How to tell if a firewall alert is suspicious or not

How can I tell if a Sygate firewall alert is suspicious or not?

For example, I received this message from Sygate just now:

Sygate Personal Firewall:
Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
[206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?

nutso
Thu Sep 15 01:14:04 CDT 2005


"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Firefox
(firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>
> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?

Look at your TCP/IP configuration. Isn't that your SBC DNS server?

nf

Karl
Thu Sep 15 06:56:07 CDT 2005

There are ways you can research these things... however, you will get so
many of these alerts, and it is so fruitless to research them all, that I
strongly recommend you consider a firewall configuration that does not alert
you all the time with these things. Having a firewall ask the user to make
decisions is a security accident waiting to happen, and is also a
significant consumption of your time.

If and when you do want to research these things, you should look up what
the remote IP address is, for example starting with the DNS name lookup and
whois lookup at www.nwtools.com [which also gets the DNS name and a lot of
other things] or www.netsol.com to find out what that IP address is and
whether you or your computer could have had reason to contact it. This IP
is named dns1.snfcca.sbcglobal.net, which is a big hint that suggests this
is probably normal.

It's also useful to know what the protocol [e.g. TCP] and remote port number
is... the firewall alert below didn't seem to tell you, which is really
dumb. If the remote port was, say, TCP 80 or UDP 53, then that gives you
some level of assurance that this is a response to something your computer
requested. There is no such thing as "port 1258." There's TCP port 1258,
and UDP port 1258. Any firewall that doesn't know that this is important
information is dumb [although I generally like Sygate].

A really smart firewall would let you inspect the TCP flags and contents of
the incoming packet, but I guess that's too much to ask.


"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9pl87nx3tjpg$.1ugbsdw9mmwkz$.dlg@40tude.net...
> How can I tell if a Sygate firewall alert is suspicious or not?
>
> For example, I received this message from Sygate just now:
>
> Sygate Personal Firewall:
> Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>
> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?

Duane
Thu Sep 15 07:51:41 CDT 2005


"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9pl87nx3tjpg$.1ugbsdw9mmwkz$.dlg@40tude.net...
> How can I tell if a Sygate firewall alert is suspicious or not?
>
> For example, I received this message from Sygate just now:
>
> Sygate Personal Firewall:
> Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>
> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?

That's for you to determine by using a link like to one below and entering
the IP into the WhoIs search box and finding out of the IP is
dubious or not.

http://www.arin.net/index.html

However, the above is one of the problems with personal FW solutions with
features that try to control programs on the machine as they confuse the
end-user as they whine about nothing.

Duane :)

Gerard
Thu Sep 15 08:04:34 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:56:07 -0400, Karl Levinson, mvp wrote:

> There are ways you can research these things... however, you will get so
> many of these alerts, and it is so fruitless to research them all
...
> you should look up what the remote IP address is
> www.nwtools.com or www.netsol.com
...
> A really smart firewall would let you inspect the TCP flags and contents of
> the incoming packet

I thank you for your detailed suggestions summarized below as:
1. There exists innocent common connections reported by the firewall
2. We can find the NAME of the IP address contacting us for clues
3. The content of the incoming packet may contain clues

Regarding the first interesting comment above:
- Is there a site where all the common innocent connections are listed?
- I searched (before I posted) and did not find one (but it may exist).
- If not, I don't mind starting a list (in this post perhaps?).

Regarding looking up the NAME of the IP address:
- WHY would my DNS provider suddently connect (this does not happen often)?
- I keep a list of the common contact requests & this isn't one of them.
- I said NO to the request & I don't see negative consequences.

Regarding the content of the incoming packets:
- Sygate Personal Firewall 5.6 provides a Yes/No/Details response
- The DETAILS button gives more information (cryptic to me, a novice).
- Again I wonder if there is a list of known non-dangerous contacts.

For we novices who still desire basic firewall protection, it would be nice
to refer to a list of known generally non-dangerous requests to accept.
I'll post separately (as it's slightly OT) the list I maintain of what I
THINK are innocent requests (but I'm not sure) that I get every day so as
to START this desired list (if it doesn't exist already).

The particular message I posted from my DNS server does NOT happen often so
that is what startled me.

Gerard
Thu Sep 15 08:20:13 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:14:04 GMT, nutso fasst wrote:

> "Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?
> Look at your TCP/IP configuration. Isn't that your SBC DNS server?

Using DHCP, I don't specify a DNS server so I'd have no clue if that truly
was my DNS server ... but I maintain a list of daily requests and this is
NOT one of them.

So, why, all of a sudden, would my DNS server be contacting me, out of the
blue. And, why, does my network still (apparently) work even though I said
NO to the request?

What would be nice is for users to post (and for experts to doublecheck)
what they consider to be innocuous requests uninitiated by them which
appear in their yes/no request list from Sygate.

I am willing to START that list of what appears to be common innocuous
requests (for expert review).

Here is my list of common requests not explicitly initiated by me which my
Sygate Personal Firewall seems to report daily so that others may consult
it before accepting or rejecting a Sygate Personal Firewall request to
allow access:

NDIS User mode I/O Driver (ndisuio.sys)
has received a Multicast packet from the remote machine [192.168.0.1].
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

NDIS Filter Intermediate Driver (eacfilt.sys)
has received a Multicast packet from the remote machine [192.168.0.1].
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

NDIS Filter Intermediate Driver (eacfilt.sys)
is trying to broadcast to [192.168.0.255]
using remote port 137 (NETBIOS-NS - Browsing request of NetBIOS over
TCP/IP).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

NDIS User mode I/O Driver (ndisuio.sys)
has received a Broadcast packet from the remote machine [192.168.0.100].
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Firefox (firefox.exe)
is being contacted from a remote machine news.google.com [216.239.37.147]
using local port 1615 (NETBILL-AUTH - NetBill Authorization Server).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Firefox (firefox.exe)
is being contacted from a remote machine [206.13.28.12]
using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (svchost.exe)
is trying to connect to [207.46.157.60]
using remote port 443 (HTTPS - HTTP protocol over TLS/SSL).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (svchost.exe)
is trying to connect to time.windows.com [207.46.130.100
using remote port 123 (NTP - Network Time Protocol).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Firefox (firefox.exe)
is being contacted from a remote machine [80.237.203.14]
using local port 4503
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

null
Thu Sep 15 08:23:41 CDT 2005

Karl Levinson, mvp wrote:

