web application: is there any danger for client port scanning?

Are there security risks associated with scanning client-side ports? Or, more specifically, a "trustworthy" site (eg, Banking Website) that loads javascript trying to connect to multiple localhost ports?

This seems suspicious to me, but it seems to be an emerging (or standard?) Practice, as mentioned in the previous questions here:

Strange Payment Gate

In addition, some Redditors noted that Facebook and banking sites also do this:

why is Facebook checking my open ports? from AskNetsec

Why is my internet banking is scanning for VNC/RDP? from AskNetsec

And even cybersecurity researcher Paul Moore also sought to sue for this:

Is the Halifax Conducting “Unauthorised” Port Scans?


So what is really happening? Why are they doing this? Can there be security or privacy risks involved?

This answer suggests that they may be doing it for some kind of threat detection or anti-fraud process, but all this still seems suspicious.

network: slow Nmap scanning in some IP ranges

I am a security rookie trying to scan a private network in the range – using nmap on Kali Linux.

The routing table:

route -n

Kernel IP routing table
Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface         UG    100    0        0 eth0   UG    1      0        0 tun0   UG    0      0        0 tun0   UG    1      0        0 tun0   U     100    0        0 eth0   UG    0      0        0 tun0   U     0      0        0 tun0

I tried to scan the entire range of the private network at once, but this caused nmap to close after a period of time.

Then I tried to scan blocks of 256 IP addresses at once, starting with

nmap -sS

Scans in the range – are completed quickly, but the scans in the range – are exponentially slower and generally do not complete.

Is there anything in the network routing that is affecting this? Is there something I am missing completely?

film – How to correct colors when scanning Bleached Polaroids?

I bleached the back of a Polaroid that comes from Fuji FP-100C pouring bleach materials for toilets on the back of the Polaroid film to wash them and let the light pass through them. Sometimes it creates more cool interesting effects than Polaroid itself.

But when I scan it, the colors go wrong and are different from the original photo that developed automatically. My scanner is Epson V-600and i used to SilverFast Epson software and scanning that comes free.

Is color something I should fix while scanning? Or, in general, what are some nuances that I should consider for this process?

35 mm – Film negative scanning – Resolution, DPI and file size

dpi is approximately inches … pixels per inch.

4500×3000 pixels at 3200 dpi are 1.4 x 0.94 inches, in the movie.

4500×3000 pixels at 360 dpi are 12.5 x 8.33 inches, on print paper. The spacing and size of the printed pixels. I should have shown the dimensions in inches too.

This is a simple division … 4500 pixels / 360 dpi = 12.5 inches.

Exactly the same pixels, but simply scaled to different sizes of inches on film or paper. This is an extremely important basic printing principle. Dpi is just a number that doesn't even exist until the inches are declared.

For 4500×3000 pixels, the print size depends on the dpi printed …
If for example dramatic, at 100 dpi it would be 45×30 inches.
If it prints at 300 dpi, then 15 x 10 inches.
If printed at a scale of 12×8 inches, even 375 dpi.

What are the best Epson Scan settings for scanning black and white negatives?

I am using Epson V600 as my scanner and with the default Epson Scan application.
What is the best configuration to use in the application?

enter the description of the image here

For example, what is the good type of image, resolution?
Also, should I check the focus mask, grain reduction, etc.?

What color photo filter should I use to compensate for a heavy magenta dye on my color slides after scanning?

I am in the process of digitizing a large number of slides. They all have a heavy magenta cast. I have been using Photoshop to try the correction but with limited success. Those who have more problems were taken inside a mine using flash and sometimes multiple flash, but the cast is also present in external shots without flash. The slides were taken between 1973 and 1975. The use of Auto-Color in Photoshop does not seem to help.

Film scanning adapters for medium format.

The standard solution to digitize the medium format is exploration – Adapters for A4 scanners (more or less …) for 120 films are easier to implement than scanning adapters.

There are many reasons for this; these include standardization problems, only those width of 120 films were properly standardized, to 56 mm, and never length.

Therefore, it has quite different formats, such as 645 (56 × 42 mm) and 6×17 (56 × 168 mm) presented as medium format. This creates confusion and implementation problems.

Naturally, this drives any digitalization solution to the less common denominator, which is somewhat similar to the A4 / letter format (depending on which side of the Atlantic live).

artifacts: What can cause a horizontally flipped ghost image when using a monochrome line scanning camera?

Assuming that standard optics (lens elements that are spherical or pseudo-spherical, with rotational symmetry with respect to the optical axis) and "standard" cameras (without beam splitting, or mirrors in the optical path), there is nothing optically this will cause ghost images of lateral reflection of a single axis, either from left to right, from top to bottom or even diagonally. This is because the lenses perform transformations for any set of orthogonal input axes (ie, X Y Y axes). Both dimensions are transformed: the left is changed by the right and the upper part is changed by the lower part (in addition to the scale, and probably also a certain degree of distortion). In linear algebra, swapping. X for -X Y Y for -Y is mathematically equivalent to a rotation of 180 ° on the z axis (ie, on the optical axis of the lens). Thus, in optically generated ghost images (again, with "standard" optics), all ghost elements are reflected through the center of the image, not simply through a vertical or horizontal "fold line".

Moving away from standard optics, cylindrical sector lens elements, which are curved in one dimension (usually laterally) but not in the orthogonal (vertical) dimension, could cause symmetrical phantom patterns from left to right. The anamorphic lenses, or at least the current anamorphic filters and adapters, come to mind. They compress the lateral field of view of a shooting lens, which when printed or processed allows much wider lateral fields of vision than the camera can normally. This is often used to film wide-screen cinema.

In addition to optics, I suppose it is possible that some sensor technologies are susceptible to lateral "ghost images", perhaps because of the way sensor data is read or scanned. But that would be pure speculation on my part.

The last thing I can think of, at least inside the optics or the camera itself, is some kind of reflection of the sensor image, back to some plane in the optical path (like a filter plate or something behind it). the lens, quite close to the plane of the film / sensor), and then back to the sensor. But in order for the reflected image to appear even slightly focused, the aggregate reflection path must be quite short compared to the rear focusing distance of the lens. This implies that the lens focuses extremely close to the subject, and there would be a certain distance from the exit pupil of the lens to the sensor. In addition, that reflection surface would have to be concave (looking from the face of the lens) only in the lateral dimension. Frankly, this last possibility is even more speculative and unlikely than the previous paragraph.

Outside the camera, the most obvious explanation is a reflection through a window, an automotive glass or another surface that is largely transparent but semi-reflective. That would explain the same degree of magnification and the object reflected in the focus as the real object in the image.

Windows – Can I trust the scanning of Anti (AV) operating system (OS) to scan shared files?

I have an instance of EC2 with a Windows operating system with antivirus installed.

I have the requirement to attach a file share to the operating system where the application is hosted. The file share is Amazon Fsx (Amazon's native Windows file system).

Can I trust the operating system that scans the Fsx file share or should it have its own file analysis capability?

security: scanning error of "The following CGI are not protected by a random token"

An analysis executed on my website Dev Drupal 7 shows the following error:

The following CGIs are not protected by a random token:
/ contact-ocr
/ civ-rts-coordinators

The content of these 2 URLs is generated by a view whose content is modified by the associated tpl.php files.

How can I make sure that a random token is generated for these pages?

Once a random token is generated, how can I confirm the random token generation when I see the source of the pages?