Matt Alexander wrote: >
> No, I meant that he could use telnet to do a poor-man's port-scan. He
> didn't want to use nmap, so instead he could just telnet to port 80 or 110
> or whatever to see if he gets a response.
> ~M
> ---
Ok - but to check 65,000 ports or even just the privileged ports would
take a mighty long time and even then - depending upon where this is
done from, the results may vary. I keep a laptop with nmap on it to
connect up from a remote, public ip address for this purpose because
checking from a local lan connection or the localhost will produce
vastly different results.
on the local machine, listing firewall rulesets and netstat can tell you
an awful lot.
(text/plain)