Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: How To Deal With a Persistent and Incessant Port Scanner?

jetkins writes: What would you do if your firewall was being persistently targeted by port scans from a specific group of machines from one particular company? I run a Sophos UTM9 software firewall appliance on my home network. Works great, and the free Home Use license provides a bunch of really nice features normally only found on commercial-grade gear. One of those is the ability to detect, block, and report port scans, and under normal circumstances I only get the occasional alert when some script kiddie comes a-knocking at my door.

But in recent months I have been getting flooded with alerts of scans from one particular company. I initially reported it to my own ISP's (RoadRunner's) abuse desk, on the assumption that if they're scanning me then they're probably scanning a bunch of my neighbors as well, and any responsible ISP would probably want to block this BS, but all I ever got back was an automated acknowledgment and zero action. So I used DNS lookup and WHOIS to find their phone number, and spoke with someone there; it appears that they're a small outfit, and I was assured that they had a good idea where it was coming from and that they would make it stop. Indeed, it did stop a few days later but then it was back again, unabated, after another week or so. So last week I called them again, and was once again assured of a resolution. No dice, the scans continue to pour in.

I've already blocked their subnet at my firewall, but the UTM apparently does attack detection before filtering, so that didn't stop the alerts. And although I *could* disable port scan alerts, it's an all-or-nothing thing and I'm not prepared to turn them off completely. This afternoon I forwarded the twenty-something alerts that I've received so far today, to their abuse@ address with an appeal for a Christmas Miracle, but frankly I'm not holding out much hope that it will have any effect. So, Slashdotters, what should I do if this continues into the new year? Start automatically bouncing every report to their abuse address? Sic Anonymous on them? Start calling them every time? I'm open to suggestions.

265 comments

  1. Simple. by Zedrick · · Score: 3, Informative

    Report it once, to their abuse address. If it continues (it did), block their IP-range. Problem solved (unless you have a lot of spare time and really WANT to waste time on this instead of reading a book or play computer games).

    1. Re:Simple. by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Report it once, to their abuse address. If it continues (it did), block their IP-range. Problem solved (unless you have a lot of spare time and really WANT to waste time on this instead of reading a book or play computer games).

      The problem is the IP range IS blocked. But the router does their port scan detection prior to the IP blacklist and will still notify him of the attack despite the packets being dropped.

    2. Re:Simple. by ajdlinux · · Score: 0

      Did you read the third paragraph?

    3. Re:Simple. by bogeskov · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read the entire question?

      * the UTM apparently does attack detection before filtering, so that didn't stop the alerts
      * disable port scan alerts, it's an all-or-nothing thing
      * not prepared to turn them off

      I fail to see how "Problem solved" applies here.

      --

    4. Re:Simple. by Zedrick · · Score: 3, Informative

      I missed that (but, 1st post...). Still, that's just a problem with a bad router. The packets should be blocked (dropped) right away, otherwise there's no point in blocking.

    5. Re:Simple. by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      obvious answer is obvious, report a feature request to sophos.
      or buy a different firewall.
      or do attack detection after it.
      or just don't bother with doing anything with it(proper).

      really this is a problem with his firewall device/software in it. I have no idea why this passed through to slashdot since he already tried contacting the offender and his isp.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Simple. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The OP has been more than patient with them.... Assuming they are full TCP connects (non-spoofable); After complaining 3 times about ongoing abuse... I would definitely consider some internet routing table inspection, Identify their upstream providers, and start contacting the upstreams', after continued persistent scans of one IP. Don't stop politely contacting them to ask for help, until you get permanent resolution.

      9 times out of 10.... upstream providers will not turn off their customer, probably 10 times out of 10 for simple port scans, which are considered trivial. The industry does NOT consider a simple port scan equivalent to a DoS or hacking attempt, and Most providers will simply disqualify complaints about portscans.

      It's partly the OP's folly in having a security device generating excessive noise, especially about blocked IP addresses. I understand the OP may be constrained by product selection; However, Null-routing the offending range SHOULD be an option, and if not..... get a proper packet-filtering firewall to put in front of your UTM, or set an access-list entry on the router in front of it.

      However, if contacted, the abusing providers' upstream provider will likely forward the abuse reports to their customer.

      After you've done your homework in thoroughly documenting and verifiably reporting, and they have failed to resolve, then a few more iterations, and a seriously-harmed party would be getting their lawyers involved anyways. Probably NOT for a simple portscan however, the offending entities' upstreams might be concerned about it from a risk management perspective and pressure their customer to shape up.

    7. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder if dropping before reporting is an option in the paid version? Either way an email to Sophos letting them know about their oversight might be worth a try... and then waiting forever until they implement it.

    8. Re: Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You report it to abuse at their ISP/upstream provider (not yours). Those are the people that can and should take action.

    9. Re:Simple. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      obvious answer is obvious, report a feature request to sophos.
      or buy a different firewall.

      Or make your own. It's not hard.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    10. Re:Simple. by rapiddescent · · Score: 3, Interesting

      maybe - but the question is *why* are they doing this. I would be tempted to open a port and see if they attempt to access - then depending on the OP's locality there could be a computer misuse claim.

    11. Re:Simple. by WarJolt · · Score: 5, Informative

      If it's a choice between all or nothing, then I'd pick nothing.

      Port scan alerts are a bad idea for three reasons.
      1. These attacks are very common and excess noise of the alerts may distract you from real threats.
      2, Port scans that get caught by these filters are usually benign. NMAP is the first tool that every little kid who thinks they are a hacker plays with before they learn some common sense.
      3. Any sophisticated attack that actually stands a chance of working won't be detected by these simple mechanisms.

      Hopefully, your firewall will detect the real threats using more sophisticated methods. If I were you I wouldn't count on it catching everything. Those alerts might be giving you a false sense of security. The only thing that alert is satisfying is the author's curiosity. It's not really protecting him.

    12. Re:Simple. by phishybongwaters · · Score: 2

      Turn of the notify and only check it when you are really really bored. First, this guy is running Sophos for a home network? WTF is the point to that other than tinfoil hat paranoia? Second and most importantly...... If you have something connected to this series of tubes some call the interwebs, you WILL GET SCANNED. That's how this shit works. Now in this case, it appears to be coming from a specific source he's already blocked. And....... then I call bullshit because every ISP puts a "no port scanning" clause into their terms, and if it's not blocked outright, they will knock your modem offline until they have a chat on the phone about all the port scanning you have been doing (speaking from experience here). But, even if this is the 1 ISP that openly allows port scanning and hacking with no repercussions..... It's the alerts that are bothering this guy, and he has 100% control over the alerts.

    13. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP needs to buy a firewall. This sounds like a terrible implementation. Buy something enterprise grade or opensource, either way problem solved. Software firewall is not a viable solution.

    14. Re:Simple. by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Odds are they have a really bad malware infestation and are clueless or have tried and failed to eradicate it. OP mentioned that they appear to be a small company.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    15. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just do a static route for that source subnet into a loopback address or a bit bucket like someone up top mentioned earlier?

    16. Re:Simple. by budgenator · · Score: 2

      He should scan them back, then forward his umused ports to a tarpit.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:Simple. by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      Port scans are not attacks though, they are a survey tool to get information about the device.
      It is a bit strange that the scans are persistent -- what can repeated port scans tell you?

      Anyways, another option is to set up a honeypot, expose some ports and see what the source does.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    18. Re:Simple. by borcharc · · Score: 1

      upstream providers don't care, they will just forward your email to their abuse contact and call it a day, if they do anything at all.

    19. Re:Simple. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      upstream providers don't care, they will just forward your email to their abuse contact and call it a day, if they do anything at all.

      That is fine. By forwarding, they will have proven they received the message, AND the network in question will be more apt to respond in many cases.

      At a later stage of the game when you get your lawyers involved their upstream providers will likely respond, for example, it's not worth their while to fight a lawsuit you can file against the upstream provider about their customer's activities.

    20. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One, block it at your router, not at your computer. Two, that's some crappy paranoid nagware if it can't be configured to not scream about blocked addresses.

    21. Re:Simple. by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      upstream providers don't care, they will just forward your email to their abuse contact and call it a day, if they do anything at all.

      That is fine. By forwarding, they will have proven they received the message, AND the network in question will be more apt to respond in many cases.

      At a later stage of the game when you get your lawyers involved their upstream providers will likely respond, for example, it's not worth their while to fight a lawsuit you can file against the upstream provider about their customer's activities.

      Years ago I took a new position at a company when I received a phone call from an ISP stating that my servers were port scanning someone who complained. They were going to turn off our network access. Surprised, I looked into it. I discovered they were right. Someone had allowed malware to get installed on several of our systems. After some cleanup work we were good but it left an impression on me. Besides asking a new employer more in depth questions about their security (or lack of it), that ISP's would be a good place to file a complaint when you are port scanned over and over again.

      Might be time to contact THEIR ISP and yours. Ask them to block or disconnect them. If anything, once THEY get a phone call about the complaint, it will wake them up a bit :D

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    22. Re:Simple. by Jawnn · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Did you actually read the entire question?

      Did you actually read the multiple replies that told you that it's pointless to have alerts on simple port scans? Shit that hits the ramparts and bounces off is, by definition, noise. Noise should not be raised to the level of an alert because it is not actionable. Turn it off.

    23. Re:Simple. by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      A possible movie and game idea, "After being ignored by the folks who think its your problem, deal with it. Introduce them to port scanning with an AR15." Move over cat videos on YouTube.

    24. Re: Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are the people that can and should take action.

      Can, yes. Should.... that's not so clear-cut. Port scans are NOT, despite what your firewall alerts might say, an actual 'intrusion attempt'. It is almost completely unheard of for an ISP to terminate a business connection because they are port scanning someone, especially when the target is not even their customer.

      As has already been mentioned, the first step is to send an email to the abuse contact for the source IP. The next step is to blackhole that IP space at the edge of your network.
      In this case, the poster needs to open a support ticket with his firewall vendor to see why the appliance is acting like it is. Routing should be performed prior to any firewall rule analysis, so the constant alerts are a problem they need to fix. Another solution is to install a simple router upstream of the firewall, and blackhole the traffic before it even hits the firewall.

    25. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call bullshit because every ISP puts a "no port scanning" clause into their terms,

      For residential connections, that's usually true (under the 'abuse of service' clause), but for businesses there usually is not such a thing. Port Scanning is only considered 'bad' when it is Unsolicited, but as long as the rate of traffic is low it will rarely, if ever, result in any kind of action against a business class customer. Since the IP in question has WHOIS information specific to the person using that IP, it's safe to assume this is a business grade connection, not a residential one.

      It's the alerts that are bothering this guy, and he has 100% control over the alerts.

      I agree completely. This is not how a firewall should behave at all- if he has a firewall rule or ACL in place to discard all traffic from an IP, that should take effect PRIOR to any advanced scanning logic. If he can't get the vendor to fix or help configure the firewall, he could also use a router upstream from the appliance to simply blackhole that IP space.

    26. Re: Simple. by shitzu · · Score: 2

      Then stop plugging some sophos bullshit here and install something free and open that lets you block things. For example pfsense or m0n0wall. I am sure there are others, but these are the ones that i use.

      If you have a decent firewall you dont actually care about portscans. You have a couple of ports open and you need to make sure that services running on these are safe. Alerting you with portscans will not improve your security one bit. The only useful thing you could do is automatically drop packets after n different port accesses in a given time - but alerts? Why bother?

