New version of ''SHIELDS UP''

Tomas

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
Location
Seattle, WA area
Re: New version of \'\'SHIELDS UP\'\'

Nice set of tests, Norm.

I enjoy seeing that my NAT (physical) firewall and my system (software) firewall are doing what they should. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Port's 0,1, and 161 show up as blocked and all others show as not existing (stealth).

Thanks for the link!

T_sig6.gif
 

Icebreak

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
4,998
Location
by the river
Re: New version of \'\'SHIELDS UP\'\'

Thanks, brighnorm.

We were in better shape than I aniticpated.
 

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
13,542
Re: New version of \'\'SHIELDS UP\'\'

i dont trust it reason being i forwarded port 21 and 80 i was runing a server at the time a ftp and webserver well it still showed all posrts as stealth .seems to me that it hsould of showed em as open
 

PaulW

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 23, 2003
Messages
2,060
Location
Laurel, Maryland
Re: New version of \'\'SHIELDS UP\'\'

I get a strange result with the "common ports" test. The first time I run it, all ports are stealth except for Port 1025, which is open. On subsequent tests, Port 1025 is stealth.

I'm running the firewall in Norton Internet Security. Could it be that the firewall is stealthing that port only immediately after an attempted intrusion? Do I need to do some configuring?

Paul
 

Latest posts

Top