> There are ways you can research these things... however, you will get so
> many of these alerts, and it is so fruitless to research them all, that I
> strongly recommend you consider a firewall configuration that does not alert
> you all the time with these things. Having a firewall ask the user to make
> decisions is a security accident waiting to happen, and is also a
> significant consumption of your time.
>
> If and when you do want to research these things, you should look up what
> the remote IP address is, for example starting with the DNS name lookup and
> whois lookup at www.nwtools.com [which also gets the DNS name and a lot of
> other things] or www.netsol.com to find out what that IP address is and
> whether you or your computer could have had reason to contact it. This IP
> is named dns1.snfcca.sbcglobal.net, which is a big hint that suggests this
> is probably normal.
>
> It's also useful to know what the protocol [e.g. TCP] and remote port number
> is... the firewall alert below didn't seem to tell you, which is really
> dumb. If the remote port was, say, TCP 80 or UDP 53, then that gives you
> some level of assurance that this is a response to something your computer
> requested. There is no such thing as "port 1258." There's TCP port 1258,
> and UDP port 1258. Any firewall that doesn't know that this is important
> information is dumb [although I generally like Sygate].
>
> A really smart firewall would let you inspect the TCP flags and contents of
> the incoming packet, but I guess that's too much to ask.
>

You make good points, and I really like your nwtools.com and netsol.com
suggestions.

However, to expect the average user to understand what the different
protocols are, what they do, and what ports are used for what, is a bit
over the top. Like you hinted at, the firewall responses to incoming and
outgoing packets should be as automated as possible for the average user.

And, yes, it is a bit too much to ask your firewall to let you inspect
the packets. 99% of the users wouldn't have a clue anyway. And if you're
competent enough to know what to look for, and have the time, then
you're going to have to invest a bit more than fifty bucks for the
privilege of doing so.

Since so many users don't even HAVE a decent software firewall
installed, this poster is at least making an attempt to protect his
system - I commend him for that!


--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.

Duane
Thu Sep 15 08:43:02 CDT 2005

The packet filter/personal FW solution is in serious whine mode asking the
end-user unnecessary questions that the average home user just doesn't
understand.

If the user's machine was sitting behind a simple NAT router for the
protection and not running the PFW solution on the machine, none of the
ridiculous authorization questions the end-user is dealing with would be
asked.

Duane :)

Mike
Thu Sep 15 09:44:45 CDT 2005

Gerard Schroeder wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:14:04 GMT, nutso fasst wrote:
>
>
>>"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?
>>
>>Look at your TCP/IP configuration. Isn't that your SBC DNS server?
>
>
> Using DHCP, I don't specify a DNS server so I'd have no clue if that truly
> was my DNS server ... but I maintain a list of daily requests and this is
> NOT one of them.
>
> So, why, all of a sudden, would my DNS server be contacting me, out of the
> blue. And, why, does my network still (apparently) work even though I said
> NO to the request?
>
> What would be nice is for users to post (and for experts to doublecheck)
> what they consider to be innocuous requests uninitiated by them which
> appear in their yes/no request list from Sygate.
>
> I am willing to START that list of what appears to be common innocuous
> requests (for expert review).

<Snip pointless list>

Without knowing what you were doing at the time, what applications you
need to run, how your network is configured, if you indeed have a
network and a host of other detail, there is no way of knowing. There is
no 'correct' answer.

Example:-
Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (svchost.exe)
is trying to connect to time.windows.com [207.46.130.100
using remote port 123 (NTP - Network Time Protocol).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Well I might want to allow that because I want my clock to synchronise
to time.windows.com but you may not want to use that server preferring
uk.pool.ntp.org which is on a round robin DNS which will respond from a
different server each time giving rise to yet another problem and so on
and so on...

Ditch the stupid software and get a router.

Mike
Thu Sep 15 09:48:26 CDT 2005

Gerard Schroeder wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:56:07 -0400, Karl Levinson, mvp wrote:
>
>
>>There are ways you can research these things... however, you will get so
>>many of these alerts, and it is so fruitless to research them all
>
> ...
>
>>you should look up what the remote IP address is
>>www.nwtools.com or www.netsol.com
>
> ...
>
>>A really smart firewall would let you inspect the TCP flags and contents of
>>the incoming packet
>
>
> I thank you for your detailed suggestions summarized below as:
> 1. There exists innocent common connections reported by the firewall
> 2. We can find the NAME of the IP address contacting us for clues
> 3. The content of the incoming packet may contain clues
>
> Regarding the first interesting comment above:
> - Is there a site where all the common innocent connections are listed?
> - I searched (before I posted) and did not find one (but it may exist).
> - If not, I don't mind starting a list (in this post perhaps?).
>
> Regarding looking up the NAME of the IP address:
> - WHY would my DNS provider suddently connect (this does not happen often)?
> - I keep a list of the common contact requests & this isn't one of them.
> - I said NO to the request & I don't see negative consequences.
>
> Regarding the content of the incoming packets:
> - Sygate Personal Firewall 5.6 provides a Yes/No/Details response
> - The DETAILS button gives more information (cryptic to me, a novice).
> - Again I wonder if there is a list of known non-dangerous contacts.
>
> For we novices who still desire basic firewall protection, it would be nice
> to refer to a list of known generally non-dangerous requests to accept.

No!! Novices do not have the knowledge as you so patently demonstrate.
You need a hardware firewall like the ones built into Zyxel routers etc.
Tick the box that says enable firewall and just get on with using your
computer without all the silly pointless and misleading popups from your
software firewall.

> The particular message I posted from my DNS server does NOT happen often so
> that is what startled me.

If you had a router you would not have seen it or been startled plus you
would have been protected.

null
Thu Sep 15 10:02:57 CDT 2005

Mike wrote:

>
> Ditch the stupid software and get a router.