      If in real life someone touches your doorhandle, are you gonna sue? If he tries to pick or break the lock, sure. But portscan is an equivalent of rattling your doorhandle.

    27. Re:Simple. by TWX · · Score: 2

      Heh. Sounds like it's time to dig out the old Centris 660AV and mkLinux, statically compile everything, include no libraries, and redirect all unsolicited traffic to it.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    28. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I missed that (but, 1st post...). Still, that's just a problem with a bad router.

      No, it's not. This is actually typical kernel behavior with most TCP/IP stacks. That is, no matter what, the kernel receives every packet that is sent its way and does at least a minimal amount of processing on it (at the very least, to read the IP header.) If it doesn't do that, then it can't make any further decisions on what to do with it (i.e. forward, drop, etc.)

    29. Re:Simple. by TWX · · Score: 1

      Building on this, if you still want to see it, look at a firewall solution that can put less interesting information into a periodic report, or where you can poll for it.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    30. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would definitely consider some internet routing table inspection, Identify their upstream providers, and start contacting the upstreams', after continued persistent scans of one IP.

      As someone who has worked in the NOC for a couple very large ISP's, I can assure you that IF you ever got a response to such an inquiry, it would consist of "You can contact our legal department if you have some kind of problem with one of our subscribers."
      Since the source IP has valid WHOIS information it's safe to assume this is a business customer, not residential, so the ISP most likely will take no action. You'd be lucky if they even forwarded the complaint to their customer.

      a seriously-harmed party would be getting their lawyers involved anyways. Probably NOT for a simple portscan however,

      A simple portscan is in most cases not illegal, and I'm very cautious about advocating any kind of law which would make it that way. As long as the scans are insignificant in terms of bandwidth and packets per second, there's really no harm being done here either.

      The issue in the article is basically that the firewall is being stupid about how it does its scanning and alerting. Even if he gets this particular IP to stop scanning him, it's not going to help with all the random scans out of China and Russia which he's not likely to ever get to stop. He needs to either fix the firewall, get a different firewall, or use a router upstream from the firewall to blackhole the traffic.

    31. Re: Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do the same, on my mikrotik border router (why I have 4 routers for a home network is a different question). I get any packed delivered to the WAN side I am not expecting or explicitly asked for, that IP gets a 24 hour blacklist. If they don't send any other unsolicited packets, good after 24 hours they are off the list, if they sent, the TTL is reset to 24. This is accomplished by 3 firewall rules - tagging, adding to the blacklist, dropping the blacklist. Not, its subject to DoS by spoofing but the risk is minimal in my case.

    32. Re: Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not on most commercial grade routers. On cisco systems, ACLs are processed in special hardware and never reach the host CPU if the packets are dropped. As much as I like the bang for the buck of a *nix system acting as a firewall, there are downsides va dedicated hardware.

    33. Re: Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My company just reviewed our configuration of our 3rd party PCI vulnerability scanning service and realized there are a couple of IPs in there we no longer own. They have since been removed, but this may be an unintentional scan caused by someone having that IP before you and not updating their security scanners.

    34. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you think rule look ups are done? Routing? Fuck, it's like you were born yesterday.

      Content-addressable memory (CAM) is a special type of computer memory used in certain very-high-speed searching applications. It is also known as associative memory, associative storage, or associative array, although the last term is more often used for a programming data structure. It compares input search data (tag) against a table of stored data, and returns the address of matching data (or in the case of associative memory, the matching data).

      Unless it is a Linux box with no hardware to support the network parts at all it does that. I bet you could even use CAM to identify, very quickly, when you were born.

    35. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How us suggesting a different solution "shitting all over the op" exact?

    36. Re:Simple. by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Sprint will contact their business customers about things like this. They threatened to disconnect a T3 on a company I worked at because of a malware infection that was doing just this. When Sprint is willing to let go of $4500/mo worth of revenue over this, most ISPs should be willing to look into it. The apathy is what allows this behavior.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    37. Re: Simple. by eric_t_duckman · · Score: 0

      But portscan is an equivalent of rattling your doorhandle.

      Try walking around my neighborhood at night rattling door handles, and you'll be lucky if all it gets you is a stop-and-frisk from the police.

    38. Re: Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not on most commercial grade routers. On cisco systems, ACLs are processed in special hardware and never reach the host CPU if the packets are dropped. As much as I like the bang for the buck of a *nix system acting as a firewall, there are downsides va dedicated hardware.

      Even on Cisco routers things like Netflow export (which would also be done in specialized hardware) happen before ACL processing. Any way you look at it the packet has to be received from the wire before you can drop it

    39. Re: Simple. by shitzu · · Score: 1

      First of all, it might come as a surprise for you, but not all people live in the US of A. Where i live, "search and frisk" is not something that i know to have been done to anybody that knows anybody i know.

      Second of all - you probably get my point despite the maybe-not-so-universal analogy i gave. Maximum you should do, is null-route the portscanning ips automatically. Me - i just ignore them and have done so since the early nineties. If your network security relies on people in the internet NOT portscanning you, you are screwed anyway.

    40. Re:Simple. by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      And there are many non-malicious portscans going on all the time, surveying for prevalence of particular services, researching use of weak remote admin passwords, seeking black holes and missing subnets, and so on.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    41. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sprint was willing to send threatening letters that they were going to drop a 4500 dollar a month contract. I'd be surprised if they really actually did it.

      Put you into an endless loop of saying you will be disconnected --- yup.

    42. Re:Simple. by mikael · · Score: 1

      At the bottom of the TCP/IP stack, there's the network chip. That has to receive a packet header and data, push it into the packet ring buffer, send an interrupt to the CPU, and wait for the next packet. It's up to the TCP/IP stack what to next; drop the packet, forward a datagram, or reconstruct packet data into a consistent stream of data.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    43. Re:Simple. by AaronW · · Score: 1

      I work on hardware that can do this. 99% of the firewalls used by home users are pure software firewalls because CAM memory is very expensive. I work for a company that makes CPUs specialized for packet processing and security, but even our low end CPUs are typically not used for the home firewall. Our current generation low end CPU can easily handle 10Gbps of traffic, our higher end ones can handle over 80Gbps of traffic with hardware offload engines for lookups, encryption, compression and packet processing.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    44. Re:Simple. by skids · · Score: 1

      Well, on professional grade routers/firewalls ACLs are compiled and pushed down to the FIB/CAM, which can indeed reject things in hardware. Some commodity cards also include onboard packet processors, but YMMV on support for configuring it.

      As far as it generating alerts, that's the software's shortcoming for not supporting a way to selectivey silence alerts.

      As far as the wasted bandwidth, if it is any consequenctial amount, you're pretty much without recourse unless you can show it is having a financial impact, and given home ISPs rarely give you access to metering information to do so, you're hosed.

      In an enterprise setup where you are peering BGP to your ISP, the ISP might support BGP communities for selectively blackholing traffic from certain networks to your ranges at their border, on a limited basis (routers only have so much space to contain the rules so you'll only be alllowed a few prefixes.)

    45. Re:Simple. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yup. Go upstream and the problem will probably be resolved fairly quickly. Be prepared, of course, to show documentation. They can probably observe it but you might want to be able to give them some evidence so that they know where to look. They're probably helpful and may even do something about it proactively in the future.

      I shan't get into details, as they are long and boring, but my company's edge router was being hammered on, constantly, from a very narrow set of IP ranges. I can only speculate but, at the time, we were pretty much the only US-based company in the sphere, at least if you wanted quality and service. (I might be biased.) Anyhow, the IP ranges pointed to a very specific area and indicated a very probably source. (I wonder why?)

      So, we ended up trying to go through their ISP. We had polite interactions but the problem persisted. The ISP in question was actually a reseller (this took some work to discover) of bandwidth but fairly high in the food chain. With some work we were able to find the actual provider and we contacted them. They requested that we forward the logs by email and the problem was completely resolved in less than 72 hours.

      One oddity, the upstream provider wanted us to let them login to our equipment and check the logs themselves. We politely declined. Much of the data that we held was proprietary and/or not our property. Maintaining some semblance of security was important and allowing a third party to access the equipment was simply not something we were going to accept liability for.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    46. Re:Simple. by KGIII · · Score: 2

      ^ ^ ^ Along with my prior post, that's an effective solution in my personal experience. I can not, of course, give anything other than an anecdote. Go upstream on their end and the problem gets resolved - in my experience. It may be unintentional, it may not be. Either way, it's possible to dig and find out who the bandwidth provider is (it's not always the name on the company, in our case it was not) and work your way up from there.

      Have some documentation ready though, probably, they can see it or view their own logs. Work your way up the stream until you find out who it is. It was a regional ISP that was actually reselling bandwidth from someone else in the case mentioned above. Some work revealed who to contact, contact was made, and the problem was resolved.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    47. Re: Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before telling people they where born yesterday people really should fact check what they are talking about.

      If it's on a separate and dedicated device it's commonly referred to as hardware and the fact that software is part of the hardware device is irrelevant.

      The relevant thing is that a software firewall is just one piece of software running on a machine.

      But a hardware firewall vendor can select hardware components, customize device drivers, select or write any operating system. They have full control over the entire hardware and software stack.

      A software router on the other hand plug int an existing IP stack and has no control over hardware design, or the design of underlying system software. Also it's hardware is not dedicated and protected from tampering malware can interfere with the software in ways that's not under the vendor's control.

      And yes, setting up a computer as a dedicated router may count as a hardware router.

      And finally as others have mentioned there are plenty of hardware optimised for routing that takes care of a lot of the IP packet processing that otherwise would be taken care of by software.

    48. Re: Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try doing the same at the local mall/shopping district and you will get a different result.

      Some doors are open because they want you to come in.

      Of course when it comes to doors there are ways to tell what they want from it's location and appearance.

      With open IP ports however, you have to assume that an open port are there to be used. Because you can't possibly know when it's accidentally open for public use.

    49. Re:Simple. by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

      I would set up a honeypot instead of just bouncing the scans -- and find some way to claim damages from whatever they do after the scans.

      Or, how about sending a registered letter to their legal department saying that your fee for processing port scans is $10 per packet. If they don't stop, then bill them. If they don't pay, then you have suffered a business loss and you can claim damages which might make the scans a felony under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

      --
      An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
    50. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot:

      - slashvertise a product, saying its great for everything except one piddly thing that's not really that interesting that anyone with a brain would turn off anyway ;-)

  2. The first time didn't help. by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So this time report it to appropriate authorities and if they don't take your case make a public letter into their local newspaper asking them what they are up to.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:The first time didn't help. by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and then, post it to 4chan.

    2. Re:The first time didn't help. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So this time report it to appropriate authorities and if they don't take your case

      OR push the block on the IP range into the Firewall's routing table as a route to Null0, or to an access-list on the Firewall's upstream router

      Most providers summarily shove complaints about portscans and firewall alerts into the trash bin. The OP needs something material to base a legitimate abuse complaint on, such as logs showing an actual SSH brute force access attempt, that demonstrates the activity is a malicious attempted intrusion and not merely some reconnaissance effort, possible false alarm, or "background noise" such as W32/Blaster traffic from some host still running infected XP.

      The authorities DON'T CARE about portscans either, unless the OP has something much more material to investigate, or can prove a crime was committed with serious damage, they generally will not get involved... It doesn't hurt to report it to the civil authorities, but it's not going to do anything to alleviate OP's situation, either, which is an "overly chatty" firewall device.

