Re: ZoneAlarm block?
From: mac1 (mac1_at_nospam.com)
Date: 08/24/04
- Next message: David H. Lipman: "Re: AVERT Low-Profiled Threat Notice: W32/Sdbot.worm.96716"
- Previous message: N. Miller: "Re: Mydoom"
- In reply to: N. Miller: "Re: ZoneAlarm block?"
- Next in thread: N. Miller: "Re: ZoneAlarm block?"
- Reply: N. Miller: "Re: ZoneAlarm block?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:11:08 -0400
"N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b95317d1e1f7ffb98a377@msnews.microsoft.com...
> In article <XLKWc.15721$cx.2031@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, mac1 says...
>
> > Running WindowsXP, IE6, ZoneAlarm 5.1.011
>
> > Today I received an alert that read:
> > The fire wall has blocked internet access to 192.xxx.x.xxx (DNS) from
your
> > computer. (I've typed (x) instead of actual modem IP number.) Program
> > Generic Host Process for windows 32 Services
>
> I wish that you had made it 192.168.x.x. Or, 192.68.x.x. It makes a
> difference; only 192.168.0.0/16 is private, the rest is public. Oh, and if
> it was a private range, tell me why you think posting 192.168.1.1 is such
a
> threat to your privacy; there are certainly tens of thousands of networks
in
> the U.S. with that IP address. I'd guess that my 192.168.102.0/24 is more
> unique because it isn't the manufacturer's default. Oops...did I let a cat
> out of a bag? What good is it that you now know my LAN IP address?
>
> And it would help to know if that IP address was a WAN IP address (in the
> part of 192.0.0.0/8 up to the start of 192.168.0.0/16), or a LAN IP
address
> (within 192.168.0.0/16).
>
> Why is this distinction important? Your firewall blocked access from your
> computer ('localhost', or [127.0.0.1]) to some IP address; but was it a
> local request, or a remote request? Who knows? I won't endeavor to guess.
>
> > Not knowing if this is a virus, nor what to do if it was, opened the
> > "Program control" in ZoneAlarm and found that "Generic Host process
> > for windows 32 services" was listed in the program column.
>
> > Currently Under the "Access" column: Trusted and Internet each had a
check
> > mark Currently Under the "Server" column: Trusted and Internet each had
a
> > question mark
>
> > Below, in the entry detail box was the following information:
> > Product name: Microsoft Windows Operating System.
> > The file name: C:\Windows\System32\svchost.exe
>
> > My question is should I do about this alert. If its safe should I place
a
> > check mark under Trusted and Internet in the Server column.
>
> > Thanks for any clarification about the alert.
>
> I would trust any internal requests, as in traffic between to LAN
computers,
> or the LAN computer and the router. I've only seen shares, or LAN resource
> management activity on my LAN.
>
> But, since part of that 192.x.x.x that you failed to distinguish is
public,
> and because you might have an Internet connection from a provider issuing
> public IP addresses in that range, you might actually be seeing a DNS
> request to your provider's DNS service. That is also acceptable, and
> expected. That is how your system works to resolve a Fully Qualified
Domain
> Name (FQDN), the "friendly" name of a site (yahoo.com) into an IP address
> which it can use to actually send a request for packets.
>
> IOW, you gave us a lot of suppositions, and questions, but insufficient
> detail to offer a definitive description of what took place to make your
> program react as you described.
>
> --
Norman,
Unfortunately, one of the many problems of being a newbie is: I simply don't
have a clue about what is safe or not safe to post in a public forum. So, I
thought it best to err on the side of caution and list a partial IP address.
Had no idea that thousands of networks in the US had that IP address.
Addressing my initial post: The IP address in the alert did contain:
192.168.
So if you will, please overlook the ignorance, and the omission of pertinent
information you needed to answer my question. I've got a tremendous learning
curve ahead of me as I slowly gain knowledge about software and hardware I
know very little about.
- Next message: David H. Lipman: "Re: AVERT Low-Profiled Threat Notice: W32/Sdbot.worm.96716"
- Previous message: N. Miller: "Re: Mydoom"
- In reply to: N. Miller: "Re: ZoneAlarm block?"
- Next in thread: N. Miller: "Re: ZoneAlarm block?"
- Reply: N. Miller: "Re: ZoneAlarm block?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|