On 17/07/10 15:25, Scott Evans wrote:
> The main thing is that unless you need ANY ports open on your
> modem/router then you are fin behind the NAT you only expose yourself if
> you are running a service that requires something/someone to connect to
> it. Also unless you are on a fixed IP from you
On 17/07/10 12:35, Peter Garrett wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:07:00 +1000
Basil Chupin wrote:
If a router doesn't respond to an ICMP ping then it does not exist.
Right? Or is this wrong?
From the headers of your mail:
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.3]) ([124.171.111
The main thing is that unless you need ANY ports open on your
modem/router then you are fin behind the NAT you only expose yourself if
you are running a service that requires something/someone to connect to
it. Also unless you are on a fixed IP from your ISP, then you can always
randomly switch yo
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:07:00 +1000
Basil Chupin wrote:
> If a router doesn't respond to an ICMP ping then it does not exist.
> Right? Or is this wrong?
From the headers of your mail:
> Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.3]) ([124.171.111.123])
> by outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out6.iinet.
On 17/07/2010, at 12:07 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
> My modem/router is sending to everyone under the sun my IP address when
> I connect to a website.
>
> Every browser does this.
>
> But when a router responds to a ping then the IP address can be
> determined and the system at that IP address ca
On 15/07/10 17:52, Callan Jefferson Davies wrote:
>> And now I am absolutely confused and in the state of wonder.
>>
>> When I went broadband (from dial-up) I bought a Netgear modem/router
>>
>> Then I went from ADSL to ADSL2+, still with TPG, and was supplied with a
>> Zyxel ADSL2+ modem/route
> And now I am absolutely confused and in the state of wonder.
>
> When I went broadband (from dial-up) I bought a Netgear modem/router
>
> Then I went from ADSL to ADSL2+, still with TPG, and was supplied with a
> Zyxel ADSL2+ modem/router with 4 ethernet ports and VoIP and wi-fi.
>
> 2 years
On 15/07/10 16:44, Callan Jefferson Davies wrote:
>> Some time ago when I was dual-booting with XP and used XP on the 'net, I
>> had Zone Alarm installed. This had a setting where incoming pings from
>> WAN, but not LAN, were not responded to.
>>
>
>
> Hi Basil,
>
> That sounds a little weird
> Some time ago when I was dual-booting with XP and used XP on the 'net, I
> had Zone Alarm installed. This had a setting where incoming pings from
> WAN, but not LAN, were not responded to.
Hi Basil,
That sounds a little weird, unless you have some sort of DMZ or
"all-ports" forwarding going
On 15/07/10 00:08, Sam Jackson wrote:
Hiya Basil,
On 14/07/2010, at 10:05 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
The question now is: does anyone know which parameter in this Netcomm
I need to play with - and what are the settings - to stop these
responses to pings, please?
I'm not familiar with that rout
On 15/07/10 11:25, Dale wrote:
On 15 July 2010 10:40, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 15/07/10 10:13, Callan Jefferson Davies wrote:
My advice: ignore grc.com. :-)
I'll pipe up here and agree with that statement - there's absolutely no
need to go blocking pings.
I work for an ISP
On 15/07/10 11:25, Dale wrote:
...
Basil,
I would not go to the point of ignoring grc.com, just use it as a
guide/reference. If you a really worried get a friend to nmap you
for example:
# nmap -sS -sU -O -p 1-65535 -v -P0
Note that nmap command can take a long time
You can make it go a b
On 15 July 2010 10:40, Basil Chupin wrote:
> On 15/07/10 10:13, Callan Jefferson Davies wrote:
>>> My advice: ignore grc.com. :-)
>>>
>>
>> I'll pipe up here and agree with that statement - there's absolutely no
>> need to go blocking pings.
>>
>> I work for an ISP (Adam in Adelaide) and get this
On 15/07/10 10:13, Callan Jefferson Davies wrote:
>> My advice: ignore grc.com. :-)
>>
>
> I'll pipe up here and agree with that statement - there's absolutely no
> need to go blocking pings.
>
> I work for an ISP (Adam in Adelaide) and get this question a lot from
> customers, and also talk
> My advice: ignore grc.com. :-)
I'll pipe up here and agree with that statement - there's absolutely no
need to go blocking pings.
I work for an ISP (Adam in Adelaide) and get this question a lot from
customers, and also talk to a lot of customers that have gone and
blocked pings.
Here's a
On 14/07/10 22:35, Basil Chupin wrote:
...
Today, as replacement, I bought the Netcomm NB9WMAXX (ADSL2+VoIP)
modem/router and now have it working for both ADSL and VoIP.
However, for the first time in ~7 years I now FAIL the ShieldsUp!,
TruStealth, test on grc.com: all ports are in Stealth mo
Hiya Basil,
On 14/07/2010, at 10:05 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
> The question now is: does anyone know which parameter in this Netcomm I need
> to play with - and what are the settings - to stop these responses to pings,
> please?
I'm not familiar with that router firmware but there should be an
In the very early hours of this morning (Wednesday) we had here in
Canberra one hell of a wind 'storm' with the result that one of our
neighbour' trees was bought down and short-circuited 2 phases of the
power lines. The power surge took out my modem's power unit.
Today, as replacement, I boug
18 matches
Mail list logo