      The real issue there is the Firewall and the lack of options to suppress spurious alerts, that should get taken up with the firewall vendor as a software issue.

    3. Re:The first time didn't help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take your case make a public letter

      For a port scan?!?

      into their local newspaper

      Oh, yea, nobody will read that. Carry on.

    4. Re:The first time didn't help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most providers summarily shove complaints about portscans and firewall alerts into the trash bin.

      Email the CEO, pointing out that his IT crew have been ignoring all previous complaints and thus are probably the hackers responsible for the nefarious port scans. Expect swift action.

    5. Re: The first time didn't help. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      If you are exposed locally for questionable actions you may get uncomfortable questions from friends. It may be a worse punushment than being brought to court.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re:The first time didn't help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Port scan them back? nmap -A aggressive Shove 1Gb/s of scans down their pipe.

    7. Re:The first time didn't help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The authorities DON'T CARE about portscans either

      Rephrase is to be SYN flood and suddenly you're being DOS'd. That is criminal.

    8. Re:The first time didn't help. by Pharmboy · · Score: 2

      Expect the CEO to send it to IT because he doesn't understand it, and for it to simply disappear. CEOs are about making money, they don't like being the complaint dept. unless it is a complaint from a huge customer that is threatening to not give them money. They don't make the big bucks because they can deal with port scans.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    9. Re:The first time didn't help. by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Expect the CEO to send it to IT because he doesn't understand it, and for it to simply disappear. CEOs are about making money, they don't like being the complaint dept. unless it is a complaint from a huge customer that is threatening to not give them money. They don't make the big bucks because they can deal with port scans.

      If you know who the company is, contact their legal department and ask them how much they like being (a) sued and (b) made into a news story.

      Problem solved.

    10. Re:The first time didn't help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this time report it to appropriate authorities

      Who, the Internet Police?

      if they don't take your case

      Nobody will "take your case", there's nothing illegal going on here and frankly speaking we don't need Politicians trying to legislate who can send what kind of traffic where on the Internet.

    11. Re:The first time didn't help. by TWX · · Score: 1

      That's a great way to get your ISP to take punitive action against you, or to have some software a the target's end that's more sophisticated share your information with a blacklisting service such that your legitimate customers can't reach you.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re:The first time didn't help. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      You would be shocked how often that backfires. They have lawyers on staff, paid to take chicken shit threats and shove them back down your throat. They can outspend you in a second flat, and run you into the poor house defending yourself. No, threatening a company and making claims they intentionally did something bad (particularly when you really don't know the whole story) is just a good way to end up broke and defeated.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    13. Re: The first time didn't help. by jofas · · Score: 1

      "Exposed Locally"? What rock are you living under? "Extra! Extra! Local man *may* have performed a perfectly legal portscan!"

    14. Re:The first time didn't help. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Worked numerous times for me. Typically there is an open SSH port, and I just overload that. Does not need 1Gb/s and gets their attention pretty dam quick.

  3. Chances are... by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    ...those banging at your doors don't give a damn about laws. You could deny ALL from the attackers address range, but best bet is just shut down the targeted ports.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:Chances are... by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Informative

      One solution to such actions is to instead of blocking send them to a tar-pit server. That may look like a valid server but with very slow responses.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Chances are... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      ...those banging at your doors don't give a damn about laws.

      Unless they have poor security and get hacked repeatedly. Some places you can almost just walk in, and if they are a small company, they may not feel that they have money to spend on proper security. Unless they are made painfully aware of the benefits.

    3. Re:Chances are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tarpits don't work. Bots are dumb and any response encourages them to scan more aggressively.

  4. So name them already by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets hear who it is.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:So name them already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably malware installed on one of the company PCs. Chances are someone is running some freeware shite. Check the female's machines first. Many of them have "ad tickers" clocking away on their screens, supposedly showing latest deals. Many of which, are trojans and kbd scanners.

    2. Re:So name them already by pr0nbot · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why do you assume there's only one female, and that she has multiple machines?

      Yours,

      The Grammar Nazi.

    3. Re:So name them already by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Because he is a sexist douchebag.

      Women are not any worse than men when it comes to security and apps. At my (small) office, the opposite is true, it is always the guys getting viruses, usually from trying to check out porn.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:So name them already by s_p_oneil · · Score: 2

      I see your side, but I see the other as well. Since he reported it to the company once and the company "fixed it" temporarily, it doesn't sound like a false positive. If he posts the company's web site on Slashdot and that company's web site happens to get slashdotted (especially if they have a forum or mailbox where visitors can post complaints/issues), it might wake them up to the fact that someone in their IT/dev department is doing something they really should not be (whether it was ordered by the company's leaders or not).

    5. Re:So name them already by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      How is it passing the buck to the company who "fixed it" if that company's servers are causing the problem in the first place? From what the poster described, it didn't sound like the constant testing of specific ports (for specific services like HTTP, HTTPS, RDP, etc.) that go on all the time. Those hits are generally sprrad out and treated like background noise by a router and don't get reported. This sounds more like a wider range of ports on someone's home IP address being hit repeatedly over a long period of time from one or more servers at a single company, which is much more targeted (and unusual).

      If it's a direct hacking attempt, it is a moronic one. I imagine it is either a mistake (e.g. mis-configured penetration testing software) or perhaps a compromised server at that company. In either case, it is something the company should want to fix.

    6. Re:So name them already by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Because he is a sexist douchebag.

      Women are not any worse than men when it comes to security and apps. At my (small) office, the opposite is true, it is always the guys getting viruses, usually from trying to check out porn.

      I like how you used one gender stereotype to counter another gender stereotype.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    7. Re: So name them already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stereotypes are not always wrong and gender stereotypes doesn't equal sexism.

      It is true that females prefer shopping more than men. It is also true that men prefer porn more than female's. Although the number of women watching porn isn't as insignificant as some seams to this so that's a stereotype that you should take with a grain of salt.

      However gets less useful on a small company. With an increased number of employees the average person will be closer to those stereotypes that's based on facts. However with a small business there will be to few employees for stereotypes to be useful.

    8. Re:So name them already by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      You are mistaking an actual example (my office) with a stereotype. I didn't say all offices are like mine, I'm saying his stereotype is inherently false and gave a specific example to refute his central claim that the stereotype exists. In the world of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement , that would be considered in the top tiers of how to debate a topic, ie: using more than contradiction and instead providing evidence.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    9. Re:So name them already by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      First, my response was intended to be more tongue in cheek than anything. I don't really care.

      Second, "guys getting viruses from trying to view porn" is a stereotype even if it also happens to be a real life example. I think everyone who worked in IT in the 90s or 2000s knows that is a stereotype based on something that really happens.

      My point is that you're countering one gender stereotype with another gender stereotype, which holds even if it's inadvertent or you also have an anecdote. You may as well have said "women aren't that bad of drivers, I have a bunch of Asian friends who are terrible".

      All that said, it's hard to argue against stereotypes. Personal anecdotes have the same biases as stereotypes. I'd prefer multiple studies with large sample sizes.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  5. No NAT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Seriously? People still assign public IP's directly to PC's? Get a router. use NAT. these "Port Scans" (which may well not be port scans at all) shouldn't be making it anywhere near a PC in the first place.

    1. Re:No NAT??? by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Yes, many advantages to a unique IP for your machine. Especially if you're running terminal services. Even if you're going through an SSH tunnel (and you should) it still prevents many issues. And you can also bind a hostname easily then, which is somewhat more difficult with NAT around.

    2. Re:No NAT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you are totally insane. VPN to a VPS, and port forward what is needed. NEVER EVER EVER EVER go directly onto the internet.

      This isn:t 1985, it:s 2015.

    3. Re:No NAT??? by SilverNerfer · · Score: 1

      Seriously? People still assign public IP's directly to PC's? Get a router. use NAT. these "Port Scans" (which may well not be port scans at all) shouldn't be making it anywhere near a PC in the first place.

      Seriously, did you research before posting ? UTM 9 IS a router and does NAT it is not a "PC"

    4. Re:No NAT??? by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have many boxes directly on the internet, NAT would only add an extra layer of headaches... I only open the services i actually want to offer, so if i used port forwarding i would have exactly the same services listening but with added overhead.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:No NAT??? by TWX · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seriously? People still assign public IP's directly to PC's? Get a router. use NAT. these "Port Scans" (which may well not be port scans at all) shouldn't be making it anywhere near a PC in the first place.

      Port Address Translation breaks the end-to-end model of TCP/IP. IPv6 is designed to remove the need for NAT entirely. The network admin is supposed to actually know how to build a proper firewalling router to keep other networks out or to limit what resources they can reach.

      Good firewalls deny incoming connections by default, and only allow them when they're solicited by a machine on the local side, and even then, only when the return traffic from the untrusted network conforms to expectations based on the trusted machine's initial outgoing request. This can get a little tricker with protocols that use more than one port or semirandomly chose ports from a range, but it seems to work pretty well even with public IPs on devices.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:No NAT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People still use NAT? That horrible thorn in the side that breaks many things and adds no real security?

    7. Re:No NAT??? by jofas · · Score: 1

      There are also many advantages to leaving the doors to your dwelling unlocked as well, but we don't do that anymore either.

    8. Re:No NAT??? by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, you have much to learn about how to get computers to actually work without convoluted setups that break constantly. There is a fine line between usability and going far over the top in security. I'm exposed to both systems, the one at my desktop at work you only need to SSH tunnel to your computer. This is fine 90% of the cases, though many times that's already near impossible on hotel internet due to extensive blocking of "non-standard" things. The other system I'm commonly exposed to runs several levels of firewalls and requires a VPN client on top of that, it's a nightmare to login to and requires all sorts of specific browser plugins that only work on MSIE, not to mention using it through hotel internet is a no-go. And anyway, if you aren't prepared to leave a service open to the world you probably shouldn't be running it in the first place. Additionally ever tried interfacing to lab instruments over a network filled with firewalls? I can tell you right now simplicity is often a better choice in the long run.

    9. Re:No NAT??? by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Please line up with the folks who want convoluted security systems that break constantly and don't actually work when you're on the move. In the meanwhile I'll try to get some work done.

    10. Re:No NAT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you stupid peony. How many home users have more than one public IP? That's the chief reason for NAT, idiot.

    11. Re:No NAT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Browser plugins? What VPN are you using? lol

      Hotels with appliances that block VPN sure as shit will have ssh blocked too. In fact, you'll likely get proxied 80 & 443 and that's it.

      Complaining about network complexity belies a specious understanding of it.

    12. Re: No NAT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact that sometimes there are exploits inside the IP stack that makes your computer vulnerable no matter if you have ports open or not. These are usually kernel level exploits that provides full remote access to the entire system.

    13. Re: No NAT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Standard VPN:s are easy to set up and if they are blocked everything else is usually blocked to.

      It's common to put vpn on http and https ports in order to get around such blocks. As VPN:s are something you configure once and then just turn on and off that works well.

      In fact I use VPN to be able to SSH into my machines when behind hotel firewalls.

    14. Re: No NAT??? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And how does a firewall help in that instance? It's just an additional routing device between you and the outside, so there is a good likelihood that such an attack will still reach you via whatever services you do have opened.
      Plus you now have the added risk of such a kernel vulnerability existing on the firewall device itself too.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    15. Re: No NAT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no problems at all using NAT with any modern software.

      NAT adds real security. It naturally depends on implementation and usage, but used properly it adds security.

