Re: POLL - NORTON IS LOVELY ???

....trouble is with NAT router's is that they BOLDLY advertise most of your
ports as "blocked" instead of "stealthed" and hence "invisible", on the web,
....BRILLIANT way to advertise one's presence on the web and invite more
attention, if you ask me !!
....trundle along to http://www.grc.com with your little NAT router, and
click on the "Shields-Up" hyperlink to see just how good your "NAT"
firewalled router is !! :-)

regards, Richard


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news5Rsf.5112$Pi.2448@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <1135859802.412479.178700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups .com>,
> francisco9@att.net says...
>> I dumped Norton Internet Security for the same reason and now use
>> PC-cillin Internet Security. Day and night!
>
> If you had a NAT Router and quality AV software you would not need an
> "Internet Security" type application.
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

And the problem with this is.... what?

Whether the door is invisible, or not, doesn't matter. What matters is
whether the door is locked.

The only advantage I've seen with Zone-Alarm et al is that they will
tell you if some piece of software is "calling home". For many, that is
the first clue they have spyware etc. installed on their computer.

I don't understand why anyone would be soo foolish as to buy scareware,
such as Internet Security. Or NAV.

In article <#vSaIKNDGHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
notatospam@hotmail.com says...
> ...trouble is with NAT router's is that they BOLDLY advertise most of your
> ports as "blocked" instead of "stealthed" and hence "invisible", on the web,
> ...BRILLIANT way to advertise one's presence on the web and invite more
> attention, if you ask me !!
> ...trundle along to http://www.grc.com with your little NAT router, and
> click on the "Shields-Up" hyperlink to see just how good your "NAT"
> firewalled router is !! :-)

Funny you mention this - I know about 40 different SOHO's that only use
NAT appliances and none of them have been compromised by unsolicited
inbound traffic, and none of them have any extra attempts just because
they are using NAT (in relation to a true firewall exposure count).

I don't consider NAT to be a firewall service, never have, but it does
wonders at keeping the unsolicited traffic out.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:49:37 -0000, "RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>...trundle along to http://www.grc.com with your little NAT router, and
>click on the "Shields-Up" hyperlink to see just how good your "NAT"
>firewalled router is !! :-)

Okay....With a router and NIS active:


GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2006-01-04 at 10:38:57

Results from scan of ports: 0-1055

0 Ports Open
1 Ports Closed
1055 Ports Stealth
---------------------
1056 Ports Tested

NO PORTS were found to be OPEN.

The port found to be CLOSED was: 113

Other than what is listed above, all ports are STEALTH.

TruStealth: FAILED - NOT all tested ports were STEALTH,
- NO unsolicited packets were received,
- NO Ping reply (ICMP Echo) was received.

== =
I think it'll suffice.
--
Top 10 Conservative Idiots:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:49:37 -0000, "RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>...trundle along to http://www.grc.com with your little NAT router, and
>>click on the "Shields-Up" hyperlink to see just how good your "NAT"
>>firewalled router is !! :-)
>


Here's mine with NIS 2006 and Linksys router:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2006-01-04 at 15:16:52

Results from scan of ports: 0-1055

0 Ports Open
0 Ports Closed
1056 Ports Stealth
---------------------
1056 Ports Tested

ALL PORTS tested were found to be: STEALTH.

TruStealth: PASSED - ALL tested ports were STEALTH,
- NO unsolicited packets were received,
- NO Ping reply (ICMP Echo) was received.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dave" <funinatl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u6udnbAT3KKHeibeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:49:37 -0000, "RJK"
>> <notatospam@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>...trundle along to http://www.grc.com with your little NAT
>>>router, and
>>>click on the "Shields-Up" hyperlink to see just how good your
>>>"NAT"
>>>firewalled router is !! :-)
>>
>
>
> Here's mine with NIS 2006 and Linksys router:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2006-01-04 at
> 15:16:52
>
> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055
>
> 0 Ports Open
> 0 Ports Closed
> 1056 Ports Stealth
> ---------------------
> 1056 Ports Tested
>
> ALL PORTS tested were found to be: STEALTH.
>
> TruStealth: PASSED - ALL tested ports were STEALTH,
> - NO unsolicited packets were received,
> - NO Ping reply (ICMP Echo) was received.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
With JUST WinXP firewall, my computer had exactly the same
results. Big deal.

Doug
====