Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?
From: Nameless (nameless@noname.com)Date: 02/13/02
- Next message: Lutz Donnerhacke: "Re: Tiny or Zone Alarm?"
- Previous message: Lutz Donnerhacke: "Re: iptables and port scan"
- In reply to: Wolfgang Kueter: "Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?"
- Next in thread: Eirik Seim: "Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?"
- Reply: Eirik Seim: "Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?"
- Reply: Wolfgang Kueter: "Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Nameless" <nameless@noname.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:01:26 GMT
"Wolfgang Kueter" <wolfgang@shconnect.de> wrote in message
news:a4daup$3s21@news.shlink.de...
> Nameless wrote:
>
> Have you ever thought about obtaining a real name? Do people in real
> life life call you 'nameless'? Do you like to communicate with
nameless
> people in real life?
My real name is of no relevance to the questions I ask, "Wolfgang". In
“real life” I selectively disclose my real name to those individuals I
choose to communicate with. On a public and far-reaching newsgroup I
prefer to remain “nameless”. I value my privacy and my anonymity both
in “real life” and on the Internet, hence my queries about stealthing my
PC via a firewall.
If you don’t wish to communicate with someone who is “nameless”, then
that’s your prerogative. You’ve been of no help in answering my
questions anyway, so it makes no difference to me.
> > Until and unless I can "stealth" port 110, I'm content with having
the
> > port closed. However, since it's the only port not yet "stealthed"
on
> > my machine, and since many others have successfully "stealthed" this
> > port, I would like to do the same, thereby "stealthing" my entire
> > machine.
>
> You just can't 'stealth' a machine, that is part of the internet and
> there is _no_ reason to try that silly stuff.
Humor me.
> You are constantly beeing fooled by stupid and technically incorrect
marketing talk.
Maybe so. Yet who is to say that your talk isn’t “stupid and
technically incorrect”? Am I to take your word for it against all that
I’ve read from arguably far more reliable and knowledgeable sources?
> > Regardless of whether or not the practice of not responding to
TCP/IP
> > requests is good or bad,
>
> It _is_ bad. Compare real life: What do you think about someone who
> just ignores you?
If only that were true, *sigh*. Telemarketers, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
scam artists, tax and bill collectors, criminals, door-to-door
salesmen, … I can think of lots of people I wish would just ignore me.
> How whould you call such a person? Impolite! A clear
> 'No' is better than no answer.
> > How do I go about stealthing port 110?
> > Why can't I see evidence of probes? [?]
>
> What about asking those questions the vendor of that software?
Thanks for the tip. I may just do that. Usually I find that posting to
newsgroups (after a requisite search of Google) is the most fruitful way
of getting questions answered. Seems I misjudged how knowledgeable the
readers of this newsgroup actually are.
- Next message: Lutz Donnerhacke: "Re: Tiny or Zone Alarm?"
- Previous message: Lutz Donnerhacke: "Re: iptables and port scan"
- In reply to: Wolfgang Kueter: "Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?"
- Next in thread: Eirik Seim: "Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?"
- Reply: Eirik Seim: "Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?"
- Reply: Wolfgang Kueter: "Re: How to Stealth POP3 Port 110 using NIS2000?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|