It's the overhead. Most people work their switches and routers to the bone. Doubling up on the hardware to do the job just isn't worth it financially for most.

    How many 'rogue' packets does it take to saturate the switch/router? (rhetorical) If the port scanning b'stards were stopped then the switches/routers would have far less traffic in the 1st place. Tackle at source.
    Just like when storage was limited, there was a time where network overhead was reduced to a minimum (eg. high cost low bandwidth leased lines). Now nobody cares and NICs/servers just have to deal with the overheads of processing unwarranted traffic. :-\

    Long live LowEndInfo.com

  • Most port scans I've detected come from the following nodes:
    1. compromised, malware-infected systems, which are the asymptomatic carriers of malware;
    2. security researchers or cybersecurity vendors;
    3. TOR exit nodes;
    4. VPN servers.

    Connections from all but (2) are malicious in nature. Not all connection attempts from (2) are innocent. Some cybersecurity vendors allowed their customers to initiate a scan against a third party's VPS without checking IP ownership first.

    To reduce port scans, we have to reduce malware-infected systems, which means detecting and reporting them.

    2800+ zombies detected from port scans in half an hour.

  • Really? auditing your self?
    You don't need a port scanner to check your own ports tho.

    Will record my self doing 30 pushups for NAT vps, HIRE ME NOW ;)

  • @jar said:
    My position has always been that port scans for white hat reasons are fine and acceptable, and people getting pissed off because they don't know how to tune CSF to not email them about every little thing that doesn't matter is their own problem (and these are ALWAYS the people mad about it).

    Researchers outing people for public facing MongoDB was a great example of a problem that was publicized based on port scanning before everyone vulnerable had been taken advantage of. I love efforts like that and the stats they provide. When I was at DO we were able to save thousands of customers from a problem we didn't know they had, because someone port scanned.

    If you don't want people to know the port is open, don't leave it open. If you don't know what's open, you're not in a strong place to dictate how others define security. If you know you're secure, stand there with your dick out and let everyone admire it.

    The CCC agrees: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://koeln.ccc.de/ablage/portscan-policy.xml
    Me too.
    But I can also understand hosters who see it differently. Like cops, they deal with condensed shit every day. I bet that impacts someones opinions.

    Thanked by 1jar

    Don't forget to like, subscribe, and comment below.
    "they just simply can't trace me down on internet because I'm using Linux." Mr_indescribable

Sign In or Register to comment.