eBay is port scanning your system when you load the webpage

[jagdtigger]

30 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Looking at my own server I can see tons of login attempts using all sorts of password tables.

It is also recommended to not expose it directly to the internet.....

[Eigenvektor]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

It is also recommended to not expose it directly to the internet.....

What's your recommendation to manage a remote server over the Internet then?

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, Eigenvektor said:

What's your recommendation to manage a remote server over the Internet then?

Openvpn hands down.....

[Suika]

9 hours ago, poochyena said:

how would that harm me or anyone else

It's not that it directly harms anyone, it's that it's unusual and scummy behavior from a website in a world where even security experts don't expect websites to inspect local networks with portscanning to gather data like this.

 

Everything considered, I understand eBay's reason for port scanning, but it's nearly unlawful and kind of a breach of trust.

 

Also worth noting that a lot of games and anti-cheat clients do this sort of port scanning too.

[poochyena]

10 hours ago, AshRiver said:

It is like they are trying to hack you or something. Hackers use port scanning method to penetrate network. Website should not perform any port scanning on your computer network. 

well, are they actually hacking people? If not, then whats the issue

5 hours ago, descendency said:

Because it's actually illegal to do this in most states in the US without consent. 

source? Never heard that before

42 minutes ago, Suika said:

it's that it's unusual and scummy behavior

I can't imagine anyone besides hyper tech enthusiasts caring.

[Suika]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

I can't imagine anyone besides hyper tech enthusiasts caring.

Even if you don't understand what it means for a website to be port scanning its users and visitors, it doesn't change the fact that it's pretty scummy. It's not something that "only affects people in the know," it affects everybody.

[NumLock21]

13 hours ago, poochyena said:

how would that harm me or anyone else

Sounds like you're the type of person who will say I've got nothing to hide so I don't care if eBay scanned my ports or not.

So can I have your password to your phone and see all of your pictures, text messages and browsing history.

[xvision1991]

everyone can scan your port every sec. if they want..... But i do agree, and want to know way they do this.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Suika said:

Even if you don't understand what it means for a website to be port scanning its users and visitors, it doesn't change the fact that it's pretty scummy. It's not something that "only affects people in the know," it affects everybody.

you haven't really explained how its scummy.

 

42 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Sounds like you're the type of person who will say I've got nothing to hide so I don't care if eBay scanned my ports or not.

So can I have your password to your phone and see all of your pictures, text messages and browsing history.

I could lose access to accounts by doing that. What could I lose by what ebay is doing?

[Aimi]

I've never actually seen these port scans, and I tend to monitor my traffic often. Of course, I also have a few different blockers in effect and BitDefender even blocks port scans on its own, so maybe that's it.

[Suika]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

you haven't really explained how its scummy.

I did, so it's either being ignored, or you don't personally find it to be a problem which is mildly alarming. Are you suggesting I have permission to tap into your network as long as I'm not directly harming you? If so, what's off the table, physical harm? Harm to your career or money? Can I just take all of your information and sell it? That's worth a few bucks, usually.

[duncannah]

They can only check whether something is listening on a port, but it can't communicate with whatever is running there (unless it's a websocket server which also has to accept the connection). So it's pretty much a non-issue. If you have vulnerable ports open that's on you

[poochyena]

23 minutes ago, Suika said:

I did, so it's either being ignored, or you don't personally find it to be a problem which is mildly alarming. Are you suggesting I have permission to tap into your network as long as I'm not directly harming you? If so, what's off the table, physical harm? Harm to your career or money? Can I just take all of your information and sell it? That's worth a few bucks, usually.

you didn't though, you just said "It's not that it directly harms anyone" and then said its scummy and unusual.

And yes, you can take any information from me that doesn't harm me.

[StDragon]

IANAL, but pen (penetration) testing without consent is a form of hacking.

 

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers.

[Curious Pineapple]

5 minutes ago, poochyena said:

you didn't though, you just said "It's not that it directly harms anyone" and then said its scummy and unusual.

And yes, you can take any information from me that doesn't harm me.

Staring through a childs window at night doesn't directly harm anyone. Is that OK?

[Bombastinator]

This seems to be revolving around the argument of “is this or is it not damaging?” or “is this or is it not legal?”  I’m going to introduce a lesser concept: hinky.   It may or may not be damaging and it may or may not be legal (though it’s kind of looking like it isn’t) but it’s kind of hinky.

[Suika]

56 minutes ago, poochyena said:

you didn't though, you just said "It's not that it directly harms anyone" and then said its scummy and unusual.

And yes, you can take any information from me that doesn't harm me.

"Because a company that has no business knowing what's running on your local network is inspecting your local network without explicitly stating it. Some consider it an unlawful inspection regardless of intent, but it seems that the consensus is that it's riding a thin line and is generally viewed as scummy."

