What do I believe?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

I am using Outpost.
If I run Quick Test with PCFlank it lists three ports as being
visible, but closed.
If I then run an advanced port scan on these three on PCflank it lists
them as stealthed.

If I run Shields UP! then it says these three ports are 'stealthed'.
--
Jim
-----------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address or
visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
-----------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

>If I run Quick Test with PCFlank it lists three ports as being
>visible, but closed.
>If I then run an advanced port scan on these three on PCflank it lists
>them as stealthed.

>If I run Shields UP! then it says these three ports are 'stealthed'.

False positives are common with online scans. You are using the right approach
by testing at several locations and repeatedly. Use the ones that are consistent
and in agreement.
--
Dave "Crash" Dummy - A weapon of mass destruction
crash@gpick.com?subject=Techtalk (Do not alter!)
http://lists.gpick.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <106lntnrss66o56@corp.supernews.com>, "\"Crash\" Dummy"
<dvader@deathstar.mil> says...
> >If I run Quick Test with PCFlank it lists three ports as being
> >visible, but closed.
> >If I then run an advanced port scan on these three on PCflank it lists
> >them as stealthed.
>
> >If I run Shields UP! then it says these three ports are 'stealthed'.
>
> False positives are common with online scans. You are using the right
approach by testing at several locations and repeatedly. Use the ones
that are consistent and in agreement.
>
Thank you.
Whew )
--
Jim
-----------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address or
visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
-----------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Jim Scott wrote:

> I am using Outpost.
> If I run Quick Test with PCFlank it lists three ports as being
> visible, but closed.
> If I then run an advanced port scan on these three on PCflank it lists
> them as stealthed.
>
> If I run Shields UP! then it says these three ports are 'stealthed'.

None of the above. They don't explain stealthed / closed / open very well.
Honestly, stealthed ports are also non-RFC compliant anyways...
It's stupid. If you have an IP, you have ports. The internet is built on
IP/TCP/UDP/ICMP.

--
Finding out what goes on in the C.I.A. is like performing acupuncture
on a rock.
-- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <106q3n9ca9q9a2e@corp.supernews.com>, neosad1st@charter.net
says...
> Jim Scott wrote:
>
> > I am using Outpost.
> > If I run Quick Test with PCFlank it lists three ports as being
> > visible, but closed.
> > If I then run an advanced port scan on these three on PCflank it lists
> > them as stealthed.
> >
> > If I run Shields UP! then it says these three ports are 'stealthed'.
>
> None of the above. They don't explain stealthed / closed / open very well.
> Honestly, stealthed ports are also non-RFC compliant anyways...
> It's stupid. If you have an IP, you have ports. The internet is built on
> IP/TCP/UDP/ICMP.
>
and probably BBC and ITV as well, but it means nowt to me.
I need something that keeps the nasty beggers out and lets in who I
want. Something like a a frontdoor with a spyhole )
--
Jim
-----------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address or
visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
-----------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:36:01 +0100, Jim Scott spoketh

>In article <106q3n9ca9q9a2e@corp.supernews.com>, neosad1st@charter.net
>says...
>> Jim Scott wrote:
>>
>> > I am using Outpost.
>> > If I run Quick Test with PCFlank it lists three ports as being
>> > visible, but closed.
>> > If I then run an advanced port scan on these three on PCflank it lists
>> > them as stealthed.
>> >
>> > If I run Shields UP! then it says these three ports are 'stealthed'.
>>
>> None of the above. They don't explain stealthed / closed / open very well.
>> Honestly, stealthed ports are also non-RFC compliant anyways...
>> It's stupid. If you have an IP, you have ports. The internet is built on
>> IP/TCP/UDP/ICMP.
>>
>and probably BBC and ITV as well, but it means nowt to me.
>I need something that keeps the nasty beggers out and lets in who I
>want. Something like a a frontdoor with a spyhole )

Since "closed" and "stealth" are essentially the same, I think you
should move on knowing that the door is closed and nobody's going to be
coming in any time soon unless you decide to open it...


Lars M. Hansen
http://www.hansenonline.net
(replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <4jmq60l06lah811cejvkegujhpg2arglb6@4ax.com>,
badnews@hansenonline.net says...
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:36:01 +0100, Jim Scott spoketh
>
> >In article <106q3n9ca9q9a2e@corp.supernews.com>, neosad1st@charter.net
> >says...
> >> Jim Scott wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am using Outpost.
> >> > If I run Quick Test with PCFlank it lists three ports as being
> >> > visible, but closed.
> >> > If I then run an advanced port scan on these three on PCflank it lists
> >> > them as stealthed.
> >> >
> >> > If I run Shields UP! then it says these three ports are 'stealthed'.
> >>
> >> None of the above. They don't explain stealthed / closed / open very well.
> >> Honestly, stealthed ports are also non-RFC compliant anyways...
> >> It's stupid. If you have an IP, you have ports. The internet is built on
> >> IP/TCP/UDP/ICMP.
> >>
> >and probably BBC and ITV as well, but it means nowt to me.
> >I need something that keeps the nasty beggers out and lets in who I
> >want. Something like a a frontdoor with a spyhole )
>
> Since "closed" and "stealth" are essentially the same, I think you
> should move on knowing that the door is closed and nobody's going to be
> coming in any time soon unless you decide to open it...
>
>
> Lars M. Hansen
> http://www.hansenonline.net
> (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
>
Thank you.
--
Jim
-----------------------------------------------
Tyneside - Top right of England
To email me directly:
miss out the X from my reply address or
visit http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott
-----------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

>None of the above. They don't explain stealthed / closed / open very well.
>Honestly, stealthed ports are also non-RFC compliant anyways...
>It's stupid. If you have an IP, you have ports. The internet is built on
>IP/TCP/UDP/ICMP.

I'm a member of the Stealth is Stupid club myself, but it sounds so sexy and is
promoted so fiercely by people who should know better that I don't even bother
to argue the point anymore. It really annoys me that the online "security
checks" make such a big deal out of it. ShieldsUp! is the worst.
--
Dave "Crash" Dummy - A weapon of mass destruction
crash@gpick.com?subject=Techtalk (Do not alter!)
http://lists.gpick.com