You made a good point about the inability to give good advice on how to
respond, when we know nothing about his network or applications.

However, to tell him to trash the software firewall and rely strictly on
a router is simply bad advice.

Unless the router performs stateful packet inspection and is highly
configurable, etc., etc., etc., then the router alone will not be
providing sufficient protection.

His use of a software firewall is not unreasonable, and your advice to
get rid of it is unwise.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.

nutso
Thu Sep 15 13:11:47 CDT 2005


"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:125fddwsx0agz.8ux1n0q8ec5.dlg@40tude.net...
> So, why, all of a sudden, would my DNS server be contacting me, out of the
> blue.

Dunno, and wish one of the experts had answered that. But DHCP simply
assigns YOU an IP address, it doesn't eliminate the need for DNS. And you
will have at least one alternate DNS server.

> NDIS User mode I/O Driver (ndisuio.sys)
> has received a Multicast packet from the remote machine [192.168.0.1].

NDIS messages from 192.168.x.x suggest you have a wireless NAT router and
your firewall is responding to messages from it. (Surely you are behind some
kind of NAT, ICS perhaps.) If you're not using a wireless network, disable
wireless configuration service.

As for such terms as HTTPS, SSL and NTP, Google them (and NAT, if necessary)
and expand your understanding. HTTPS means you're connecting to a secure
website.

You're suggesting the compilation of what could be an ever-expanding
database of mostly-irrelevant details. Seems to me time would be better
spent becoming more of an expert. Your choice of firewall apparently demands
it.

Sygate has a product forum. Air your concerns there. Those dialogs are too
obscure for "even inexperienced users" unwilling to spend time researching
them.

nf

alfranze
Thu Sep 15 16:14:23 CDT 2005

Firefox is a browser of the Mozilla.
then, you can do the command line: tracert 206.13.28.12 and to know
what/where this IP (or any) is, if it really works....

alf


"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9pl87nx3tjpg$.1ugbsdw9mmwkz$.dlg@40tude.net...
> How can I tell if a Sygate firewall alert is suspicious or not?
>
> For example, I received this message from Sygate just now:
>
> Sygate Personal Firewall:
> Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>
> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?

Bruce
Thu Sep 15 20:25:21 CDT 2005

Gerard Schroeder wrote:
> How can I tell if a Sygate firewall alert is suspicious or not?
>
> For example, I received this message from Sygate just now:
>
> Sygate Personal Firewall:
> Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>
> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?


Do you have another computer on your internal network with that
specific IP address? Is that computer allowed to connect to the
Internet via your computer?


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Gerard
Thu Sep 15 23:22:01 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:43:02 GMT, Duane Arnold wrote:

> If the user's machine was sitting behind a simple NAT router for the
> protection and not running the PFW solution on the machine, none of the
> ridiculous authorization questions the end-user is dealing with would be
> asked.

I have DSL going to a D-Link just like everyone else.

Is this D-Link wired and wireless transmitter the "NAT Router" you bespeak
of?

Gerard
Thu Sep 15 23:28:31 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:44:45 +0100, Mike wrote:

> <Snip pointless list>
>
> Without knowing what you were doing at the time, what applications you
> need to run, how your network is configured, if you indeed have a
> network and a host of other detail, there is no way of knowing. There is
> no 'correct' answer.

Sorry about not being specific. I already pared the list down to those
event which occur WITHOUT the users' explicit action. For example, I
removed any request to/from the NNTP software which occur while using it.
Likewise with POP3/SMTP clients, explicit actions from HTTP clients, etc.

The Sygate Personal Firewall software has the ability to "remember" a
decision so the user, if they knew which to ignore, would not see those
which make it into the innocuous list. That is mainly why I ask.

> Example:-
> Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (svchost.exe)
> is trying to connect to time.windows.com [207.46.130.100
> using remote port 123 (NTP - Network Time Protocol).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Again, I should have noted, I never explicitly told the Windows XP machine
to synchronize the time so that is why this unasked for request made it
onto the posted listing. Said another way, if I KNEW I had explicitly asked
WinXP to synchronize the time, I would have removed that request from the
list (by telling Sygate Personal Firewall to simply accept all of those
requests in the future).

> Ditch the stupid software and get a router.

Isn't the D-Link wired and wireless box connected to the DSL modem a
"router"?

Gerard
Thu Sep 15 23:30:24 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:02:57 -0400, null wrote:

> However, to tell him to trash the software firewall and rely strictly on
> a router is simply bad advice.

I'm confused whether the D-Link wired and wireless box I have connected to
the DSL modem is considered the "router" you bespeak of. Is it?

Gerard
Thu Sep 15 23:34:19 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:11:47 GMT, nutso fasst wrote:

> NDIS messages from 192.168.x.x suggest you have a wireless NAT router and
> your firewall is responding to messages from it. (Surely you are behind some
> kind of NAT, ICS perhaps.) If you're not using a wireless network, disable
> wireless configuration service.

I am using a wireless D-Link (is that the router you bespeak of)?

> You're suggesting the compilation of what could be an ever-expanding
> database of mostly-irrelevant details. Seems to me time would be better
> spent becoming more of an expert.

I do run http://www.dnsstuff.com checks on all requests that the Sygate
Personal Firewall pops up before putting the messages on the list of
suspicious items. Also I don't put on the list messages which pop up from
KNOWN events. For example, when I start the NNTP client, a message pops up
which I tell the Sygate Personal Firewall program to accept forever (so
that message only pops up once). Likewise with the web browser, email
client, Microsoft Anti-Spyware update program, Windows Updater, Real Audio
client, etc.

I only posted what I considered the unasked for messages (not the obvious
ones).

Gerard
Thu Sep 15 23:43:51 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:56:07 -0400, Karl Levinson, mvp wrote:

> There are ways you can research these things...

Generally I do two obvious things each time I get a NEW message.
1. I run a reverse-IP address lookup at www.dnsstuff.com
2. I search Google Groups for the exact message (often I find others have
the exact same question, with the exact same message, and IP address).