  6. Not a surprise by surfdaddy · · Score: 2

    If you listen to the Security Now podcast, this sort of thing is all over the internet. It's a nasty place out there and actors from anywhere and everywhere are always checking addresses for vulnerabilities, etc. I suspect we all get that sort of thing.

    Unless it is DDOS'ing you, why is it an issue?

    1. Re:Not a surprise by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed, I routinely get portscans en-mass from china.

      Sometimes 5x a day or more. Really aggressive scans that last for hours.

      Not a lot you can do about it. Scanning for open ports is a legitimate activity on networks you own, so naturally, a big internetwork like the internet is going to be drowning in automated portscans, and automated blocking of them would break many legitimate services, if they make too many queries too quickly. (say for instance, metacrawlers and pals.)

      Just accept that the internet is not a cozy nice place. Bad things lie in wait for the unwary. Use modern protection, and be sensible in how you use it.

      really, that's all you can do unless you have actual DDoS style attacks leveled at you. THEN you call the feds.

    2. Re:Not a surprise by BenFranske · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. There was a time that ISPs and people on the Internet cared about port scans, that time is long gone (by at least 15 years). If you have a public IP you should assume it's being scanned all the time. Once you assume that these types of alerts have little additional meaning. If it really bothers you then you should implement some kind of pre-filter to block the IP range. I understand that your particular device doesn't allow that so put another router with proper access control list support in front of it if it bothers you so much. TLDR, unless you live in the past it's time to get over port scanning.

    3. Re:Not a surprise by Comen · · Score: 2

      Exactly, welcome to the World Wide Web people!
      10-15 years ago when every company was getting their first firewall, I used to manage 100's of firewall for many companies. First thing that people would do is call me complain about the firewall logs showing all the port scans (mostly from Asia), this stuff goes on all the time, nothing you can really do about it, block on subnet they will use another. Unless you are getting DDOS'ed then you are fine. I good firewall will not send back a reject, but instead drop the packet so they can no detect you are there at all.

    4. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even 20 years ago, people understood that port scans were not illegal, and there wasn't much recourse other than complaining and hoping that the complaint shamed the port scanner enough to make them stop. On reputable networks, (outbound) port scanning were against policy, but they were never illegal, just rude.

    5. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we lived in different universes, but 15 years ago we cared about port scans because we all did them. Most of them were for remote administration, research, or just exploration. And we didn't do stupid things like block ICMP, because it just made your own live more difficult when diagnosing network issues.

      People still rely on scanning for legitimate purposes, it's just that there are many more malicious scanners. But so what? Stopping the scanning doesn't make you safer if you're running unsafe software. And if you're running safe software, allowing them doesn't make the software less safe.

      It's like societies that require their women to cover themselves up because the men are crippled with anxiety about the possibility of their wives cheating (or, as they live in honor societies, more like anxious about people thinking their wives are cheating, and wives anxious about people thinking that they're cheating). The head scarves don't magically keep women from cheating. They just make people who have backwards attitudes feel better.

    6. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it is DDOS'ing you, why is it an issue?

      1) Because if he can't stop the alerts then they just become noise and so he can't spot new attacks. Personally I'd stick another dumb stateless firewall in front of the other to block the range before it hits the one generating the alerts before filtering, or get a better firewall.

      2) Although although it's negligible it still is extra resources consumed. For a casual scan by a botnet you just have to deal with it, but this sounds like a persistent one from this company that's lasted weeks.

    7. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice astroturf.

    8. Re:Not a surprise by mindmaster064 · · Score: 1

      Most of the people scanning are script kiddies, so unless you are vulnerable to the very specific things they are having a tool to attack the danger of the port scan is very low. I rather deal with the problem by making sure only authorized hosts can connect to specific services, or obfuscating common programs like Wordpress (like the database folders, and install directories....) just to break all these types of attacks. I also rather keep things "fixed" by being current on patches... Most of the exploits are known and patched, and the people getting infected by them are not keeping with patches.

    9. Re:Not a surprise by I4ko · · Score: 1

      And why would that be another router and not a proper BGP announcement with a special community that will block the traffic in the upstream. When I used to work for a relatively big national level ISP (about 1 class B network back in 2001), all the Tier 1 providers offered communities I can announce on prefixes that would black hole traffic to, and some even offered communities that I can announce and they would do source filtering on (on networks that don't properly belong to my AS). Frankly I miss the days when IE directed me to contact my network administrator which was me. But those were also the days when a small European country needed 80MBps of international connectivity, I cared about underwater earthquakes severing cables to landing stagnations in Algiers and elsewhere in the Mediterranean, Loral Orion/Cyberstar satellites having a nice line of sight, UUNet still being independent and not Verizon (ah those AS701 BGP sessions), using a broom to wipe my 4m dish reflector from snow (only the transceiver had an integrated heater) on the top of a 21 story building and the BGP table wreaking of havoc as thousands routes cried and got lost when WTC fell in 9/11.

    10. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hilarious that people are finally becoming aware to this type of thing and actually sit around wasting their time trying to figure out how to 'stop' it. It's never going to stop. If you sit and watch firewall scans on just about any public network, 24 hours a day there are malicious attempts coming from all over the world, depending on what subnet you are in, and which services you are running open to the public. It is more like every 1-5 seconds there is another portscan from somewhere, depending on the public address space you are using. I used to run large scale port, banner and sqli scans before I was 18, mostly from rooted linux machines on very fast connections back in the late 90s early 00's, and can tell you that there is no way you are every going to 'catch' anyone for this act, even the legality of scanning is somewhat gray area if nothing malicious is attempted. There are way too many to chase, just get over the fact that it happens, make sure you are protected as well as possible (but not too much as in this case), and realize that if anyone with serious cracking skills wants to infiltrate your network, Sophos or any other device or software is not going to stop them or warn you of anything. Public networks will always facilitate malicious traffic which is 99.9999% automated, most networks do not know and might never know they are even infected with something and scanning to report back vulns to a C+C, etc.

  7. Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they are consuming your bandwidth isn't that illegal and something you can sue over?

    1. Re: Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying ringing someone's doorbell is going to use up all their electricity.

    2. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another fine post from a Slashturd faux lawyer.

    3. Re: Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trespass to chattels is a real thing.

      Thrifty-tel v. Bezenek is still a standard case in property law textbooks.

    4. Re: Illegal? by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      That's like saying ringing someone's doorbell is going to use up all their electricity.

      Doesn't mean it's okay for someone to keep ringing it all day...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    5. Re: Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually more like you have billions of doorbells spread all around the world, and you're complaining that someone somewhere is ringing it.

    6. Re: Illegal? by jetkins · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean it's okay for someone to keep ringing it all day...

      Thank you - my point precisely.

  8. Turn it off by Xenna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Problem with these commercial products is that they want to prove their usefulness be regularly raising alarms. And, they miss essential features like IP based whitelisting. Portscans and probes are to standard to be bothered about, just block and forget.

    Use a decent open source product like pfsense instead. I've had an appliance with pfsense for years and I forget it's even there.

    https://www.applianceshop.eu/s...

    (no commercial interest, just a satisfied customer)

    1. Re:Turn it off by SJ · · Score: 1

      Lim Sao Tuk knows it's there, and he thanks you for keeping it up and running for so long. It has been a very useful machine for him.

    2. Re:Turn it off by Xenna · · Score: 2

      Share the wealth, that's my motto ;-)

      Anyway, Lim asked me to say he prefers the Sophos stuff. He's also really fond of the McAfee stuff!

    3. Re:Turn it off by SilverNerfer · · Score: 1

      UTM 9 IS open source excep for the gui and FAR better and FAR more features than pfsense. Not even close to being in the same leuage. (no commercial interest, just a satisfied UTM 9 user (not customer))

    4. Re: Turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised apk hasn't been on here claiming that the hosts file is the answer.

    5. Re:Turn it off by mindmaster064 · · Score: 1

      I was using pfsense with a special trigger script that counted how many times a particular IP raised alarms. I set it to some decently high number (some programs actually "port scan" as a part of their use...) and then only troubles were flagged. For other alerts (actual attacks) I might IP block someone instantly.... Just set the block time for a week or more and watch them give up. :)

    6. Re: Turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised apk hasn't been on here claiming that the hosts file is the answer.

      exactly! ..apk where are you when needed?

    7. Re:Turn it off by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Informative

      UTM 9 IS open source excep for the gui and FAR better and FAR more features than pfsense.
      Not even close to being in the same leuage.
      (no commercial interest, just a satisfied UTM 9 user (not customer))

      Amusingly, I dealt with this very scenario just this week, except in reverse.

      I installed the Sophos UTM on a Vista-vintage Optiplex. It was fine and responsive, and yes, the UI was beautiful, with lots of enterprise-grade features. The problem I had was that Sophos seemed to have a default 'deny any any' sort of rule in place that allowed HTTP, DNS, and...basically nothing else. I couldn't RDP out via nonstandard ports, I couldn't access IMAP mail, I couldn't get new Usenet articles in Agent, and that damn 'yellow triangle of limited connectivity' was proudly shown on all the Windows boxen on my LAN. I spent about two hours trying to get it to let SOMETHING through, Googled around, and...apparently there's some sort of voodoo that everyone else 'just knows' to make Sophos be a bit less strict, but for me it was like debating with the great-grandson of HAL9000: "Open the port 3389 doors, HAL." "I'm sorry Joey, I can't do that." Between that and the fact that Sophos went to the Sonicwall school of port forwarding hell, I installed pfSense.

      pfSense allows traffic to flow the way one would expect a router to work; all the things that didn't work in Sophos worked just fine on pfSense. Port forwards can be as simple as a Linksys router (source port, destination port, IP address), or as complex as a Sonicwall. It's UI isn't nearly as pretty, but it's highly functional. The transparent proxy helps speed up HTTP traffic, which is helpful as I'm stuck with 2mbit/768k DSL for the immediate term.

      I'm sure this is all a PEBKAC situation, and I do understand that Sophos's "assume the worst" stance has its place, but especially for being labeled for home users, I would have at least expected some sort of option in the initial config wizard to have the option between 'paranoid mode' and 'actual router' mode.

    8. Re:Turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest mistake they ever made in security is not adopting default-deny from the start. Rather than making people think about what they need to allow, it seems the entire industry is thinking about what to block. See: http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/

      Indecently, if you wanted "actual router" mode, it should technically allow everything in both directions, which is the routers job. But most people want a firewall too, which has the job of blocking, so it should do its job and block everything.

    9. Re: Turn it off by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      If you look at a mirror and say "Adblock" 4 times, he'll appear. Do yourself a favor, and never try this.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    10. Re:Turn it off by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      The biggest mistake they ever made in security is not adopting default-deny from the start. Rather than making people think about what they need to allow, it seems the entire industry is thinking about what to block.

      Let's roll with this line of reasoning. Keep in mind that we're talking about an issue with a 'deny any any' on an *outbound* firewall, not an inbound one. I have a handful of services on exposed, high ports. They all have some variant of fail2ban on them, and my pfSense is set to summarily deny inbound traffic from anywhere except the US. If that were my problem with Sophos, I'd still be running it. So, let's think through the thought that every time I had outbound traffic, I needed to make a rule for it. Windows updates? new rule. IRC? new rule. IRC on a nonstandard port? new rule. Remote Desktop? new rule. Remote desktop on a nonstandard port? new rule. Remote desktop on another nonstanard port? new rule. E-mail? a new rule for POP, a new rule for SMTP, a new rule for two different IMAP ports, a new rule for Activesync. Two new rules for FTP, three rules for Usenet - two down, one up (though that may be covered through the e-mail rule). New rule for Retroshare, new rules for a dozen different video games...exactly how much time am I supposed to be spending making outbound rules in this firewall?