 

It's not worth dragging out this discussion any further than it has, you have a near unrealistic disdain for user data and privacy so there's no way the conversation could be shifted for either one of us to change our opinions.

[Suika]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Well, again, it's not exactly as unlawful as you'd think.  The rest is opinionated.

I never said it was.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Staring through a childs window at night doesn't directly harm anyone. Is that OK?

yes

 

35 minutes ago, Suika said:

"Because a company that has no business knowing what's running on your local network is inspecting your local network without explicitly stating it. Some consider it an unlawful inspection regardless of intent, but it seems that the consensus is that it's riding a thin line and is generally viewed as scummy."

 

It's not worth dragging out this discussion any further than it has, you have a near unrealistic disdain for user data and privacy so there's no way the conversation could be shifted for either one of us to change our opinions.

Thats your opinion though, you personally don't like it. Its like saying you don't like their logo. Something isn't scummy just because you personally don't like it.

[Curious Pineapple]

^^This guy has issues.

[Sir Asvald]

18 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

What's your recommendation to manage a remote server over the Internet then?

Create a VPN tunnel between you and your server.. I used to use this with my servers since I am running a business from home. Not anymore since I'm moving to a business line which will give a static IP or the option to have up to 4. At extra costs.

[StDragon]

21 hours ago, Sir Asvald said:

Create a VPN tunnel between you and your server.. I used to use this with my servers since I am running a business from home. Not anymore since I'm moving to a business line which will give a static IP or the option to have up to 4. At extra costs.

Having a static IP doesn't make it inherently more secure. I'm assuming you've changed from using SSL VPN to a direct IPSec connection between two firewalls? In that case, yes, having static IP's would be a prerequisite to setting it up properly.

[Sir Asvald]

4 hours ago, StDragon said:

Having a static IP doesn't make it inherently more secure. I'm assuming you've changed from using SSL VPN to a direct IPSec connection between two firewalls? In that case, yes, having static IP's would be a prerequisite to setting it up properly.

Sorry, should have worded it correctly, no static IP right now. Yes. I had that is correct between the firewalls I created the IPSec tunnel. Although it I was using a dynamic IP address which was very annoying. Lol

 

The static IP addresses will be used for my Exchange Server and my own VPN connection. I know it won't make me safe. The reason to why I had a dedicated server because my IP address kept changing and it was on a residential line. Port 25 was being blocked. Now I am using an STMP relay so I can send and receive emails. No more dedicated server. 

[StDragon]

5 hours ago, Sir Asvald said:

The reason to why I had a dedicated server because my IP address kept changing and it was on a residential line. Port 25 was being blocked. Now I am using an STMP relay so I can send and receive emails. No more dedicated server. 

Yeah, it's normal for residential connection to block port 25. I've stopped administrating on-prem Exchange servers as they've been replaced with Office 365 over the years. When you amortize the cost, it's a break-even with on-prem ending up the inferior solution. O365 has come a long way since the early years in that you can get things like reporting, better message tracing, legal holds, discoveries, etc. Not to mention better anti-spamming and anti-spoofing. Though most of that is via having proper SPF, DMARC, and DKIM records setup to be honest (at least on the anti-spoofing front)

 

Either way, an SMTP relay (or Smart host) will typically be going over TLS via port 587 anyways, so it's a non issue.

 

Depending on where you're at in the life of that server, I highly recommend moving that to the cloud. Solves so many issues at multiple levels  

[Sir Asvald]

28 minutes ago, StDragon said:

Yeah, it's normal for residential connection to block port 25. I've stopped administrating on-prem Exchange servers as they've been replaced with Office 365 over the years. When you amortize the cost, it's a break-even with on-prem ending up the inferior solution. O365 has come a long way since the early years in that you can get things like reporting, better message tracing, legal holds, discoveries, etc. Not to mention better anti-spamming and anti-spoofing. Though most of that is via having proper SPF, DMARC, and DKIM records setup to be honest (at least on the anti-spoofing front)

 

Either way, an SMTP relay (or Smart host) will typically be going over TLS via port 587 anyways, so it's a non issue.

 

Depending on where you're at in the life of that server, I highly recommend moving that to the cloud. Solves so many issues at multiple levels  

I was actually using hybrid between my on-prem and O365. While having the hybrid setup, I encountered problem after problem. So I ditched the whole hybrid. It is nice using Microsoft anti-spam/spoofing service but I would still get the occasional email. Now, I am using Proxmox Mail Gateway as my email filter and it is working great no issues at all. In fact it has helped me. My emails were all marked as spam. Now since I have a mail filter, any spoofed emails are straight away rejected.