Should I do more?
I'm hoping others can find THIS THREAD, for example, when they get the
messages I just posted and therefore they'd get the advice we all so
desperately need.

Where would YOU go when you received any one of the messages previously
posted when you didn't explicitly ask for that IP address to connect to
you?



> however, you will get so many of these alerts, and it is so
> fruitless to research them all, that I strongly recommend you consider
> a firewall configuration that does not alert you all the time with
> these things.

THAT's THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD!
With Sygate Personal Firewall (and I suspect all software firewalls), you
can tell the program to silently ignore and simply LOG all these
connections! My question was really WHICH OF THESE WOULD YOU IGNORE?


> Having a firewall ask the user to make decisions is a security accident
> waiting to happen, and is also a significant consumption of your time.

Is there any other choice?
These requests were made to my machine and I must respond to them.
Of course, I could simply say "Accept All Requests" but that would be
folly. The question really becomes two questions:
1. Which of these common requests is truly something to ignore
2. Of those which aren't ignorable, HOW DO NOVICES FIGURE THEM OUT?

> If and when you do want to research these things, you should look up what
> the remote IP address is

I generally use http://www.dnsstuff.com but your suggestion of adding for
www.nwtools.com or www.netsol.com is valid. I did that, for example, with
the DHCP server request. But, that really only tells me who owns the
machine. It doesn't tell me WHY they would be contacting me. (Remember,
that server only contacted me once and I have been using this same setup
for years). So, why, all of a sudden, would a machine which purports to be
a DNS server, be contacting me?

> It's also useful to know what the protocol [e.g. TCP] and remote port number
> is... the firewall alert below didn't seem to tell you, which is really
> dumb.

In defence of the Sygate Personal Firewall, there is a DETAILS button which
spits out a huge amount of cryptic (to a novice) information about
something called a "packet" so the remote port MIGHT be in that listing.

> A really smart firewall would let you inspect the TCP flags and contents of
> the incoming packet, but I guess that's too much to ask.

I could post the DETAILED information if it would help (caution, it's
cryptic at best).

Gerard
Thu Sep 15 23:46:12 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:48:26 +0100, Mike wrote:

> Novices do not have the knowledge as you so patently demonstrate.
> You need a hardware firewall like the ones built into Zyxel routers etc.

Is the D-Link wireless/wired box connected to the DSL modem set up in the
default configuration sufficient?

Or is there something ELSE I should purchase to get this "hardware
firewall"?

> If you had a router you would not have seen it or been startled plus you
> would have been protected.

I've been using this setup for more than a year and this is the FIRST time
that particular server contacted me (for whatever reason). That is what
startled me and made me suspicious.

Gerard
Thu Sep 15 23:50:43 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:51:41 GMT, Duane Arnold wrote:

> That's for you to determine by using a link like to one below and entering
> the IP into the WhoIs search box and finding out of the IP is
> dubious or not.

That's only HALF the answer.
All it tells you is WHO made the request.
That doesn't tell you if the request is valid.

For example, the posted DNS address has NOT contacted me ever in the more
than a year that my DSL to D-LINK setup has been in existance. So, WHY
should a machine which purports to be a DNS machine all of a sudden contact
me today?

On the other hand, many of the requests happen every day all day.
That STILL doesn't make them innocuous; it just makes them "probably" not
suspicious. That would include, for example, the NDIS User mode I/O Driver,
the NDIS Filter Intermeidate Driver, the Generic Host Process for Win32
Services, etc. All I'm asking is for these events, none of which are
explicitly user initiated, is it reasonable to tell the Sygate Personal
Firewall to ACCEPT all these requests without complaint?

Gerard
Thu Sep 15 23:54:35 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:14:23 -0300, alfranze wrote:

> Firefox is a browser of the Mozilla.
> then, you can do the command line: tracert 206.13.28.12 and to know
> what/where this IP (or any) is, if it really works....

Since NOBODY has mentioned the problem that this is only HALF the story, I
wonder if I understand this correctly.

Knowing the machine "name" and "owner" is only HALF the story (isn't it)?
The other half is for what PURPOSE did the machine contact my machine.

For example, when Adobe Acrobat 6.0 (Acrobat.exe) [206.13.31.12] contacts
me on local port 1880 (VSAT-CONTROL - Gilat VSAT Control), I can find the
name of the machine contacting me from www.dnsstuff.com as
"dns1.scrmca.sbcglobal.net" ... but that does not tell me anything about
WHY this SBCGlobal DNS server would be contacting Adobe Acrobat on port
1880 (whatever that port is for).

Knowing ONLY the name of the server contacting you, would YOU want to allow
this program to access the network?

Gerard
Fri Sep 16 00:08:51 CDT 2005

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:25:21 -0600, Bruce Chambers wrote:

>> Sygate Personal Firewall:
>> Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
>> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
>> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

> Do you have another computer on your internal network with that
> specific IP address? Is that computer allowed to connect to the
> Internet via your computer?

Of course not!

If I had another machine on the same tiny home network with that IP address
(which would be highly unlikely in a 192.168.0.XXX network), then I would
NOT have posted that specific request in the list above as it would have
been an obvious innocuous request.

Again, knowing the machine name & owner is only HALF the story. Actually,
it's only 1/3 the story as the following is important:
1. WHO is the owner of that machine?
2. WHAT is the purpose of the port being used?
3. WHY is that machine contacting me?

Is this information available somewhere?

Note that the WHO part is trivial to obtain, e.g., we can obtain that from:
http://www.dnsstuff.com
http://www.nwtools.com
http://www.netsol.com
http://remote.12dt.com/rns
http://www.zoneedit.com/lookup.html
etc.; but that doesn't tell us WHAT or WHY.


The WHAT part, albeit often highly technical, is not too very difficult to
obtain, e.g., we can use any of the following which describe the ports:
http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~s_ita/port/port1200-1299.html
http://www.seifried.org/security/ports/1000/1258.html
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
http://www.sonomawireless.com/~ports/port1200-1299.html
http://www.auditmypc.com/freescan/readingroom/portlist.asp
etc.; but that doesn't tell us WHY they contacted us.