      Indecently, if you wanted "actual router" mode, it should technically allow everything in both directions, which is the routers job. But most people want a firewall too, which has the job of blocking, so it should do its job and block everything.

      Welcome to the never-ending balancing act between security and convenience. I'm not even opposed to your notion of having a default-deny-all configuration, but the thing is that Sophos seemed to configure the system that way without streamlining the initial whitelisting. Simple way to do that? Make it possible to create NAT/firewall rules out of blocked traffic logs. Have a list with checkboxes that shows a set of common outbound applications to just automatically allow out. Have a client side agent detect things and spawn a uac-like prompt to allow outbound traffic rules to be made rapidly. Give it a 'learning mode' where traffic is set to 'deny all' for ten minutes, and a common list of ports and destinations are shown in a table for batch creation of rules.

      The link you provided certainly makes much more sense with the example given in the post - yes, whitelist specific traffic on a public-facing load balancer that has a very small list of traffic types and ports over which to send and recieve traffic. By all means, do that - that list is maybe a dozen rules long and involves a primarily-uploading set of servers that are intended to respond to requests. For a home network, and even most small business networks, trying to make rules for every edge case of outbound traffic would likely end up making a firewall either so ruthless that it impedes worker productivity, or so full of rules that trying to compare such traffic against a whitelist ends up adding latency because the list is a mile long, or ends up with so many outbound 'allow' rules as to not offer much in the way of protection vs. the amount of system resources required.

    11. Re: Turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I haven't seen his crapfloods in a while now. Can't say I miss them.

    12. Re:Turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem I had was that Sophos seemed to have a default 'deny any any' sort of rule in place that allowed HTTP, DNS, and...basically nothing else.

      Well, that's too lenient :)

      You only want to allow some http traffic, and I've seen quite a bit of advanced malware that tries to send out information by DNS queries.

  9. Port Scans are normal, stop whining! by marco.tedaldi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Disable the Port-Scanning warning. It is useless! It only drowns really important stuff! Port-Scanning is not an attack. Nothing breaks because of a harmless port scan and an alert does not provide you with ANY useful information. So get rid of this useless piece of software.

    Your ISP is doing nothing and rightly so. It would only suck up resources that can be used elsewhere where they make a real difference!
    Fighting port scans is like trying to fight people looking out of the car windows! Get over it, ignore it, it's completely normal!

    And don't suck up other peoples resources by whinging about it!

    1. Re: Port Scans are normal, stop whining! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree with this.

      Basically assume that everyone is portscanning you. Don't forward traffic, and if you absolutely must, then isolate those resources from the rest of your network.

    2. Re:Port Scans are normal, stop whining! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not the one whining, you are.....

    3. Re:Port Scans are normal, stop whining! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Port scanning is part of online life and has been for many years. Education is the key here. The OP thinks they're a tech, but they're getting shitted up over something that happens to every single online device every hours of the day. So why don't you piss off back to the Daily Mail, you sanctimonious twat.

    4. Re:Port Scans are normal, stop whining! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding sucking up others' time by complaining about it, if you think these kind of complaints are a waste of time, why do you read them (and reply to them)?

      Oh! Perhaps you work at the company concerned and feel targeted! If so, just stop aggressively port-scanning people. Then they won't complain.

      Or is this a case of "Never my fault"?

    5. Re:Port Scans are normal, stop whining! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or perhaps it is a legitimate attempt at educating somebody about the futility of worrying about this.

    6. Re:Port Scans are normal, stop whining! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Nothing breaks because of a harmless port scan and an alert does not provide you with ANY useful information.

      This is not true, port scans are not harmless, But they are not an attack in themselves either, there are quasi-legitimate uses, they are often not followed up by malicious activity via the same actor, and the community at large has accepted that they happen routinely, and they are a "lesser evil", like a strange man was seen walking across your front lawn: it is suspicious, but nobody's going to jail for that.

      Your ISP is doing nothing and rightly so. It would only suck up resources that can be used elsewhere where they make a real difference

      If you report it, they should address it --- it is their responsibility to address abuse of their network, and a port scan is abuse.

      I would point out that it is inconsiderate to submit abuse reports about "light or transient issues". If the OP's operation is not materially damaged by the activity, then it is abusive to be contacting the ISPs every time someone else on the internet farts in your general direction, AND you need a real reason it is damaging NOT related to spurious alert messages from a security program.

    7. Re:Port Scans are normal, stop whining! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      They aren't followed up my malicious activity unless their is a vulnerability to exploit. My guess is all this port scanning has forced the guy to lock his system down pretty tight. It might now be safer due to all the port scanning.

      Excessive port scanning is abuse, but your ISP isn't going to address it, only the other guy's ISP is going to because that is where it originates, and only they can threaten to pull their access if they don't stop it. Efforts on this end are useless; keep hammering their ISP and their company, but don't expect a lot of result.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:Port Scans are normal, stop whining! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you turn off ICMP at the firewall, don't you?

      Holy crap. Port scans are not abuse, they are a valid diagnostic that everyone with a brain in their head permits. If you are extra smart, you'll track them and monitor their rises and falls. You'll also track zone transfer requests to your DNS and requests for CHAOS class RRs.

      If you're extra stupid, you'll block them and configure your IDS to email you every time it happens.

  10. If you want them to stop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want them to stop, simply name and shame them right here. I'm sure there's someone reading this article with more technical skills and free time on their hands than you or me ;-)

  11. Get the police involved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ring up the police or fbi and inform them that someone is trying to hack into your network.

    It would be great if you could somehow find a way to link their continued port scanning to terrorist activity.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Make them stop scanning you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I had a similar situation once at home.
    i didn't detect port scans, but someone was scanning my little website at home for vulnerabilities.

    One of the files they asked for, I made sure they got a web server response: an endless stream of 4k blocks of random data. The scan stopped within 2 weeks.

    1. Re:Make them stop scanning you by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Because you then went over your bandwidth quota and your ISP wasn't forwarding anymore packets to you maybe?

      Seriously, I hope those 4k blocks were tarpitted at least (long delay between each block)

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re:Make them stop scanning you by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      If the user didn't have a bandwidth cap, then no, you'd want to serve as much as possible, but have it in a low priority QoS profile. If the attacker was saving files you could exhaust their free disk space eventually, most of these hacked shells don't have terabytes available.

  14. Just set up a honeypot by Z80a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And see what they do with it.

    1. Re:Just set up a honeypot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Buy bitcoins
      2. Install TOR
      3. Enter DarkWeb
      4. Pay to DDoS them.
      5. Profit.

    2. Re:Just set up a honeypot by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Informative

      And see what they do with it.

      Exactly. If someone has screwed up then nothing will happen. If someone uses it, that's different and then you also have your misuse case as the basis for legal action if required (make sure to have misuse messages and warnings in place). Not that you want to take legal action, it's just being in the position to take that action if you can or need to.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  15. I wouldn't worry about it by rcase5 · · Score: 2

    Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. If your firewall is halfway decent (and it sounds like it is), you shouldn't have anything to worry about as far as the security of your network. Unless, of course, you do something really dumb like open a port you shouldn't and have it refer to a port on a machine on your net (I'm presuming you're using NAT).

    Also, since it's highly likely you're network link is DHCP, your IP address might change periodically when your router goes to renew the DHCP lease. If your IP address hasn't changed in a while, you might try shutting your router down for a while (like an hour), turn it back on and see if it gives you a new IP address. That might stop them from scanning your network (unless they're going after an entire range if IP addresses on the RoadRunner network).

    I initially reported it to my own ISP's (RoadRunner's) abuse desk, on the assumption that if they're scanning me then they're probably scanning a bunch of my neighbors as well, and any responsible ISP would probably want to block this BS, but all I ever got back was an automated acknowledgment and zero action.

    They're too busy enforcing their own arbitrary network rules on their subscribers to worry about things like port scanners coming into their network. Also, it's RoadRunner (Time Warner Cable if I'm not mistaken), and they have among the worst customer service anyway. Unless the attack is coming from someone else on RoadRunner, you're wasting your time reporting the incident to them. Besides, there's really not much they can do anyway if the attack is coming from outside their network. That's why everyone is supposed to have their own firewall. ;-)

  16. Get a switch that can block before your device? by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 3

    Something with a nice-sized ruleset that works on ASICs and you're done. Most companies sell them, and if you're just selectively passing traffic by IP range (or in fancier devices by port) why not offload the hard rules before wasting cycles on traffic you just want to drop? Or just another software device if you're not wanting to buy hardware.

    We do this for selective parts of the network where dropping attackers on one machine keeps them from running through an entire block of IPs. A lot of it's even scripted: more than 3 IPs getting brute forced? That's a 24 hour ban and email to the associated ARIN/APNIC/RIPE contact. Granted APNIC/RIPE tends to stay on that list a lot longer than 24 hours...

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
  17. Ignore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today it's a company from your country. Tomorrow it's a guy from Kazachstan. What are you going to do then? Same thing: nothing.

    It's not harmful. Your problem are the time lost by silly notifications. Turn them off.

    Focus on intrusion detection. Detection attempts is good and the correct response is blocking. In case of ddos work with your upstream and maybe police.

  18. DUH! by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    The submitter's problem is that he keeps trying ELECTRONIC solutions to stop the port scanning. How about writing a letter on paper? This is how lawyers do it. That might scare the people doing the scanning enough to stop it.

  19. Cease and Desist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of good technical suggestions here, didn't see anything that covered a formal, legal cease-and-desist request though. If you're genuinely concerned that they're harrassing or attacking you, talk to a lawyer. Cyber-bullying is actually a crime in some jurisdictions as I understand it, and if not, you may still accuse them of corporate esponiage, etc.

    At the very least, they will be seriously annoyed by the legalese and frown mightily in the direction of the responsible employee.

  20. Easy solution by Rumagent · · Score: 2

    Forget it and find a real problem to worry about.

  21. tarpit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let them in and let them waste all their resources.

    http://www.gigenn.net/Tarpits/

    Its not illegal and should require minimum time and effort and frankly I think it would be fun!

  22. Use this by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    This little device will solve your problems for ever, if you just can attach it to the offending network.

  23. Smother it in honey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know whether it is half-opening ports or fully opening them? If it opens connections, maybe you could set up a honey pot that does something as simple as listen on ports with netcat. This could bog down resources on the attacker's end, and gain you intelligence.

    1. Re:Smother it in honey? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What intelligence? That the attacker fires off every known OpenSSL exploit when it finds something listening on 22?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: Smother it in honey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't openssl refer to port 443. SSH lives at 22 last I knew.

  24. Your problem is UTM; but if you really care... by tlambert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your problem is UTM; but if you really care... pay Amazon a couple hundred $, spin up 100,000 instances for a really short time, and push them a couple of million dollars into bandwidth debt, and they won't bother you again.

    Alternately, buy something other than UTM, which filters before the alerts, instead of after.

  25. It's annoying, and it shouldn't happen, but... by DamonHD · · Score: 0

    I had one of the earliest live commercial IP connections in the UK in the early '90s (and had a letter from the NSF allowing such traffic across the backbone!) and from the moment we went live we had attack/probe traffic at least in every minute since then when I've looked. (And I've had something like 10,000 SPAM delivery attempts per day for many years now too.)

