Re: netstat makes a Firewall redundant?
From: Leythos (void@nowhere.com)
Date: 12/27/02
- Next message: g e e k . t r a g e d y: "Re: sounds like "damage control" to me... (Was: Wallwatcher IS NOT spyware.....MY ERROR!!!)"
- Previous message: Barry Margolin: "Re: netstat makes a Firewall redundant?"
- In reply to: dbc@dbc.dbc: "netstat makes a Firewall redundant?"
- Next in thread: mhicaoidh: "Re: netstat makes a Firewall redundant?"
- Reply: mhicaoidh: "Re: netstat makes a Firewall redundant?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Leythos <void@nowhere.com> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 15:53:27 GMT
In article <3E0C6B47.4F2420A1@dbc.dbc>, dbc@dbc.dbc says...
> Windows95A, 56K modem, single standalone home use.
>
> When I connect to the net via dial-up modem and do "netstat -a" in DOS
> I see no output (other than 2 lines of 127.0.0 which is safe). If I
> connect to www.microsoft.com I EXPECT to see that line appearing. So if
> all connections are "as expected" I'm safe? Doing netstat regularly is
> a firewall still then necessary? "netstat [interval]" executes it so
> many seconds.
>
> If the IP address under "Local Address" is my ISP then I'm not being
> hacked?
>
> PS The fact I only see 2 lines when I connect is proof I have ALL ports
> closed (via following instructions at www.grc.com) or just removed the
> NetBIOS/NetBEUI thingy?
I hate to say this, but I almost laughed when I read your posting. I get
calls from people running laptops with modems that though they were safe
- it only takes about 5 seconds for someone to find you, it doesn't
matter how you connect, they will find you. We get calls about once a
month with someone saying they were hacked, but since they were on dial-
up they thought they were safe :)
A modem doesn't look any different than any other connection to the
internet, it's just slower, and people target slower connections less
than they do faster ones.
-- -- Leythos999@columbus.rr.com (Remove 999 to reply to me)
- Next message: g e e k . t r a g e d y: "Re: sounds like "damage control" to me... (Was: Wallwatcher IS NOT spyware.....MY ERROR!!!)"
- Previous message: Barry Margolin: "Re: netstat makes a Firewall redundant?"
- In reply to: dbc@dbc.dbc: "netstat makes a Firewall redundant?"
- Next in thread: mhicaoidh: "Re: netstat makes a Firewall redundant?"
- Reply: mhicaoidh: "Re: netstat makes a Firewall redundant?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|