Mike, if you click on the squares, you should get info about what protocols they support. It really needs to be all green! I set my router firewall to reject all connection attempts from the LAN, all protocols, all ports.
I don't think any self-respecting netbot would be seen anywhere near my bandwidth!As I said, the objective is first to take over your router. Your PC firewall only protects your PC!
As BH's primary objective was to stop freeloaders using his bandwidth, there would be little point in letting them set up a netbot on his router. Also, just think what else they could do with full control of every request he makes to the internet. Redirect web pages and searches? Download porn? Use the router to hack other sites?
It's that particular router, I googled it.I know what they do (though maybe not understand) but can't get them green. I even tried mapping the ports to the end of the universe and it didn't work.
However, I also found a few comments to the effect that grc are crying wolf - as long as the ports are closed it doesn't matter if a hacker bounces off them.
That does make some sense as I suspect most successful attacks would come through an established connection. As I'm on a fixed ip my router isn't exactly off the map anyway. I'm more puzzled as to why the stealthing doesn't seem to work - it makes me wonder if the ISP is actually returning those pings (as a way of 'blocking' them) and my router has nowt to do with it.
Stealthier than what?If all ports are stealthier, .....
Stealthier than AutoCorrect? (Edited, thanks.)Stealthier than what?
It's that particular router, I googled it.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2073931Do tell where. My searches don't turn up anything like that (unless it's in one of the German or Italian references).
Ah, OK. I have found similar but that isn't quite the issue. (That's also a different model though I think they all use the same base software.)
A bit more digging and it seems that my ISP block 135-139 at their internet facing portals, so all their customers will get a blue box for those ports on grc. Why they send a rejection instead of just dropping the packets isn't known. (Maybe doing this tempts the hacker to keep banging away at it, fruitlessly, instead of moving on, so wasting his/her time.)Strange. I ran the test and there were a lot of 'blues', not surprisingly perhaps.
So I turned on the stealth mode (after some digging around to find out how) and ran the test again. Now all green, except for 6 blues. 5 at 135-139 and 1 at 113.
Historically it was often recommended to reject rather than block TCP/113 as to do otherwise could delay outbound connection setup unnecessarily. I very much doubt that many servers still use the ident service these days!Port 113 isn't mentioned, but the information on this goes back years (it seems they started this block about 10 years ago), so maybe 113 has been added to their blockade since then.
Perhaps. It seems odd that changing WiFi immediately cures the problem, though. If A doesn't work, I can change to B and the problem vanished, then back to A and it is still OK, which makes me feel it is a configuration problem.I think that's a general symptom of the Internet as a whole! Maybe too many people using video streaming?
If it is, I experience similar things (particularly with that bloody BT router!).Perhaps. It seems odd that changing WiFi immediately cures the problem, though. If A doesn't work, I can change to B and the problem vanished, then back to A and it is still OK, which makes me feel it is a configuration problem.