    (In those days the malicious traffic was from South America, FWIW!)

    No it shouldn't happen, and if it causes you real annoyance and/or harm then you should consider the usual non-technical remedies eg as against someone repeatedly fly-tipping on your property, or robo-calling you, etc. In the UK there might be scope for action for "unauthorised use" of your computer systems and network.

    I think that thoughtless, anti-social, resource-wasting activities should be discouraged rather than shrugged off as inevitable.

    Rgds

    Damon

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  26. Get a new IP address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bam done

  27. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably some Windoze botnet. If all unnecessary ports are closed, all security precautions are in place, then why bother?

  28. Re: It isn't illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually in a number of European countries IT IS illegal and soon will be in all of the EU. Aggressive port scanning is considered an attempt to violate a system's security and can get you heavily fined or jailed.

  29. warning are no big deal, sip scans are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a gigaset voip phone, I had port 5060 forwarded from my router to my phone. Everything worked fine for a couple of years until some **#W*# started doing sip scans so my phone would ring several times a day at every imaginable time, including in the middle of the night. Now, that's a nuisance.

    1. Re: warning are no big deal, sip scans are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The side effect of having a phone is that it can receive calls. Sometimes unsolicited ones.

      But still if you have a service exposed to the public you must accept the fact that some will use that in ways you don't agree to.

  30. Turn port scan detection off by SilverNerfer · · Score: 1

    Turn port scan detection off, its not on by defualt for a reason ! I look after several UTM 9's if I left portscan detection on I'd have thousands of emails a day. Its a fact of life today that you get scanned, make sure you do not open more ports than you need to and the backend servers are secure. Then forget about it.

  31. Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What company is this that's doing this / what might be their motivation?

  32. Civil tort of harassment by paj1234 · · Score: 2

    You have the name of the chief executive? Write to him on paper with a stamp and tell him that his company is causing yours a nuisance. Say that under the provisions of statute X (whatever that may be in your country) you are entitled to claim compensation under the civil tort of harassment, or equivalent in your country. Enclose a copy of the relevant page of the legislation. There's sure to be plenty of legislation to choose from, take your pick. Enclose some printouts of the firewall warning messages.

    That CEO will have to cancel his game of golf. He will be furious about that. He doesn't want to think about tiresome technology matters. He wants to think about golf. Above all, he must avoid the electric fence and not have any silly legal troubles. He will bang some heads together and the port scans will stop.

    Someone asked me about receiving automated renewal reminders by email for an antivirus program he had ordered in error and then cancelled. He had asked not to receive such reminders anymore but they kept coming. The above steps worked for me.

  33. Put a filter box in front of full firewall by Morgaine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The submitter has two problems, the first is an external site persistently doing something that he doesn't want, and the second is his firewall appliance that isn't doing what he wants.

    The first problem is not fixable. Even if you could make them go away, tomorrow someone else will take their place. Do you really want to spend your time in courtrooms and writing letters? In any case, port scanning is not actual service abuse nor hacking but merely service discovery and it's working as intended, so you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that you are suffering actual harm. It's just an annoyance.

    In contrast, your second problem *IS* fixable by you, at very little cost. Just put a low-end packet filter in front of your existing firewall, doing nothing but passively blocking all packets from the offending source. It should have no open ports of its own and should run nothing other than the firewall management software, something like pfsense or iptables. Any old PC hardware running off a thumb drive will suffice, or a new ARM board for lowest power consumption, or a repurposed router from eBay for lowest cost.

    Fix problems that you can solve. The others are not worth your time fretting about.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Put a filter box in front of full firewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a firewall appliance, it's a program that runs on his Windows PC. He needs to just buy a proper firewall of some kind. Anything will be better. OP is a noob, and what has ask slashdot become, how to avoid googling problems?

    2. Re:Put a filter box in front of full firewall by jetkins · · Score: 1

      It's not a firewall appliance, it's a program that runs on his Windows PC.

      Comprehension FAIL. UTM9 is a software firewall on a dedicated box. It's exactly the same software stack as their hardware appliances - the only difference is that the customer supplies the hardware.

    3. Re:Put a filter box in front of full firewall by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFA, but if UTM9 is anything like Pfsense, it could be either. There's no reason you can't run a firewall in a type 2 hypervisor (e.g. Windows running VMware).

      I've done this with Pfsense in a pinch. Also done it in ESXi (type 1) plenty often. Running the firewall in a VM on two different boxes is also a pretty cheap/easy way to get firewall HA.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  34. Background noise by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The internet is full of background noise, not a lot you can do about it..
    Chances are this isn't even a portscan at all, because what would be the point of scanning the same thing repeatedly? Chances are they've configured the target IP wrong, or the IP you now have used to be used by someone else etc.

    Having a router constantly notifying you about internet background noise is pointless and will only waste your time.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Background noise by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Chances are this isn't even a portscan at all, because what would be the point of scanning the same thing repeatedly? Chances are they've configured the target IP wrong, or the IP you now have used to be used by someone else etc.

      Virtual +1 Insightful

  35. Drop it by aglider · · Score: 1

    If you need to choose between alarms and protection, then protection goes first.
    Then if you want, make the proper investigation and go the legal way: persistent port scanning is a ostile action, indeed.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  36. Becoming too paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think with these tools a person can become too paranoid about port scans. I used to run a test called Shields Up and it would test all the ports. As long as they were all protected it really does not matter. The internet is filled with this traffic and I went through a similar experience with Comcast. Although Comcast did seem to react better then Road Runner surprisingly.

  37. Post it on their twitter/facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post about it and publicly ask them to stop on one of their public streams.
    Make a youtube video calling them out showing the portscan activity.

  38. twenty-something alerts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twenty whole alerts? How did you ever manage to post to slashdot through such a HUGE torrent of traffic?

  39. Fixable with simple PF rules by badger.foo · · Score: 2

    To me this sounds like the main problem is the "security" device that's generating a lot of noise.

    My solution would be to put something (very low power gear will do) running a recent OpenBSD and a PF ruleset with overflow rules modeled on the ones outlined here in front of that whiny device. The ruleset would need to be modified to fit the observed traffic, of course. Then anyone who fits the profile of unwanted traffic simply auto-LART themselves into the table of blocked addresses.

    With a properly placed adaptive firewall like that, the noisemaker would likely not see enough of the traffic to trigger any of the useless warnings.

    --
    -- That grumpy BSD guy - http://bsdly.blogspot.com/
  40. If I had to ack a popup for every port scan probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just from the last two weeks of my home server which is not running any open service, web page, incomming mail server nor ssh at port 22:

    $ grep " DPT=22 " /var/log/pf.log* | wc -l
          1229
    $ grep "SRC=219\.92\.55\.219.*DPT=25 " /var/log/pf.log* | wc -l
            579
    $ grep "SRC=150\.70\.173\..*DPT=80 " /var/log/pf.log* | wc -l
            440

    There are literally thousands of probes daily targeting all the common service ports and beyond... for years now.

  41. You're not alone by lancesnyder · · Score: 0

    As someone that manages ~100 ASAs, I see this every single day and really there's nothing you can do. Your firewall will do it's job. Having other mechanisms in place like IPS and other inspection tools ups the ante.

  42. nuke them from orbit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the only way to be sure,

    1. Re:nuke them from orbit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darn it, I was going to post this. You not only stole my comment, but my user name too!

    2. Re:nuke them from orbit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hacked your account and can now post as you.

  43. Forward All Scan/Attacks alerts to you ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forward All Scan/Attacks alerts to you ISP..
    add their support/abuse/other email addresses to the Notification list. Then flood the shit out of them
    with warnings until they do something about it..

    1. Re:Forward All Scan/Attacks alerts to you ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...until they do something about it..

      echo "
      :0
      * FROM.<allyour@email.addresses.here>
      /dev/null
      " >> /etc/procmail.spam

  44. Sigh by ledow · · Score: 2

    Ignore.
    Filter the alert emails from that ISP if necessary.
    Get on with life.
    (P.S. Just double-check you put it on the block list).

    Run any internet server in any datacenter in the world and you get this times a thousand. You can't trace them all. Hell, you can't even spend the time to trace all those spam email attempts you would get either.

    What, precisely, do you think is being done to your connection that's worth the time and effort to even follow-up on it? A few packets hitting a firewall that is set to block and deny them any further access anyway?

    Get a life, honestly. And turn off alert emails for port-scans. Turn on proper IDS/IPS, but turn off that particular alert because - well - it happens all the time anyway and it isn't going to stop just because you stop one IP range.

    Spend the time you save on double-checking that people can't get into even the open services that you do offer to the net (SMTP, NTP, etc. if relevant). Whether you respond open or close, or whether the firewall rejects or allows, the requests still means that the packet was send, received, acted on, and replied to (or not, as the case may be). And in terms of your overall connection it's going to be like 0.001% of your traffic, if that.

    Then go and work in any static-IP, Internet-facing network department that runs in-house services like webservers, VPN, email, etc. And notice that they just wouldn't care and don't have the time to do anything about such trivial shite.

    1. Re:Sigh by ageoffri · · Score: 2

      This is the only answer that needs to be posted. At my previous job, someone put a bug into the CIO's ear which got filtered down to my Director and I had to pull a report on all port scans for a year. Good news is with Dell SecureWorks is that generating the report was easy. Bad thing that I knew from the get go was the sheer numbers would amaze people who don't deal with this every day. I don't recall the numbers since it has been almost two years, but the smallest number to break down was some thing like 10-15 port scans per second between all the ingress points for a medium sized company. We didn't even normally bother reporting on it because it is useless.The brute force port scans isn't what worries me, it is the sophisticated attackers willing to spend months doing slow probe of the network.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
  45. thought by jebus082 · · Score: 1

    if the problem is greater than blocking their IP range, could you not setup a passive system that only allowed requests on a specific port, by a specific application, and the other requests ttl before leaving your home network?

  46. This one weird trick to block port scanners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Install gentoo.

  47. Turn off notifications by PsyMan · · Score: 1

    long time ago in a PC now far away I once installed Black Ice...... for a few days I was overwhelmed by the amount of attacks I was seeing. It can give you sleepless nights but thats exactly what the software seller wants you to see, background noise raised up to make you think it is a serious threat. Treat it as a mataphore for everything else you percieve as a threat and move on. Lock your front door, put your wallet and phone safely in your pocket and get on with your life. Oh, and don't forget to line your hat with foil....SHINY SIDE OUT.

  48. Shodan abuse by simplypeachy · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you're having the similar problem of ignorance that I have when reporting shodan's port scans. All I get is bleating about doing god's work to save the Internet. I don't care about that, I just want them to stop accessing my services. I expect the same from their upstream as well, but will report to them anyway just in case of a Christmas miracle ;-)

  49. Re:Simple. Toss Sophos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three things:

    #1. You are not going to stop people port-scanning. Asking an ISP, which doesn't give a rat's ass what their customers do unless it is an IP violation, will just be ignored. Learned that the hard way with a ISP allowing a small DDoS and the CEO replying, "Sue me, or blow me."

    This is especially true in other countries. China can tell a US ISP what to do, but if an American firm asks a Chinese place to stop their shit, they will just get back the same "sue me, or blow me" message in their choice of Mandarin or Cantonese. Same with India... you get your choice of Hindi or Urdu.