The WHY part is the key question.

For example, WHY would dns1.snfcca.sbcglobal.net contact my machine on tcp
tdp/udp port 1258 named the Open Network Library?

The question becomes:
1. HOW do users learn MORE about the PURPOSE of this OPEN NETWORK LIBRARY?
2. HOW do we obtain possible REASONS for a machine contacting us on this
port?

That advice was the purpose of the original question.

Gerard
Fri Sep 16 00:30:56 CDT 2005

On 15 Sep 2005 10:10:51 +0200, Volker Birk wrote:

>> Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
>> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
>> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?
>
> You can't. This is, why such messages are nonsense. BTW, they're useless,
> too, because also Sygate cannot prevent "phoning home" from malicious
> programs anyway, as my simple POC here shows:
>
> http://www.dingens.org/breakout.c

Unfortunately, I don't know what a POC (point of contact?) is nor do I have
a c compiler.

What does the breakout.c program do for us? Does it slip past the Sygate
Personal Firewall somehow secretly and silently?

I think there are 3 parts to the problem, one of which is trival, the other
of which is technical, and the third of which is the crux of the matter:

1. WHO is it that is contacting us (all agree this is trivial to obtain but
nearly meaningless in many cases as it doesn't tell us WHAT they are doing
when they contact us or WHY they are doing it).

2. WHAT the machine is doing when it contacts us (I suspect this is
explained somewhere on the Internet based on the port being contacted, but
so far all I've found is the posted listings of a NAME and quick
DESCRIPTION of the port used). This is INCOMPLETE information as merely
knowing the name of a protocol doesn't always help to understand WHAT is
occurring. Plus, I routinely DENY all these requests and my machine seems
to work fine so what is it that it is doing anyway?

3. WHY would the machine contact us on the specified port. I believe this
is the crux of the question. My question to you experts is to ask if there
is a good web site which would explain WHY any particular machine would be
contacting us on any particular port. If we knew WHY, we could then decide
whether to allow this connection or now.

For example, WHY would Adobe Acrobat 6.0 (Acrobat.exe) be contacted from an
SBCGlobal DNS machine [206.13.31.12] using local port 1880 (VSAT-CONTROL -
Gilat VSAT Control)?

What could it possibly want?
Why doesn't anything bad happen when I deny the request?

Gerard
Fri Sep 16 00:39:03 CDT 2005

On 15 Sep 2005 19:14:08 +0200, Volker Birk wrote:

> It's OK, that not everybody is a networking expert. A good security solution
> has to work _without_ asking the user.
>
>> For we novices who still desire basic firewall protection, it would be nice
>> to refer to a list of known generally non-dangerous requests to accept.
>
> Why not using the Windows-Firewall and not having such problems?

Since the remote machine is gonna try to contact us anyway, wouldn't we
have the same three problems no matter which personal firewall solution we
used?

For example, if I used Windows XP Firewall, or ZoneAlarm (
http://snipurl.com/6ohg ) or Kerio Personal Firewall (
http://www.kerio.com/kpf_download.html ) or Sygate Personal Firewall (
http://smb.sygate.com/free/spf_download.php ) or Outpost Firewall (
http://www.agnitum.com/products/outpost ) or whatever, WOULDN'T the
offending machine STILL try to contact my machine?

And then, if it did, wouldn't we STILL have the THREE QUESTIONS:
1. Who is trying to contact us?
2. On what port are they trying to contact us?
3. Why are they trying to contact us?

This seems, to me, to be such a common need for virtually every one of the
millions of computer users out there, that the ANSWER to these three
questions SHOULD be somewhere very easy to locate for we novice users?

I can't believe there is a single person out there on the Internet who
doesn't have this very same problem. That's why it's so frustrating to me
to not be able to find the all-important WHY information so desperately
needed by millions of us users.

GS

> Gerard Schroeder <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I thank you for your detailed suggestions summarized below as:
>> 1. There exists innocent common connections reported by the firewall
>
> Yes.
>
>> Regarding the first interesting comment above:
>> - Is there a site where all the common innocent connections are listed?
>
> I don't know one. And I think, this will not be possible. There are
> too many possibilities for these. Why using a "Personal Firewall" at all,
> which is showing useless Popups?
>
>> Regarding looking up the NAME of the IP address:
>> - WHY would my DNS provider suddently connect (this does not happen often)?
>
> There may be many reasons for this.
>
>> Regarding the content of the incoming packets:
>> - Sygate Personal Firewall 5.6 provides a Yes/No/Details response
>> - The DETAILS button gives more information (cryptic to me, a novice).
>> - Again I wonder if there is a list of known non-dangerous contacts.
>
> The point is, that this is a b0rken concept to ask the only person,
> who for sure does not know what to do here - you, the user.
>
> It's OK, that not everybody is a networking expert. A good security solution
> has to work _without_ asking the user.
>
>> For we novices who still desire basic firewall protection, it would be nice
>> to refer to a list of known generally non-dangerous requests to accept.
>
> Why not using the Windows-Firewall and not having such problems?
>
> Yours,
> VB.

Gerard
Fri Sep 16 00:42:11 CDT 2005

On 15 Sep 2005 19:09:09 +0200, Volker Birk wrote:

> null <null@planetzero.com> wrote:
>> However, to tell him to trash the software firewall and rely strictly on
>> a router is simply bad advice.
>
> No. It's a very good advice. Also he could use the Windows-Firewall.
>
>> Unless the router performs stateful packet inspection and is highly
>> configurable, etc., etc., etc., then the router alone will not be
>> providing sufficient protection.
>
> The "Personal Firewalls" we tested all were terribly incompetently
> implemented. I doubt, that with a "Personal Firewall" he will be secure
> in any way.
>
>> His use of a software firewall is not unreasonable, and your advice to
>> get rid of it is unwise.
>
> The opposite is true.

