December 21st, 2003 07:48 PM
How well protected are you?
You can check how well protected you are by using shields up! here
I tested myself with my firewall on - and then again with it off.
heh the results with the firewall in place ::: all passed
results without firewall ::: very scary oO
December 21st, 2003 08:02 PM
Oh yeah baby.
All attempts to get any information from your computer have FAILED. (This is very uncommon for a Windows networking-based PC.) Relative to vulnerabilities from Windows networking, this computer appears to be VERY SECURE since it is NOT exposing ANY of its internal NetBIOS networking protocol over the Internet.
One or more ports on this system are operating in FULL STEALTH MODE!
Ports found to be OPEN were: 1025, 5000
Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. except 135, 139, 445 wich are stealth.
Results from scan of ports: 0-1055
1 Ports Open
1049 Ports Closed
6 Ports Stealth
1056 Ports Tested
Messegner port blocked. No pop-up messeges
ok here is the scary part
I dont have a firewall installed, i dont have internet secuirt installed, i dont have an Anti Virus. I remove most of them by hand. My computer setting that I did set up seem to be secure even without a firewall.
/me goes installs Firewall and AV now.
You can never be secure enough
December 21st, 2003 08:02 PM
That's not fair, it seems as if you run a service like a webserver, then you fail no matter what. Maybe mine is just configured wrong. Does anyone else have a service such as ftp or http that can verify that you automatically fail just from running one of these?
I'm a failure.
December 21st, 2003 08:13 PM
Oh, am i good or what?
Your system has achieved a perfect "TruStealth" rating. Not a single packet — solicited or otherwise — was received from your system as a result of our security probing tests. Your system ignored and refused to reply to repeated Pings (ICMP Echo Requests). From the standpoint of the passing probes of any hacker, this machine does not exist on the Internet. Some questionable personal security systems expose their users by attempting to "counter-probe the prober", thus revealing themselves. But your system wisely remained silent in every way. Very nice.
 same with and without a firewall [/edit]
\"Look, Doc, I spent last Tuesday watching fibers on my carpet. And the whole time I was watching my carpet, I was worrying that I, I might vomit. And the whole time, I was thinking, \"I\'m a grown man. I should know what goes on my head.\" And the more I thought about it... the more I realized that I should just blow my brains out and end it all. But then I thought, well, if I thought more about blowing my brains out... I start worrying about what that was going to do to my goddamn carpet. Okay, so, ah-he, that was a GOOD day, Doc. And, and I just want you to give me some pills and let me get on with my life. \" -Roy Waller
December 21st, 2003 08:19 PM
Only DCOM port 1025 was open. Everything else ws green lights all the way.
Norton Internet Security didn't pick up a portscan, though. That's strange, because it usually does.
Maybe it though there was a connected state between this computer and the ShieldsUp! site and allowed it. But all the ports were stealthed anyway, so I don't need to worry.
Government is like fire - a handy servant, but a dangerous master - George Washington
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force. - George Washington.
Join the UnError
December 21st, 2003 08:54 PM
Blue lights all the way, apart from a couple of ports which were stealthed. But then I'm behind a router with a built-in firewall so I'd expect that to be the case.
Btw, I've not changed any settings since I put the router in place, so I'm quite impressed that it didn't have any open ports 'out of the box'. Anyway, using NAT means that you can only hit my router with ping floods etc. - I'm sure it would take a lot of effort to actually hit anything on my private network.
December 21st, 2003 11:57 PM
One thing to note when using these web based scans is the IP address being scanned. The scan could be directed at a device or proxy server upstream never actually reaching your box(es).
I have to port forward TCP port 113 (ident) from my router to a non existing IP address to achieve 'stealth' at the router.
December 22nd, 2003 12:36 AM
I love the quote on the shields up page...
"... The text below might uniquely identify you on the internet..."
then it shows my IP address....
MIGHT identify me???? I WANT it to identify me. It HAS to identify me or i can't get anything done online...
just a random observation... i've used shields up many times and it provides a handy service
December 22nd, 2003 12:54 AM
The grc scan showed no services (last time it showed my ports as a seemingly random mix of closed/stealth). The sygate online scan http://scan.sygatetech.com/ showed my ssh (behind a router). Obviously sygate scan has something that grc does not. Besides the fact that sygate offers far more flexibillity. (i am a little biased against the hype filled grc site)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The international ban against torturing prisoners of war does not necessarily apply to suspects detained in America\'s war on terror, Attorney General John Ashcroft told a Senate oversight committee
-- true colors revealed, a brown shirt and jackboots
December 22nd, 2003 01:17 AM
I show completely stealthed with both scans. Im behind a router and each machine also has a software firewall installed.