    So, what can you do?

    Two things:

    Demand Sophos fixes their shit because port scanning is an everyday happening these days. If they can't fix it, get another tool. Hell, a PFSense appliance running Snort will be a lot more useful for a home user because it can deal with scans... and ball-gag them, as well as do passive blocking. I personally block or honeypot all incoming shit unless it is from a certain VPN. IPv6 gets completely discarded, since it is all too easy for an attacker to grab your entire network topology.

    Get a better firewall that has dynamic blocking. If a site port-scans, they go sit in time-out for an hour/day/week. For the shitty site that keeps triggering your IDS? Block them for good, call it done. Hell it isn't about selecting incoming traffic to -block-... but what to -allow-.

  50. A Honeypot? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 4, Informative

    If they are scanning for ports then give them something to play with. :)

    Setup a honeypot and gather intelligence about them. Find out who they are, where they are, and if possible, a motive as to why they are specifically targeting you.

    Once you have that information you can act accordingly - contact ISP, law enforcement, etc.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:A Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rewrite their packets to point at themselves and pass them on .....

  51. Don't wear yourself out worrying about nothing by fnj · · Score: 1

    Why are you worried about port scans for your own machine that you control in every detail? Unless you've got some busted-ass daemon on some port, assuming you are not being DOSed or your bandwidth getting used up (which is very very unlikely), what do you think is going to happen? It's not like you have users on your machine who have kindergarten passwords which you can't control, is it?

    Fleabag lightweights are hitting ssh on my VPS all day every day. Let them knock themselves out. They ain't never gonna bust in. Forget that shit. Because my security is competently set up.

    Stopping port scans does not address security shortcomings.

  52. Forward it to their fax by XNormal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't forward the scan reports to their abuse address. Spend a couple of cents to forward it through a mail-to-fax gateway to their fax number.

    I think it will stop much sooner this way.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  53. Regulator? by shortscruffydave · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure about where you are, but here (UK) we have the ISPA which is a quasi regulatory body for ISPs. If you have a complaint with an ISP and can't get satisfactory resolution, then you can escalate the matter to the ISPA who can put pressure on them.

  54. use their IP's by visionsofmcskill · · Score: 2

    While other commenters have mentioned your alerting system should be disabled as its essentially worthless, theres a pretty simple fix if the IP's are known. Add their public ips to your router as additional WAN's or secondary IP's. Their traffic should now become unroutable and dropped before the appliance even tries to examine them. Or you could add a managed switch in front of your WAN which drops/blocks traffic from those IP's.

    Problem with doing these sorts of things is that over time your systems become a confusing mess of strange kludges and workarounds. Port scans really are super normal, and the true issue is your appliance not behaving as you'd desire.

    --
    --Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
    1. Re:use their IP's by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      This. The proper resolution here is to get your firewall manufacturer to alter their alerting system to send digests or condensed reports once a certain threshold has been reached. "IP x.x.x.x has portscanned you Y times in the last 24 hours."

      Otherwise, surprise, you're basically suffering a small DoS attack.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  55. Re: It isn't illegal... by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

    if by number you mean 2 (britain and germany), then yes. possession of nmap is illegal, although not enforced. it's basically a law to give them ammunition when they nab you and have nothing on you.

  56. answer them. loudly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they choose to "knock" on your door, instead of having an alert tell you, have it trigger a very loud response, such as flooding their network with traffic. Since it is in direct response to them, they have triggered there own DOS attack.

  57. Half Smart by gremlin_591002 · · Score: 1

    So, you're smart enough to have a firewall with port detection and know how to block a subnet, but you're not smart enough to write a filter that takes that port scan notification from that subnet and throw it in the trash? I've got buddies that work for banks, they do this crap all day long. They can't turn off port scan, because company policy, but they need to filter out stuff that doesn't matter. They do it at the monitoring software but most home users get email notifications. Use a mail client that has decent filtering. It's not like this is going to be the only time somebody scans you, you'll get better at writing your filters.

  58. I've been on the other side of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once set up a scripted pentesting system to scan all my employers public IP ranges and alert us when anything unexpected appeared, such as unauthorised FTP servers in distant offices, firewall changes accidentally exposing things, etc. A few months later we started getting alerts about all sorts of insecure services cropping up in this tiny office in the middle of nowhere. Took us several days to get the local IT team to investigate. Eventually it transpired that the ISP had changed our public IP range without telling us, and had re-allocated our old range to a new army HQ building (this in a region and country where you /really/ don't want to provoke the authorities). I can't fully express how very very quickly I reconfigured the scanner....

  59. Fight Fire with Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know who they are.

    Have your home system generate a "helpful" email to them for every port scan. If you have to read it, they should have to read it, too.

  60. Stealth mode by PuddleBoy · · Score: 1

    Maybe a silly question on my part, but...

    Do you have your firewall set to discard unwanted packets silently? In other words, unless someone from the outside is hitting an IP and a port that you want open to the outside, there should be *no response* to outside queries (including port scans). If the firewall acknowledges the ping of the port *in any way* with a return packet, then the outside party knows there's something attached to that IP/port.

    It's always best to give the appearance that there's nothing residing at that IP/port....

  61. Welcome to the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the internet! It can be rough at times, but you'll get used to it.

  62. Late to the party, but... by Jethro · · Score: 2

    Set up a honeypot. Put a machine inside your network, and open some of the ports they're scanning on it. See what they're trying to do.

    As a bonus, /if/ they do anything, they have now actually broken the law and you can get law enforcement to actually do something.

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  63. Had respect until.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...You said "Sic anonymous on them"

    Too bad, thought you were smart.

  64. Firewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a real firewall that you have better control over.

    Personally, I recommend/ use an old PC with a relatively recent OpenBSD distribution installed on it. These guys really have great network capabilities.

  65. same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no answer but I ran into this same thing with am outfit that claimed to be scanning ports for a known problem. I can't remember the exact vulnerability but it was the proper port after searching the Internet.

    I had to give up on it and ignore them. I was not alerting myself of issues so I guess that I'm lucky to be able to ignore them as I had sent a message to the .or and they responded same as you, and same as you they stopped for a while and started up again. It has been over a year since I last looked fir the scans and I probably should turn on my logging again.

  66. Re:kill yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember when Slashdot was full of techies talking tech, before the 10 yr. olds came?

  67. Ask noobdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is ask slashdot now a replacement for people too lazy to google? jesus christ.

  68. Re: It isn't illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's your source on nmap being illegal in UK and Germany? First I've heard of it. Given David Cameron's technological illiteracy I wouldn't put it past his govt to do something stupid like this though.

  69. charge them for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    send a polite email informing them that they will be charged a nominal fee of $1 per port per scan attempt as of DATE (30 days from email). Company agrees to pay for all legal fees incurred that are related to this matter, including any court costs and attorneys fees. Regardless of any further communication, ANY PORT SCAN ON OR AFTER DATE CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS, AN APPROVAL TO BE BILLED, AND AN AGREEMENT TO PAY THE AMOUNT BILLED PLUS ALL LEGAL COSTS.

  70. Well, here's your problem... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    "[T]he UTM apparently does attack detection before filtering, so that didn't stop the alerts. And although I *could* disable port scan alerts, it's an all-or-nothing thing"

    You're using a crap firewall.

  71. It would be immoral for me to suggest violence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... so I won't do that.

  72. Threat responce and possible course of action by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
    Without knowing what company and what thier actual business model is, my first inclination assuming they have not been hacked, would be are you doing anything that is creating IP traffic that they might be observing, and thus scanning you back?

    .
    A case in point, I once bought an HP/WinME (pls don't ask) machine that came with some undocumented extra software that I didn't ask for, no surprise. The actual purpose of this "keyboard driver" system service was to keep any dialup session active, by pinging a particular IP address. That address was assigned to a company (not the Mfg or even software author) and that company had necessarily black-holed that particular IP address, which could not be changed. My firewall would light up every so often because of probing packets and ICMP coming back from that domain in response to this software on my machine doing really stupid things. I could not turn this feature off without hacking my own machine to remove this system service. Funny how removing a system service keyboard driver has absolutely no effect on using the machine, who would have guessed. In hind sight, I can not blame that company for scanning me because in their eyes I was the intruder, constantly pinging them.

    If you are sure that none of that is the case, and you really don't want to disable your fw scan detection then this is what I would do. Make a copy of one of their scans and print it. Write a letter for a cease and desist and address it to their legal department, and sent it via certified USPS mail. If that does not get action then I would seriously consider turning that feature off.

  73. Re:Simple. Toss Sophos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    IPv6 gets completely discarded, since it is all too easy for an attacker to grab your entire network topology.

    Could you please elaborate on that ?

  74. Filter your email by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    It doesn't sound like there is much you can do. But.. you could just filter your email so that this particular error report, when their particular ip is attached goes straight to trash.

  75. Charge them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your network bandwidth costs you money. They're using your network bandwidth without permission. Send them a registered letter explaining this and stating that on X date, you will begin charging them $X/bit of scanning activity they send to your network.

    THEN FOLLOW-UP AND ACTUALLY DO IT IF THEY DON'T CHANGE THEIR PRACTICES.

  76. Learn to apply filters to your email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just filter the messages out of your email.

  77. Give us the numbers1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post the IP addresses of the offending parties. Perhaps someone here will recognize themselves or check into it for some late night fun.
    This is useless traffic on the web and needs to be stopped. It is the same as someone jiggling your door handles. The cops might not want to check it out, but it indicates some asshole is looking for a way to cause trouble. The sooner the asshole is put out of his misery, the better for us all.

  78. Re:kill yourself by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    It's not young people that are ruining this place: the young people don't hang out here, and instead spend their time elsewhere besides a washed-up tech site. This place is mostly populated by angry old farts who just sit around in their Depends and complain about new technologies and changing society. The above is probably one of them.

  79. Ignore it by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    If you're confident your system is secure against intrusions and you're monitoring things this closely, a port scan is ... nothing. Who cares? It's intrusions you care about, not probes. Just be sure anything you have open is secured. Monitor attempts to attack anything opened to the world.

    I personally don't monitor for port scans, I really don't care. Anything open on my servers is either secured, monitored, or if it's a legacy service I'm unsure about, sandboxed (chrooted, unprivileged, etc) to minimize any intrusion into it from causing any damage to the rest of the system.

  80. A lot of retarded answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just put another linux or freebsd based firewall in the chain and turn on reverse proxy to the primary firewall. Use an IPS that can scan for signatures and set the port scans on the secondary firewall so you are alerted to real threats. All you need is a cheap Pentium 3,4 (that's what is in most commercial firewalls, juniper, cisco asa, mcafee etc), 2g of RAM will do but 4 is better, and 2 E1000 NICs so you can route traffic correctly.

    You probably have a faster processor sitting around doing nothing. Plug the primary firewall directly into the secondary device and and the other NIC goes to your switch. Make sure the unix fw is completely setup in a chrooted environment. All this except the hardware itself (unless you have a brother/sister/friend that doesn't mind parting with old hardware!) is free and tons of how-to's on the interwebs to accomplish this task. You can also now set the unix box to attack back, the comapny won't like you doing the same thing in return.You could also offer to help them to get rid of the problem completely when they contact you for attacking back. If you know as much as you have stated so far, then you know someone that could help them fix the issue.

    Do some speed tests after it is in place to make sure you didn't lose too much speed with the overhead.