If Adobe Acrobat 6.0 (Acrobat.exe) is going to be contacted from a remote
machine [206.13.31.12] using local port 1880 (VSAT-CONTROL - Gilat VSAT
Control), what would Windows Firewall do differently from what Sygate,
ZoneAlarm, Kerio, Outpost, etc. would do?

nutso
Fri Sep 16 03:43:19 CDT 2005


"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jwds0e2ucftd.hz4moqapcoq2.dlg@40tude.net...

> I am using a wireless D-Link (is that the router you bespeak of)?

Not specifically, but it qualifies. I'd OK the NDIS messages.

> I only posted what I considered the unasked for messages (not the obvious
> ones).

Unasked for... You weren't visiting a secure web page when you got the HTTPS
message? Weren't looking at a PDF when the DNS server tried to contact
Acrobat? That would be odd indeed. As for some of the others, is it possible
a web page you were visiting pulled an advertisement or graphic from a
different address? Have you looked at the relevant transactions in context
in the firewall logs? Do you understand that local ports 1024-5000 are
typically ones YOUR system uses to connect to a remote system? And that once
a connection is made, the remote system communicates FROM the destination
port TO the port your system has connected from?

Next time you get a prompt referring to any of those local ports, try
opening a command prompt and typing 'netstat -a' and see if the port's
currently connected to something. I suspect the references to 'Open Network
Library' and 'NetBill Authorization Server' are bogus (pulled from the list
of 'registered ports'). But then, I'm no expert.

Ask on the Sygate forum.

nf

Karl
Fri Sep 16 07:18:30 CDT 2005


"null" <null@planetzero.com> wrote in message
news:OBgtyifuFHA.3252@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> However, to expect the average user to understand what the different
> protocols are, what they do, and what ports are used for what, is a bit
> over the top. Like you hinted at, the firewall responses to incoming and
> outgoing packets should be as automated as possible for the average user.

I don't expect the user to know that. But I expect the firewall to include
that information in the error message, for situations like this one where
the user copies and pastes the error message to their firewall support or to
a newsgroup for assistance. Not having those details really cripples
whoever is trying to help the user. If necessary, the vendor can hide this
information under a "Details" button on the message, and put them into the
log file for posterity.

Karl
Fri Sep 16 07:32:32 CDT 2005


"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1q08azyjwaa34.bf3jp27hl5dk.dlg@40tude.net...

> Where would YOU go when you received any one of the messages previously
> posted when you didn't explicitly ask for that IP address to connect to
> you?

I do the same things I suggested in my post.

> THAT's THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD!
> With Sygate Personal Firewall (and I suspect all software firewalls), you
> can tell the program to silently ignore and simply LOG all these
> connections! My question was really WHICH OF THESE WOULD YOU IGNORE?

I think the best firewall configuration is one that doesn't give you any
popups whatsoever. Corporate firewalls don't give the firewall
administrator popups and ask him or her questions. They just work. The
same thing is true of hardware firewalls used in homes. Firewalls should
have just two situations: packets it knows are bad and it blocks without
question, and everything else that it lets through.

> > Having a firewall ask the user to make decisions is a security accident
> > waiting to happen, and is also a significant consumption of your time.
>
> Is there any other choice?

Yes... I don't have the latest version of Sygate, but I believe most
software firewalls have a configuration choice that does not cause any
popups. If Sygate doesn't, there's also www.kerio.com, www.zonealarm.com,
both of which are free. If you are already protected by a hardware
firewall, you may not really totally need that software firewall.

> 1. Which of these common requests is truly something to ignore

All of them.

> machine. It doesn't tell me WHY they would be contacting me. (Remember,

The problem is all you've got is what the firewall tells you, and it hasn't
told you everything you need to know. Very often, you will not be able to
100% determine the cause. You'll have to make a best guess, go with a gut
feeling, and move on. Even professionals who monitor computer networks for
intrusions do this as well.

Another possibly strategy would be to deny any packets you have questions
about. If something breaks, then you know it was probably something you
needed to allow. This is also the safest strategy.

> that server only contacted me once and I have been using this same setup
> for years). So, why, all of a sudden, would a machine which purports to be
> a DNS server, be contacting me?

I believe it is more likely that this was a reply to a connection your
computer made. The reply took too long to come back, and your firewall
stopped watching that connection, was surprised when the reply came back and
considered it a new connection. DNS servers should never be contacting you.
This situation can happen when you look up the IP address for a host name
where the DNS server is troubled or down and does not respond, and the
request times out 45 seconds or more later. It's happened to me.

> In defence of the Sygate Personal Firewall, there is a DETAILS button
which
> spits out a huge amount of cryptic (to a novice) information about
> something called a "packet" so the remote port MIGHT be in that listing.

Ah, that might help us a little. But I'm still leaning towards ignoring
this one, moving on, and pursuing a silent firewall configuration.

> I could post the DETAILED information if it would help (caution, it's
> cryptic at best).

Sure, go ahead.

Karl
Fri Sep 16 07:42:44 CDT 2005


"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:125fddwsx0agz.8ux1n0q8ec5.dlg@40tude.net...

> So, why, all of a sudden, would my DNS server be contacting me, out of the
> blue. And, why, does my network still (apparently) work even though I said
> NO to the request?

See my other post. More likely, this was a reply to your computer, but the
reply took so long, your firewall wrongly considers this a new inbound
connection. DNS especially does this due to having timeout values that are
greater than the timeout values in many stateful firewalls.

> What would be nice is for users to post (and for experts to doublecheck)
> what they consider to be innocuous requests uninitiated by them which
> appear in their yes/no request list from Sygate.
>
> I am willing to START that list of what appears to be common innocuous
> requests (for expert review).

It's not really that easy. If it was, someone would have done it already.
One problem is that each firewall reports things in different ways. Another
problem is that some Firefox traffic is good, and some might not be so good.
These sorts of things are very variable and conditional. However, you can
find some informative resources by searching www.google.com for firewall-faq
and also search for ids-faq. In particular, there are some good IDS FAQs on
Robert Graham's web site [google says it's at
http://www.robertgraham.com/pubs/network-intrusion-detection.html but I
can't get to that web site currently] and especially this, I strongly
recommend reading this:

http://www.mynetwatchman.com/kb/res-falsepos.htm

By the way, you may want to sign up with a free service like
www.mynetwatchman.com or www.dshield.org Those sites automatically report
hacking attempts blocked in your firewall to the ISPs responsible, and they
also let you see useful relevant information from other people's firewall
logs, which helps you determine whether something is just hitting you or is
hitting a lot of other people. You can't get that information any other
way.

