Re: ghost tcp/udp LISTEN ports
- From: Ian Northeast <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:06:20 +0100
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 07:50:20 +0200, Robert M. Stockmann wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:50:47 +0200, Robert M. Stockmann wrote:
[wikiwork:root]:(~)# netstat -ltunp | grep " - " tcp 0 0
0.0.0.0:32769 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN -
tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:2049 0.0.0.0:*
LISTEN - udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:32768
0.0.0.0:* - udp 0 0
0.0.0.0:2049 0.0.0.0:* -
[wikiwork:root]:(~)# uname -r
2.6.12
[wikiwork:root]:(~)#
[jackson:root]:(~)# netstat -ltunp | grep " - " tcp 0 0
0.0.0.0:32768 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp
0 0 0.0.0.0:2049 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN -
udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:2049 0.0.0.0:*
- udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:32770 0.0.0.0:*
- udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:799 0.0.0.0:*
- [jackson:root]:(~)# uname -r
2.6.7
[jackson:root]:(~)#
which 2.6.xx kernel and solves the above bug?
[jackson:root]:(~)# netstat -ltunp | grep " - " tcp 0 0
0.0.0.0:2049 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp
0 0 0.0.0.0:60269 0.0.0.0:*
LISTEN - udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:2049 0.0.0.0:*
- udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:32770
0.0.0.0:* - [jackson:root]:(~)# uname -r
2.6.17
[jackson:root]:(~)#
well...is this a kernel bug? or a kernel config bug?
Many of those look like the sort of port numbers RPC services would use,
and 2049 is NFS. What does "rpcinfo -p" have to say on the affected
machines?
Regards, Ian
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ghost tcp/udp LISTEN ports
- From: Ian Northeast
- Re: ghost tcp/udp LISTEN ports
- References:
- ghost tcp/udp LISTEN ports
- From: Robert M. Stockmann
- Re: ghost tcp/udp LISTEN ports
- From: Robert M. Stockmann
- Re: ghost tcp/udp LISTEN ports
- From: Robert M. Stockmann
- ghost tcp/udp LISTEN ports
- Prev by Date: Squid QoS with priority to hosts taking little bandwidth
- Next by Date: VMware and VNC listen address
- Previous by thread: Re: ghost tcp/udp LISTEN ports
- Next by thread: Re: ghost tcp/udp LISTEN ports
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|