Re: Wanting to hide :113
From: Adrian (nowhere@in.particular)
Date: 02/01/03
- Next message: JR: "Re: Problem creating a static VPN between two offices using FW1 & FWZ"
- Previous message: Vlad Tsyrklevich: "Re: Stealth vs. Blocked"
- Maybe in reply to: Wolfgang Ewert: "Re: Wanting to hide :113"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Adrian" <nowhere@in.particular> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 04:50:22 GMT
Having read all the posts in this thread I have one question which doesn't
seem to have been asked. How do you setup your router to NOT stealth ports
but instead have them only closed?
I have a DLink DI-707p and without any other software firewall running on
the PC all ports except 113 are still showing as stealthed according the the
grc.com port probe. The only non-default change I've made to the router
config is to put a dummy address in the DMZ.
Adrian
"Duane Arnold" <notme@notme.com> wrote in message
news:S01_9.89023$6G4.12193@sccrnsc02...
> If you're setting behind a NAT router and you have SPI on the router,
there
> is nothing that going to come down the port that is unsolicited inbound
> traffic. One trick you can do if the router has DMZ on it is to put a
dummy
> IP in the DMZ, that way all unsolicited inbound traffic will be redirected
> to that dummy IP address.
>
> On the other hand, stealthing ports is overrated. The more important
thing
> is that the port is *closed*.
>
> Duane :)
>
> --
> The protection of the machine is a process and is not a given!
>
>
- Next message: JR: "Re: Problem creating a static VPN between two offices using FW1 & FWZ"
- Previous message: Vlad Tsyrklevich: "Re: Stealth vs. Blocked"
- Maybe in reply to: Wolfgang Ewert: "Re: Wanting to hide :113"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|