Duane
Fri Sep 16 08:48:22 CDT 2005

Gerard Schroeder <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1ve50p20dn1hi.1gkf61azepa81.dlg@40tude.net:

> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:51:41 GMT, Duane Arnold wrote:
>
>> That's for you to determine by using a link like to one below and
>> entering the IP into the WhoIs search box and finding out of the IP
>> is dubious or not.
>
> That's only HALF the answer.
> All it tells you is WHO made the request.
> That doesn't tell you if the request is valid.

Well that's true and Sygate is really not telling you either.

>
> For example, the posted DNS address has NOT contacted me ever in the
> more than a year that my DSL to D-LINK setup has been in existance.
> So, WHY should a machine which purports to be a DNS machine all of a
> sudden contact me today?

I don't know why you'll have to figure it out. For me when the ISP's DNS
servers wanted to contact the public or external WAN IP used by the FW
appliance, it was due to me configuring a static IP on one of the
machine's NIC on the LAN. I set the machine's NIC back to using DHCP IP
and I have not seen the DNS servers trying to initiate contact with my
network.

>
> On the other hand, many of the requests happen every day all day.
> That STILL doesn't make them innocuous; it just makes them "probably"
> not suspicious. That would include, for example, the NDIS User mode
> I/O Driver, the NDIS Filter Intermeidate Driver, the Generic Host
> Process for Win32 Services, etc.

You must have a Win XP machine as you're talking about NDIS User mode
where in my case the wireless NIC driver was using NDIS User Mode to
phone home to several sites. So at the time I set BlackIce to not allow
communications by the NDIS User Mode driver. I am not using wireless
anymore, so I disable Wireless Zero Configuration Service on XP to close
that door.

> All I'm asking is for these events,
> none of which are explicitly user initiated, is it reasonable to tell
> the Sygate Personal Firewall to ACCEPT all these requests without
> complaint?
>

It comes down to you knowing what's happening and who is doing it and not
using Sygate like a crutch because Sygate is not giving you the true
picture. You talk about NDIS User Mode and whatnot SVChost.exe (Generic
Host Process), which are just doing their jobs and that is to communicate
on the network LAN or WAN. It's not those processes that are initiating
the communication as they only do it on the behalf of other processes
that are making the requests. You need to determine what those processes
are that are doing it and make determinations if it's legit or not and
take the appropriate action.

One uses the proper tools like Process Explorer to look at processes and
see what processes hidden ones are using a particular process and not use
Sygate like some kind of a crutch.

Long version

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,23780,RSS,RSS,00.
asp

Short version

http://tinyurl.com/99vur

The link talks about tools you can use.

Long version

http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Hidden_Backdoors_Trojan_Horses_and
_Rootkit_Tools_in_a_Windows_Environment.html


Short version

http://tinyurl.com/klw1

And for the particular Windows O/S you are using, you can go get a
Windows Resource Kit book that will tell you everything about the O/S and
what is happening. You may be able to check one out at the public
library.

I don't have any solutions such as BlackIce with its Application Control
running on my machines, because personal FW solutions that are using it
are a worthless feature IMHO.

I have BlackIce running on my laptop, but the Application Control feature
is disabled as I don't need it asking me the ridiculous questions as I
got a good take on what's happening or I know how to use the proper tools
and find out what is happening.

Some other tips and there is one for Win 2K too.

http://labmice.techtarget.com/articles/winxpsecuritychecklist.htm

The buck stops with you and the O/S. It doesn't stop anywhere else.

Duane :)

Duane
Fri Sep 16 09:51:25 CDT 2005

Gerard Schroeder <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:b005qf16e29s.n6jikuct2oxd$.dlg@40tude.net:

> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:43:02 GMT, Duane Arnold wrote:
>
>> If the user's machine was sitting behind a simple NAT router for the
>> protection and not running the PFW solution on the machine, none of
>> the ridiculous authorization questions the end-user is dealing with
>> would be asked.
>
> I have DSL going to a D-Link just like everyone else.
>
> Is this D-Link wired and wireless transmitter the "NAT Router" you
> bespeak of?
>

You don't specify a model number so I'll assume it's wire/wireless AP
router that falls into this category.

http://www.homenethelp.com/web/explain/about-NAT.asp

Duane :)

null
Fri Sep 16 13:00:52 CDT 2005

Gerard Schroeder wrote:

> The question becomes:
> 1. HOW do users learn MORE about the PURPOSE of this OPEN NETWORK LIBRARY?
> 2. HOW do we obtain possible REASONS for a machine contacting us on this
> port?
>
> That advice was the purpose of the original question.
>

I don't know of a simple answer to your questions. The only people I
have ever had contact with that could *possibly* explain the reasons for
*every* incoming/outgoing packet are security experts - most notably
firewall experts.

So, one of the posters gave a solution for you, a solution that I use
frequently: deny the request and see if anything breaks.

Good luck.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.

null
Fri Sep 16 13:04:00 CDT 2005

Gerard Schroeder wrote:

> I'm confused whether the D-Link wired and wireless box I have connected to
> the DSL modem is considered the "router" you bespeak of. Is it?

I can't say with 100% certainty if the D-Link is a router, but it
probably is.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.

jameshanley39
Sun Sep 18 09:11:06 CDT 2005


Gerard Schroeder wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:14:04 GMT, nutso fasst wrote:
>
> > "Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> What would be nice is for users to post (and for experts to doublecheck)
> what they consider to be innocuous requests uninitiated by them which
> appear in their yes/no request list from Sygate.
>
> I am willing to START that list of what appears to be common innocuous
> requests (for expert review).

Google the name of the process initiating the outgoing connection.


