open port 623
 

Hi
I found strange port 623 open, anyone know what it is and how can I close it.

Thx

Here's a web site I found with some information on the port: http://www.auditmypc.com/port/udp-port-623.asp

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.

From a terminal, type netstat -pantu

This should tell you what is listening on port 623. Ports are only "open" if something is listening on them

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
So, where is it ?.
Thx

Perhaps it just isn't blocked by your firewall. Have you tried closing it (I don't know slackware)?

Try

Hi
Thanks for reply
port 623 isn't open on firewall if that's what you meant.

netstat -teanlp gives same result as -lnp or -pantu
thx

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.

Bump
 

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.

I'd expect it can be disabled in the BIOS then.

Lights out management port
 

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.

HTH

Definately NOT kewl!
 

Well, an iLO for a laptop is a nice idea...

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,

.

IPMI/RMCP login by Administrator
 

Hi All,

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".

Here is the short story: "IPMI: Express Train to Hell, v2.0" http://fish2.com/ipmi/itrain-gz.html

And here - the full details: http://fish2.com/ipmi/itrain.pdf

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.

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to ask this on a thread that's almost 2 years old, but it doesn't matter if the WAN IP isn't known. Lots of people scan lots of IPs for open ports. If someone finds port 623 open on an IP, then they could look at finding a way to exploit it.

With your house analogy, imagine that the person who has your keys can check 1000s of houses a minute, exponentially more if they have a botnet (make copies of keys and lets others check 1000s of houses a minute).

With computers, with a limited number of IPs, nothing is impossible. It just takes time. I get ssh attempts on my IP all the time, and I don't have my IP posted publically, and I don't have my dynamic DNS name posted publically either. My public sites are hosted on a separate network and my dynamic DNS is only for me to access my local network. So there is no way a hacker found my machine from me posting it somewhere publically. They scanned a bunch of IPs and found a port open on my computer and then attempt to exploit that. Luckily, since I have root access disabled from ssh, they'd have to guess my username and password. It still isn't the most secure since I can change the port or disable passwords, but it is a choice I make knowingly.

If you don't think that a hacker can find you without you posting your public IP, you are sadly mistaken.

Exactly! so whats the deal with sharing your ports and internal IPs ? If you have a good setup like indeed deny root access in your ssh conf and a good configured firewall there is nothing to worry about. I also own a server open to the public and I constantly see in the auth.log bots trying to access random ports with root as user, I perfectly know.

This post as well as your previous one is irrelevant as this thread is certainly viewed by many people not aware of the means to secure their connections. These people could think from what you first wrote that keeping ports open don't put their system at risk, even if they didn't take any safety measure. You are giving this audience a disservice.

Furthermore there was no point quoting a post more than three years old.

The point of the post you originally quoted is it is a bad idea for manufacturers to just leave ports like this open without somehow notifying customers and you responded basically saying, "Who cares, since you don't have the WAN IP?" That is what prompted my response, because it shouldn't matter if you have the WAN IP or not. Manufacturers should do their best to ensure an item is relatively secure when first started, which as this topic showed, wasn't the case here.