| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 28847 | 2003-01-02 21:40:00 | hack atempt | hacking_local_isp_servers (2895) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 110621 | 2003-04-14 01:19:00 | Does that sometimes when you put in plain URLs instead of using the url= formatting option (pressf1.pcworld.co.nz) | Biggles (121) | ||
| 110622 | 2003-04-14 02:15:00 | My understanding of Hackers & Crackers are: Hackers hack systems to gain unauthorised access. Crackers crack software ie. "No CD cracks", disabling CD keys and so forth. Thats my 5p worth A |
Archibald (180) | ||
| 110623 | 2003-04-14 03:55:00 | Why is Hacker/Cracker being used anyway? The definition is more of an accusations from people who don't understand what they are talking about, they just get the general idea from movies/books and then they just go with the majority of people who don't understand. The web articles stating the difference is not going to change the people who don't understand, they are not bothered by defining it, once you are called a Hacker you are basically guilty for all acts of hacking/cracking no matter what it is. The information provided by HLIS doesn't even suggest hacking/cracking was involved. It could suggest that his firewall could have been exploited although you are under a lot of 'scans' (does this mean port scans from single IPs?), do you set up your firewall just so you can have people try out your security? From an Internet Security perspective, some things you say doesn't add up, for instants your firewall being disabled and an IP to guide you, this would mean that the firewall logs all connections made (hopefully the log is set a limit if this is the case) while it was enabled but didn't do nothing about stopping the IP concerned (suggests incorrect firewall settings or exploit). As for Netstat starting up by itself, that would be giving away the IP's connected to your system and would have given the IP of the person who connected to you. Why would your firewall be the first place you look if Netstat started up? This can be a virus/worm attack and the IP shown is possibly an infected user. You could now be infected (uptodate antiviruses could still be vulnerable to new virii/worms) Which brings me back to accusations made when facts aren't straight. You can't say that it was this IP that made all this happen since there's nothing that backs it up other than a logged IP, is there a Packet Filter log that may suggest this IP executed the command prompt and ran Netstat? What firewall are you using including version? What antivirus are you using and it's updated reference date? |
Kame (312) | ||
| 110624 | 2003-04-14 09:54:00 | Two things: 1. Why did Komodo resurrect this thread? 2. What the hell does PC Anywhere have to do with a firewall that was disabled by someone who was not meant to? |
agent (30) | ||
| 110625 | 2003-04-14 21:21:00 | sc0ut... There is one way that i can see that Hack can tell that the "attack" came from CHCH. If the IP is part of certain blocks eg: "202.0.37.xxx" then one knows that it is part of christchurchs cable system, the same with ihugs local dishes pointing at the port hills thing, and quite possibly a number of dial up ISPs that work with a small set of IP's for each area. If the attack did come from a cable person, then blocking the IP would have merrit, as we have fixed IPs on cable. If it came from any other ISP, then it is futile as of course next time the cracker connects, then the cracker will allmost certainly have a different IP address What i want to know is why does Hack get so much interest in his/her/its system? It is very rare that i see anything more than token scans and opertunists coming my way. .Clueless |
Clueless (181) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||