    There are a lot of answers here from people that are not network engineers... and this isn't a tin foil hat, it is proper security.

  81. Re:kill yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, but pepperidge farms remembers

  82. Easy. Open all of the ports. by sims+2 · · Score: 2

    http://portspoof.org/
    http://www.saltwaterc.eu/ports...

    Now whenever anyone scans you all ports show as open. pretty cool huh?

    Also great if you are trying to find out what ports your isp is blocking.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:Easy. Open all of the ports. by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this.

      The trollface was worth it.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  83. Add a static Blackhole route to the UTM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the UTM, under "Interfaces & Routing" > "Static Routing" > "Standard Static Routes" click "New Static Route", change the type to "Blackhole route" and then create and add an object of the offending network range. This blocks any accidental replies or outgoing traffic.

    Add a dummy RFC 1918 gateway address that you don't use, like 172.16.99.1 or 10.99.99.1, to a Blackhole route rule as well.

    Now under the "Policy Routes" tab, hit "New Policy Route" and make the type "Gateway Route". Set the Source Network to the offending external network, leave Service and Destination as "Any", and set the Gateway to your blackholed dummy gateway as set above.

    Routing decisions are made before anything else on the UTM (like IPS, Portscan detection...) so now that you have a blackhole route, the traffic will be blackholed before it consumes any other resources and you won't have any events logged or notifications sent.

    Check out the Sophos UTM forums, they're a friendly and knowledgeable bunch of folks over there!

  84. File a bug report with SOPHOS by naris · · Score: 1

    There should be a way to have the firewall ignore these port scans, especially if they are already blocked!

  85. Try changing notification level by eric_t_duckman · · Score: 1

    I've never worked with this software, but glancing at the manual at https://www.sophos.com/en-us/m... (assuming it's the correct one) suggests some things for you to check. Is your notification level currently set to "info"? Try changing it to "warning". Look for the "limit notifications" setting as well.

  86. Port scanner? Tarpit 'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TCP Tarpit. See LaBrea, for example.

    Unfortunately, if you're behind a firewall appliance you're at the mercy of whatever capabilities the vendor has decided to provide, and tarpitting is probably not on that list.

  87. Thanks (mostly) by jetkins · · Score: 1
    Well it seems that the general consensus is to disable or ignore the alerts and just get on with life, and I expect that's what I'll do. But to those that pointed out that port scans are a fact of life, yeah, I get that. I didn't come down in the last shower, and I know it's a big bad scary world out there, but the UTM is intelligent enough that it only raises an alert when a scan is considered particularly egregious. Even with all the script kiddies and other scanners out there, I get an average of less than one port scan alert per week under normal circumstances, not counting the one routine scan that I myself have requested. So when I started getting multiple reports daily, every day, from the same subnet, yeah, it got my attention. Analogously, we get people ringing our front door bell once every couple of weeks, but these folks are standing on our front stoop ringing that bell all day every day, and it chokes my goat to just shrug it off and let them keep doing it.

    Turning off any alerts goes against the grain, but as y'all have pointed out, as long as the defenses are in place then stuff bouncing off the walls doesn't really warrant concern.

    To those that suggested filtering the alert messages, I have considered that, but I don't currently have any means of filtering based on anything but the mail headers, and the originating address only appears in the body. Still, I may look a little further if I start to twitch because I'm "missing" alerts.

    To those that pointed out that the UTM ought to be filtering before detecting, yeah, I get that too, and in fact I have raised it with Sophos, but unfortunately as a non-paying Home Use customer, my voice doesn't carry a lot of weight. I do get that I could probably cobble something together using Open Source and a bunch of cryptic incantations, but frankly, I do enough low-level stuff in my day job - when I get home, I just want to enjoy my internet connection, not spend hours maintaining it. But thanks for the suggestions.

    So in summary, I guess it's time to turn off the notifications, stick my virtual fingers in my ears, and start chanting Merry Christmas. Cheers!

  88. Re: It isn't illegal... by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

    while i was still at the university, our networking professor warned us about Germany and mentioned that similar laws were about to be passed in the UK. and then i read it in nmap's faq or in /usr/share/docs/nmap a few years later. i think it predates cameron.

    having nmap on your computer is treated the same way as if you walked around with lock picking tools. presumption of guilt.

  89. Why not just ask for a new IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could be paying for a static IP through and through but most ISPs roll them from time to time. So, why not ask to be rolled to another?

  90. Check your network for file-sharing software by maas15 · · Score: 1

    Before you complain to their ISP, check whether anyone is using filesharing software. Off the top of my head Gnutella and some bittorrent clients will initiate portscans to get around filtering.

  91. Make it their problem. by jcr · · Score: 1

    Start automatically bouncing every report to their abuse address?

    Yep. As it stands now, you're the one being inconvenienced.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  92. Re:Simple. Toss Sophos by AaronW · · Score: 0

    With IPv4 one typically runs NAT so only one IP address is exposed to the Internet. With IPv6 NAT is not used. Each host has a unique globally identifiable IPv6 address. The ISP typically offers a /64 address where the last 64 bits are assigned to each host. With IPv6 each host is directly addressable from the Internet. With NAT, only the firewall is visible.

    One problem I have with my ISP is I want a /56 so I can subnet it on my business account. You can't subnet a /64.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  93. Report to the abuse dept. at *scanner's* IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OP, you need to do a traceroute and figure out who the ISP is of the scanner. Then email a copy of your firewall logs / alerts to the abuse dept. of the ISP. CC the abuse dept. of your ISP. If they ignore you, report to abuse at the ISP of the ISP. The scans will stop because the ISP does not want to be blacklisted for ignoring abuse complaints and they will disconnect their customer if they continue. The only exception to this is if the offenders are in China. They ignore everything but cash money.

    I know this because I have worked the abuse desk at several ISPs.

  94. Make them pay like a shrink wrapped contract. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Write a program called "guess the password". When the remote connects to the TCP port, allow it through to this program. It sends the "shrink-wrapped" text that says, "Welcome to the guess a name game that costs only $1. By continuing on and entering data, you at IP address ... consent to this charge. If not, disconnect now without sending any further data.". THe program should accept a response (or a disconnect). If it gets a response, it should log the transaction.

    Take the list of game plays and send a bill to the contact. If they don't pay, send it to a collection agency.

  95. My advice? by jon3k · · Score: 1

    Get a hobby. Seriously. Port scans are nothing. It's a waste of time trying to track them or stop them.

  96. ....so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who looks at their ports, will see port scans. It is common, normal and often is sourced from identifiable locations.

    So.....don't look?

  97. I wish you people would get off the net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of being on the Internet means your going to get port scanned and communicated with. It's like the postal system. Try getting them to stop delivering junk mail. If you want service, if you want to be on the Internet, you're going to have to suck it up and accept it. This isn't a private network. You are not the owner. You are not in control. You have to take whatever is sent your way even if that is a DDoS, spam, whatever.

    What you should do is disable the feature. It's a pointless feature you and the majority have zero understanding of. Real security is obtained by fixing the bugs, applying patches, etc. Ultimately your probably just shit out of luck like the rest of us cause the software we're running is piss poor- and in large part can't be fixed. Even where we have a “100%” libre system we're largely at the mercy of other companies because there is micro code in various components still. That is we don't really have any 100% libre system. The closest thing we have to it would be a router or possibly one of a handful of mini boards (ie Banana Pi, CubieBoard, etc. most all others are dependant on non-free pieces of code).

  98. Use a dumb router to protect your smart router by Karger · · Score: 1

    Put a dumb router *outside* your smart router, that does nothing but block any packets arriving from the offending subnet.

  99. Re:Simple. Toss Sophos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well there is a third option I employed once against idiots that kept trying something not so nice in the same category. Turns out that a couple of 1 Gbps lines and a few seconds are more than enough to get the message across to certain Chinese idiots...

  100. port scanning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Find the power switch, use it. Go outside and breathe :)

  101. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  102. Let them in! by spongman · · Score: 1

    1) set up a paved box on an isolated vlan.
    2) forward all traffic from your scanners to that box.
    3) log every packet.
    4) send traces of hacking attempts to the FBI.

  103. Corporate Addresses, not abuse@ by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Your ISP isn't going to do anything about it. The sender's ISP might, if you bug them enough (try contacting their security people, because you're presumably not the only address that sender is port-scanning. Also, it's possible that the address is being spoofed by some third party to DDoS the "sender".) But if the packets are really coming from the sender, and you've contacted their Whois and abuse contacts without success, go for the "Contact Us" on their web page and contact everybody, CEO, sales, marketing, HR, webmaster, and any other @ you can find there. And if that doesn't work, start with phone calls. (I thought about suggesting that you send their IP people a copy of each scan packet, but you need to be really really really sure it's from them, because if they're being spoofed or otherwise attacked, you're helping do a serious DoS/DDoS on them.)

    And sometimes it's not the apparent sender, and sometimes it's weirder than that. Many years ago, one of my lab machines was virused and sending a ping every second to a bot-controller address at MIT. MIT's web page didn't have useful help desk contacts that you could access if you weren't a student, but I knew the security director so I emailed him. Turns out the bot-controller was on a Sun machine in Japan, whose IP address was a byte-swapped version of an MIT address. (Yes, my machine was running Linux, one of the very early Red Hat versions, and it would get attacked every week or so. Nobody ever bothered the Win95 machine next to it, because what use would that have been to an attacker?)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  104. Proper Rules fix this by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    Sure, the kernel gets the packet. A trivial annoyance. If you put the drop rule in the prerouting table of a linux kernel you should be able to drop the packets before they trigger any alerts.

    If you have nftables support in a 4.x kernel you can get the packet dropped long before it can reach any sort of analyzer.

    The port scan alert is the complaint, not an incipient load from the packets themselves, so an early filter will stop the annoyance.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  105. Ask your is to block them inbound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show them scans avidence and ask your is to block it

  106. Take off & nuke it from orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the only way to be sure....

  107. Re:Simple. Toss Sophos by ahodgson · · Score: 2

    Your ISP sucks. They should be handing out /48's to all business accounts.

  108. Re:Simple. Toss Sophos by ahodgson · · Score: 2

    Also, the great thing about having a /64 on each segment for host addressing is there is no practical way to scan it.

  109. iptables by NewYork · · Score: 1
  110. Whitelist their subnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully stopping the alerts, then port forward all packers originating from them back to them.

  111. Get functional regulators, for one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Vote for Bernie. Then get him to make federal agencies (FCC, FBI, ...) do their job in a timely manner.
    2) Meanwhile, pestering all the ISPs involved, as well as the company housing the culprit offending venue, to halt or face legal action, usually has an effect.

    3) Be sure to remove the actual offenders, once positively identified, from the gene pool!

  112. Do what Tsutomu did... by jpiratefish · · Score: 1

    Back a long time ago, Tsutomu Shimomura (the engineer who ID'd Kevin Mitnick's famous sequence-number attacks), got pissed about Microsoft's FTP server trying to connect on the identd port after he FTP'd into them for any reason. To get back at Microsoft, Tsutomu setup the chargen service on the identd port (port 113) with a rate-limit. When he FTP'd to Microsoft after that, any connections to port 113 would stay open as his computer would stream all ASCII characters out. Seeing as you are likely having ports scanned like 80/443 and so on - why not chargen those? The scans will get stuck, and the data will keep flowing until they die. Even better, if they're collecting all the returns - chargen will ensure they get all the ASCII their disks can hold. Cheers.