Re: Anyone else exoeriencing blasts o' port 6129 TCP?

["Gregory A. Gilliss" <ggilliss () netpublishing com>]

Yep, got some Happy New Years traffic, although I wouldn't call it "blasts":

Jan  1 03:44:04 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 66.141.180.72:1616
Jan  1 05:35:16 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 212.125.229.164:54031
Jan  1 08:47:24 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 130.232.56.173:3560
Jan  1 09:28:19 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 203.202.187.211:2580
Jan  1 16:53:54 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 80.136.224.152:3414
Jan  2 00:48:25 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 80.100.90.53:41020
Jan  2 20:32:14 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 213.254.170.80:4778
Jan  3 03:28:28 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 80.81.125.227:32833
Jan  3 08:28:23 TCP: port 6129 connection attempt from 24.85.32.185:3007

All blocked of course; looks like a 'bot. Bet the sources are spoofed, but
if anyone wants to track 'em, go ahead ;-)

G

On or about 2004.01.03 09:37:38 +0000, Jim Race (caferace () well com) said:

> I noticed some action the previous 48 hours, and on checking logs this 
> morning it seems that port 6129 (DameWare Remote Admin) was the common 
> factor. ISC seems to have it on the top of their trends list:
>
> http://isc.sans.org/top10.html
>
> hmmmm.

-- 
Gregory A. Gilliss, CISSP                              E-mail: greg () gilliss com
Computer Security                             WWW: http://www.gilliss.com/greg/
PGP Key fingerprint 2F 0B 70 AE 5F 8E 71 7A 2D 86 52 BA B7 83 D9 B4 14 0E 8C A3

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html