> Here is my list of common requests not explicitly initiated by me which my
> Sygate Personal Firewall seems to report daily so that others may consult
> it before accepting or rejecting a Sygate Personal Firewall request to
> allow access:
>
> NDIS User mode I/O Driver (ndisuio.sys)
> has received a Multicast packet from the remote machine [192.168.0.1].
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

that's not important. 192.168.0.1 is from your LAN. if you receive
a packet from a computer on your LAN, it's not big deal!

> NDIS Filter Intermediate Driver (eacfilt.sys)
> has received a Multicast packet from the remote machine [192.168.0.1].
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

ditto

> NDIS Filter Intermediate Driver (eacfilt.sys)
> is trying to broadcast to [192.168.0.255]
> using remote port 137 (NETBIOS-NS - Browsing request of NetBIOS over
> TCP/IP).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

So now this process, (you may google it), but it's clearly being
harmless. It is on your comp, and sending a packet to every computer on
your LAN.
Don't think that one of your computers is attacking another!

> NDIS User mode I/O Driver (ndisuio.sys)
> has received a Broadcast packet from the remote machine [192.168.0.100].
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

ditto


> Firefox (firefox.exe)
> is being contacted from a remote machine news.google.com [216.239.37.147]
> using local port 1615 (NETBILL-AUTH - NetBill Authorization Server).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

I juse use firefox as a web browser. It just makes outgoing
connections. So, once the outgoing connection was made, packets go
either way. Each outgoing connection may use a diff port, I don't see
why this local port is called NETBILL-AUTH maybe i'm wrong. but
this is firefox, nothing to worry about.


> Firefox (firefox.exe)
> is being contacted from a remote machine [206.13.28.12]
> using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

ditto. dunno what this opennl is about - even after googling. but this
is firedox, surely not receiving an incoming connection .unless you're
not using it as just a web browser or something.

do you recognise OpenNL?!

> Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (svchost.exe)
> is trying to connect to [207.46.157.60]
> using remote port 443 (HTTPS - HTTP protocol over TLS/SSL).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>
> Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (svchost.exe)
> is trying to connect to time.windows.com [207.46.130.100
> using remote port 123 (NTP - Network Time Protocol).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

windows does make these annoying outgoing connections. it may not be
worth checking out waht windows is doing. any outgoing connection from
svchost.exe should be considered fine. unless svchost.exe got
overwritten by a malicious version. You can't be that paranoid on a
windows system. trust svchost.exe ! it's a famous windows prcoess. as
sygate knows

> Firefox (firefox.exe)
> is being contacted from a remote machine [80.237.203.14]
> using local port 4503
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

yes
you want to use your web browser.

The windows firewall which blocks all incoming connections is very
good. Yes, malware may make outgoing connections. But at least you'll
let windows processes communicate outside. and you'll let your browser
communicate.

And has has been said. don't be afraid of some spyware transmitting.
If it's there, then remove it. If it were dangerous, it'd get past
your attempt at blocking outgoing connections anyawy.


Blocking outgoing connections as paranoidly as you are now causes the
mess that you have now. far more stress than any spyware!!!

jameshanley39
Sun Sep 18 09:23:12 CDT 2005


Gerard Schroeder wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:48:26 +0100, Mike wrote:
>
> > Novices do not have the knowledge as you so patently demonstrate.
> > You need a hardware firewall like the ones built into Zyxel routers etc.
>
> Is the D-Link wireless/wired box connected to the DSL modem set up in the
> default configuration sufficient?

it is a great help. it blocks all incoming connections. Beyond that, do
not block all outgoing connections, or allow yourself to be hassled by
your personal firewall over it.

Use software, like Active Ports, that will list Established
Connections. At least it won't hassle you with popups. It gives the
process name. Do not look for great lists . Just google the name of
the process that is making the outgoing connection. And if you get 100
links saying it's spyware, then you should start running different
spyware removal utilities until you successfully get rid of it.

> Or is there something ELSE I should purchase to get this "hardware
> firewall"?

your 'home router'(actually a NAT device) blocks incoming. I have a
DLink one too.
You can go to http://192.168.0.1 and configure it. Or if that dosen't
work, find out its IP
open a command prompt start..run..cmd<ENTER> and type
ipconfig /all

and see what it says for 'Gateway' (That is your 'router').
do http://gatewayip

see, it has a firewall built in. But still, don't bother blocking
outgoing connections, even with that.

if you have spyware, get rid of it properly.

> > If you had a router you would not have seen it or been startled plus you
> > would have been protected.


and you do have a router. ('home router'). It blocks incoming. Which
is very good. You should look at outgoing but not be hassled with
popups. and not be paranoid. useg oogle on an unknown process making an
outgoing connection. just see if google says it's spyware.

jameshanley39
Sun Sep 18 09:36:16 CDT 2005


Gerard Schroeder wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:25:21 -0600, Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
> >> Sygate Personal Firewall:
> >> Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
> >> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> >> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>
> > Do you have another computer on your internal network with that
> > specific IP address? Is that computer allowed to connect to the
> > Internet via your computer?
>
> Of course not!
>
> If I had another machine on the same tiny home network with that IP address
> (which would be highly unlikely in a 192.168.0.XXX network), then I would
> NOT have posted that specific request in the list above as it would have
> been an obvious innocuous request.
>
> Again, knowing the machine name & owner is only HALF the story. Actually,
> it's only 1/3 the story as the following is important:
> 1. WHO is the owner of that machine?
> 2. WHAT is the purpose of the port being used?
> 3. WHY is that machine contacting me?
>
> Is this information available somewhere?
>
> Note that the WHO part is trivial to obtain, e.g., we can obtain that from:
> http://www.dnsstuff.com
> http://www.nwtools.com
> http://www.netsol.com
> http://remote.12dt.com/rns
> http://www.zoneedit.com/lookup.html
> etc.; but that doesn't tell us WHAT or WHY.
>
>
> The WHAT part, albeit often highly technical, is not too very difficult to
> obtain, e.g., we can use any of the following which describe the ports:
> http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~s_ita/port/port1200-1299.html
> http://www.seifried.org/security/ports/1000/1258.html
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
&g