Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: Online Arrmor

  1. #61
    Volker Birk
    Guest

    Re: Online Arrmor

    Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <usenet-2009@planetcobalt.net> wrote:
    > Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> wrote:
    >> Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <usenet-2009@planetcobalt.net> wrote:
    >>> Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> wrote:
    >>>>> The output of these tools doesn't say anything at all about which

    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>>> ports are accessible from the OUTSIDE.
    >>>> If so, throw away your operating system.
    >>> *sigh* This is regardless of the operating system. Because none of these
    >>> tools know anything about packet filters. Neither local, nor remote.

    >> Maybe you want to correct that then.

    > No, I don't. Seeing which ports are open on the inside of a system does
    > not tell you which of them are actually accessible from the outside. It
    > may give you an idea which of them might be accessible at most, but
    > that's about it.


    This is far away from "has to do nothing at all with it", but it's your
    decision, of course.

    >> Not only. As you know, most filtering implementations are dynamic,
    >> i.e. with FTP helpers or even port knocking. You cannot see that with
    >> a port scan.

    > You don't see that with netstat either. Your point being?


    This is the reason, why I recommended to read the config of the
    filtering implementation and check the actual status of it, Ansgar.

    >> In many cases, you're scanning not your box but some NAT box outside
    >> or even some proxy server from the outside.
    >> It's so easy, Ansgar: many Internet providers are filtering.

    > I'd still like to see proof for that claim.


    Try to have an smtpd working on port 25 in a net of the German T-Online,
    then you have the proof. Ansgar, I know that you know the discussion
    about "SMTP submission".

    > And no, your hotel example
    > does not count, because hotels aren't regular ISPs.


    You wanted to have an example, I gave you one. Hotels are ISPs which are
    not only used by me in a regular way.

    > I wouldn't expect
    > unfiltered Internet from a hotel just like I wouldn't expect unfiltered
    > Internet from some company Intranet. I do expect unfiltered Internet
    > from my ISP, though.


    Then don't go to the big ones. But my claim wasn't, that every ISP is
    filtering, only that some do. And I may add: unfortunately some of the
    big ones.

    > Yes. However, since that someone usually is either the host in question
    > or its border router, online port scans still suffice in most
    > situations. If you're worried about a middle man: there's still
    > tcptraceroute.


    Yes, of course. But we're not talking about people who know those tools,
    do we?

    Yours,
    VB.
    --
    Bitte beachten Sie auch die R├╝ckseite dieses Schreibens!

  2. #62
    John
    Guest

    Re: Online Arrmor


    "Kayman" <kayhkay-nospam-@operamail.com> wrote in message
    news:12o8hdyxdj6n6$.1ur3g1e7g05lw.dlg@40tude.net...
    > On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:44:22 GMT, Jim S wrote:
    >
    >> I moved to Online Armor mainly because Comodo was asking me about files I
    >> did not recognise. It seems OK thus far.
    >> However Shields-Up spotted port 0 as being closed, but went on to say
    >> port
    >> 0 is never used. Can anyone explain?
    >> And while I'm here, whatever happened to PCflank and is there anything
    >> similar?

    >
    > If on WinXP or Vista, steer away from any 3rd party software firewall
    > programs; They are useless to say the least. Stick with the built-in
    > application.


    That's baloney. It only does a poor job of traceing incoming malware.


  3. #63
    Root Kit
    Guest

    Re: Online Arrmor

    On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:20:08 -0400, "John" <John@ihatespam.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Kayman" <kayhkay-nospam-@operamail.com> wrote in message
    >news:12o8hdyxdj6n6$.1ur3g1e7g05lw.dlg@40tude.net...
    >> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:44:22 GMT, Jim S wrote:
    >>
    >>> I moved to Online Armor mainly because Comodo was asking me about files I
    >>> did not recognise. It seems OK thus far.
    >>> However Shields-Up spotted port 0 as being closed, but went on to say
    >>> port
    >>> 0 is never used. Can anyone explain?
    >>> And while I'm here, whatever happened to PCflank and is there anything
    >>> similar?

    >>
    >> If on WinXP or Vista, steer away from any 3rd party software firewall
    >> programs; They are useless to say the least. Stick with the built-in
    >> application.

    >
    >That's baloney. It only does a poor job of traceing incoming malware.


    Since when has it become the job of a firewall to trace incoming
    malware?

  4. #64
    GEO Me@home.here
    Guest

    Re: Online Arrmor

    On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:27:43 -0700, DevilsPGD
    <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:


    >> I prefer the analogy in which the user should only be allowed to
    >>drive the car if they can take apart the engine, and then put it back
    >>together.

    >
    >The issue isn't users driving, users are allowed to drive without too
    >much of a problem, the problem is only when they start tinkering under
    >the hood installing or removing components they don't understand.


    But isn't it that using a computer means that the user has to always
    tinker somehow with his/her computer? ( From Skype to Google's
    toolbar) Of course, as you say, the user could pay someone more
    knowledgable to do it for them , but then it would be quite expensive
    for most people.

    Would you say that installing updates would qualify as installing
    components?

    Geo


  5. #65
    DevilsPGD
    Guest

    Re: Online Arrmor

    In message <49c06e47.86583385@news.telus.net> "GEO" Me@home.here was
    claimed to have wrote:

    >On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:27:43 -0700, DevilsPGD
    ><DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
    >
    >>> I prefer the analogy in which the user should only be allowed to
    >>>drive the car if they can take apart the engine, and then put it back
    >>>together.

    >>
    >>The issue isn't users driving, users are allowed to drive without too
    >>much of a problem, the problem is only when they start tinkering under
    >>the hood installing or removing components they don't understand.

    >
    > But isn't it that using a computer means that the user has to always
    >tinker somehow with his/her computer? ( From Skype to Google's
    >toolbar) Of course, as you say, the user could pay someone more
    >knowledgable to do it for them , but then it would be quite expensive
    >for most people.


    Indeed, and that's the crux of it. People want the convenience without
    the responsibility.

    > Would you say that installing updates would qualify as installing
    >components?


    Probably. I'm not suggesting a hard and fast rule, to stick with the
    arguably bad analogy, some drivers don't know how to add fuel to their
    vehicles, some can do windshield fluid and add oil but not change oil,
    others do their own oil changes, some rebuild engines.

    In the same vein, there is a difference between automatic updates
    (Windows Update, Chrome, Firefox, AV definitions), approved automatic
    updates (Adobe Reader, Flash, most other software), manually updating
    software, installing new software, and choosing what software to
    install.

    This is true in most areas of life, my mom needs help hooking up a new
    DVD player, my dad hooks up his own DVD players but needs help pulling
    new coax and crimping ends, I do all of the above myself.

    Making installing new software a bigger deal in terms of user interface
    might help, since it would stress to users the difference between "do
    whatever you want, you won't break anything" user mode and "you might
    screw up your system" administrative mode.

Similar Threads

  1. Need advice regarding online Networking classes
    By william1971 in forum Networking Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-10-08, 03:55 PM
  2. Godswar Online
    By ruinfx in forum Gaming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-16-08, 09:24 PM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-07-08, 11:31 AM
  4. Before you get into another online argument ....
    By Jamie_R in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-30-07, 10:09 AM
  5. Free Online Scans
    By BlueMax in forum Network Security
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-03-07, 02:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •