I want it fixed. By being closed, it allows others to detect the computer's presence on the Internet. If you can't help, then let someone else help instead of giving snippy replies.
Let's just start with GRC's tests are nice but are great discussion makers.
-> By what I mean that I see you is that you must reveal your IP to play games, and to each web site. The concept of stealthing ports is an odd one with little to no extra security.
Since you don't need to expose that port at all, why not configure your router to block that port range?
Simple, effective.
Cheers,
Bob
PS. Why were you snippy?
This is all well and good for a computer expert such as yourself. How can I learn anything from short or overly technical replies?
.....follow the procedures mentioned in the post at the link below?:
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6132-0.html?forumID=32&threadID=131656&messageID=1537253
Hope this helps.
Grif
Tell me the words you didn't understand. I can't see your face to see at what point you got lost.
-> And here is the bottom line. You are not improving your security one bit here. Hey, this is your choice to work on this non-issue, and I'll help you out but you get to tell me where it hurts.
Bob
Norton tells me it is an issue and you tell me it isn't. How does someone such as myself figure out what is what?
If nothing else, Google is an excellent tool.
Open Google, type in "Port 113 open" and check the results..Here's a quick search I found. Read the data:
Google Search for "Port 113 Open"
Hope this helps.
Grif
New_guy wrote : 'If you can't help, then let someone else help instead of giving snippy replies.'
You have a very unfortunate, rude, pushy and impatient way of expressing yourself in your posts -- I am referring to two of your today's posts to two moderators. Take a hint from the courtous posts in this forum from those requesting information and perhaps it will help with your demeanor.
Miki
Sorry but I never asked for your opinion on that post. Furthermore, two moderators were already involved in this post, so please keep out of it.
New-guy wrote:
>>Furthermore, two moderators were already involved in this post, so please keep out of it.
New_guy -- Thank you for validating my post......
miki wrote: >>
>>You have a very unfortunate, rude, pushy and impatient way of expressing yourself in your posts -- I am referring to two of your today's posts to two moderators. Take a hint from the couretous posts in this forum from those requesting information and perhaps it will help with your demeanor.
Miki
I'm with New_guy on this. Particularly for a moderator, R. Proffitt seemed to be a bit sarcastic and unhelpful in the first message and very confusing in the second. I couldn't even make sense of this...
-> By what I mean that I see you is that you must reveal your IP to play games, and to each web site.
I think it was meant to say...
What I mean by saying ''I see you'', is that you must reveal your IP to play games, and to *r*each *a* web site.
The following is just his (unsolicited) opinion:
''The concept of stealthing ports is an odd one with little to no extra security.''
The point about revealing your IP address when visiting web sites is irrelevant concerning bots that scan for live systems to hack.
Having said that, I also thought New_guy was unnecessarily uppity for a newbie, especially when addressing his senior, a volunteer moderator.
The safer online system is the one that doesn't run any unnecessary services and doesn't reveal any unnecessary ports. New_guy is smart to want to stealth any ports that aren't needed.
If the user isn't running any IRC or IM apps, it's quite likely that 113 can be stealthed without causing any problems, aside from a possible delay when connecting to mail servers. I have it stealthed and I connect to about 10 different mail servers (5 POP or IMAP & 5 SMTP) without any issues. IM is not allowed on any of my systems.
As provided in Grif's (more helpful) Google search, here are a couple of links to help you understand the issue:
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/225
http://grc.com/faq-shieldsup.htm#IDENT
What hasn't been mentioned is a workaround allowing you to "stealth" any port, if your NAT router supports port forwarding. Most routers I have used do, even a cheap generic one from CompUSA.
By defining the DHCP range to include more IP addresses than necessary, you can forward port 113 to an address so high in the range that it will never be assigned to any system.
For example, define the range as 192.168.100.1 to 192.168.100.199 and forward port 113 (both UDP and TCP) to 192.168.100.199 so any scan of port 113 will be forwarded to nowhere. The lack of response is the same result as a stealthed port.
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |