SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
As for closing it, have you checked your firewall and how it is configured? Don't know about linux, but once upon a time in Windows, a fairly annoying little program kept a port open in my firewall. I'm not sure if that's possible in linux. Depends a lot on your firewall.
Hi
Strange thing is that there is no open port 623 when I check from inside, it is when I check from outside
netstat -lnp doesn't show anything at that port
PORT STATE SERVICE
37/tcp open time
53/tcp open domain
80/tcp open http
113/tcp open auth
135/tcp filtered msrpc
137/tcp filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn
445/tcp filtered microsoft-ds
623/tcp filtered unknown
Thanks for reply
Well, the port is not realy open, is filtered, so it is on the firewall, not sure what might couse it though. Any suggestion is welcome.
This thread is Google's top hit for port 623, so I'm adding useful information.
It's used by Intel's vPro/AMT/MBeX suite of technology, wherein a KVM is integrated with the motherboard, allowing remote access to the system regardless of the state of the OS -- or even if there's none.
That's why you don't see it in the netstat output, the OS isn't listening, the hardware is.
I dunno if the OS firewall will stop it, I haven't tested yet. I don't even know which behaviour I prefer, if the OS can control it or if the hardware wins.
It's intended for central management by corporate helpdesks and so on, and I'm looking for decent free or open source software to use with it.
Hey guys,
FreakWent is right. This port is open by the NIC itself as part of lights out management. While it's not really a problem to leave this port open if there is some kind of security issue in your vendors particular implementation of LOM then an attacker would have access to reboot your system among other low level commands.
If you wanted to disable this you'd most likely have to reboot and after the bios screen look for your nic to announce how to configure it. It may say something like PXE boot but there should be some kind of keyboard combo that'll get you directly into the nics settings. From there you can usually disable LOM.
Alternatively, you can put LOM on another subnet so that you don't even see it on a portscan of your main ip.
But to distribute machines to consumers with these ports open is grossly negligent, IMNSHO.
And to not even tell the consumer at all? Wow.
That's just wrong as windows raining down.
I'm all for IPMI implementations, but this is just completely irresponsible.
What makes it even worse, is that this thread is at the top of the google hits - meaning, there's a whole world of people running this model machine just waiting for a 0day whackattack, because no one knows they're potentially vulnerable.
Next we'll be hearing that these machines have a factory default set of credentials enabled on the listening ports.
Finally, it's definately NOT kewl for a manufacturer to so prominently use low port numbers for such things - without first registering those ports.
It is critical you close this port. Multiple exploits allowing anyone access are now circulating in the wild.
Log in to your iLo interface, go to your Administration Tab, find the "Access Settings" menu, and un-check the box alongside "Enable IPMI/DCMI over LAN on Port 623" and click "Apply".
But to distribute machines to consumers with these ports open is grossly negligent, IMNSHO.
And to not even tell the consumer at all? Wow.
That's just wrong as windows raining down.
I'm all for IPMI implementations, but this is just completely irresponsible.
What makes it even worse, is that this thread is at the top of the google hits - meaning, there's a whole world of people running this model machine just waiting for a 0day whackattack, because no one knows they're potentially vulnerable.
Next we'll be hearing that these machines have a factory default set of credentials enabled on the listening ports.
Finally, it's definately NOT kewl for a manufacturer to so prominently use low port numbers for such things - without first registering those ports.
Kudos to the OP for scanning his own box
Kindest regards,
.
Even if the OP scanned his own conf, would you explain to me how can somebody can break in without knowing his WAN IP ? Its like I give you my house keys but you have to figured out in which part of the world I live, and that would be impossible.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
Definately NOT kewl!
IPMI/RMCP login by Administrator
