norton internet security 2004 security scan
From: brighton mark (mark.james_at_cwcom.net)
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: KW: "Re: Is a s/w firewall needed with NAT?"
- Previous message: Lars M. Hansen: "Re: Is a s/w firewall needed with NAT?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 31 Aug 2004 14:20:22 -0700
I have recently upgraded my Norton Internet Security from 2003 to the
2004 version.
When I did an online security scan (using the Symantec site) I passed
with flying colours, having no security threats, all ports being
stealthed. However, since I've upgraded the security scan tells me
that I am exposed to hackers. I have several open ports (ICMP PING,
22 and 80) and most of my other posts are closed rather than stealthed
(so my computers is apparently visible to the outside world). The
firewall settings are standard.
I also notice that the earlier version of Norton said the IP address
that it was scanning was my true IP address (the same as I get when I
do an IPconfig) however the later version scans an IP address of
62.255.0.6 (cache3-bstl.server.ntli.net).
I tried to check the results using the shields-up site (www.grc.com)
and I am informed that my connection to their Web Server is probably
'proxied', although I used to be able to scan with this site without
any problems.
I've not changed ISP (NTL) and read somewhere that they use a
"transparent proxy".
Could it be the case that Norton Security Scan is trying to scan the
transparent proxy and cannot see my computer?
Or could there be a problem with the firewall?
If this is the case I would welcome any advice about securing my
computer and how I can properly scan my internet connection for
security flaws.
Many thanks
- Next message: KW: "Re: Is a s/w firewall needed with NAT?"
- Previous message: Lars M. Hansen: "Re: Is a s/w firewall needed with NAT?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
