No problem MrX.@Prorootect Yes, that is one that works for XP. I do not think it works for 7 though.
My GRC Port Test!
- Thread starter K__M
- Start date
No problem MrX.@Prorootect Yes, that is one that works for XP. I do not think it works for 7 though.
- Nov 5, 2011
- 5,855
Hi K_M,
Look here for other details: http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic110308.html
'Seconfig XP (note freeware from the author program works in vista also)'
Then try it on Windows 7 32bit and tells me later if you want ..
-----------------------------
And this on Stealth ports, by Steven2 (here: http://ssj100.fullsubject.com/t390-port-0 ):
'Stealthing ports doesn't make you any safer than closed ports. Ridiculous FUD spread by firewall developers.
I know the argument "If you don't respond at ALL, the attacker will think you don't exist which is safer."
There are two kinds of attackers:
1) Port scanning on a particular port for a whole range of IPs, looking for one listening. Stealth = Closed
2) Dedicated hacker attacking your IP directly. Already knows you exist. Stealth = Closed
Nobody is there saying "Well, I scanned 114.76.70.1 to 114.76.70.254 on port 80 but no vulnerable ports were found, HOWEVER, 114.76.70.187 didn't respond at all, so I'll exclude it from future scans"
Look, I guess stealthing ports doesn't hurt in any way but it's NO safer than closed ports and even open ports (as long as you're not listening with a program/service that has a vulnerability).'
To be continued ..
And then the attacker choose port 5001, if you have stealthed the first 5000 ports .. That's not it?..
Look .. it's there: [attachment=885]
Look here for other details: http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic110308.html
'Seconfig XP (note freeware from the author program works in vista also)'
Then try it on Windows 7 32bit and tells me later if you want ..
-----------------------------
And this on Stealth ports, by Steven2 (here: http://ssj100.fullsubject.com/t390-port-0 ):
'Stealthing ports doesn't make you any safer than closed ports. Ridiculous FUD spread by firewall developers.
I know the argument "If you don't respond at ALL, the attacker will think you don't exist which is safer."
There are two kinds of attackers:
1) Port scanning on a particular port for a whole range of IPs, looking for one listening. Stealth = Closed
2) Dedicated hacker attacking your IP directly. Already knows you exist. Stealth = Closed
Nobody is there saying "Well, I scanned 114.76.70.1 to 114.76.70.254 on port 80 but no vulnerable ports were found, HOWEVER, 114.76.70.187 didn't respond at all, so I'll exclude it from future scans"
Look, I guess stealthing ports doesn't hurt in any way but it's NO safer than closed ports and even open ports (as long as you're not listening with a program/service that has a vulnerability).'
To be continued ..
And then the attacker choose port 5001, if you have stealthed the first 5000 ports .. That's not it?..
Look .. it's there: [attachment=885]
Attachments
Prorootect said:
Not to mention that "Stealth" is not valid TCP/IP behavior...
As such, "Stealth" is a dead giveaway that there is a live machine at the address with a firewall.
An attempted port scan expects some form of answer in return. Whether that be TTL expired in transit, Destination host unavailable, Request timed out, Unknown host, etc... But something is expected! A lack of any response is an anomaly and will likely be looked at more closely.
So no, contrary to popular belief, "Stealth" does not make you invisible to the internet.
before i had a honeypot on my machine, it was funny to see how many port scanning i was subjected.
