|
windows
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Almost all ports appear blocked on Bell SympaticoI am completely at a loss to explain why all ports except 3389 and the MSN Messenger ports appear blocked on our daughter's Sympatico DSL service. I have spent more time than I should working on this and am getting nowhere-even with the help of Sympatico "level-2" service personnel. Has anyone got any idea what is going on? First, Sympatico personnel claim they are not blocking any ports except ports like 21, 25, and 80 that are specific to heavy-use server applications. Nonetheless, three different scanners all show everything as closed or "connection refused." Our daughter is using a Speedstream 6520 supplied by Bell. Here is what I have tried to date: 1. Removing the Linksys router she normally uses. Normally she uses the Bell modem-router in "bridge mode." In that mode, the firewall in the Bell modem-router is theoretically disabled. 2. Checking repeatedly to ensure that both the XP firewall and the anti-virus firewall are disabled. 3. A different machine with a different anti-virus service. 4. Completely removing anti-virus service temporarily. 5. Static-ip connection to Bell modem-router. 6. Connecting with the Bell modem-router and DMZing the test computer (direct Ethernet-cable connection). All other ports still show closed. 7. Connecting with the Bell modem-router and TCP port-forwarding common gaming ports (e.g., "Battle-Net's" ports: 6112-6119). In this case all other ports except the forwarded ports timeout (scan takes much longer than without port forwarding-without everything gets reported as "closed" very quickly). The forwarded ports are reported closed. 8. Getting a replacement Speedstream 6520 from Bell. Nothing changes. 9. Disabling all startup apps with msconfig. Nothing changes. 10. Getting frustrated. Nothing changes. I did some searching on the web for discussion of blocked-port problems with Sympatico and found almost nothing which leads me to believe they are not, as a matter of general policy, blocking everything, or nearly everything. I am completely stumped at this point. Does anyone have any ideas about what might be going on here? Thanks in advance! Ports are only open if you have something running on them.
What do you expect to see open? <paque***@uwo.ca> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote news:1156978459.952383.266860@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Almost all ports appear blocked on Bell Sympatico > > I am completely at a loss to explain why all ports except 3389 and the > MSN Messenger ports appear blocked on our daughter's Sympatico DSL > service. I have spent more time than I should working on this and am > getting nowhere-even with the help of Sympatico "level-2" service > personnel. Has anyone got any idea what is going on? > > First, Sympatico personnel claim they are not blocking any ports except > ports like 21, 25, and 80 that are specific to heavy-use server > applications. Nonetheless, three different scanners all show > everything as closed or "connection refused." > > Our daughter is using a Speedstream 6520 supplied by Bell. > > Here is what I have tried to date: > > 1. Removing the Linksys router she normally uses. Normally she uses > the Bell modem-router in "bridge mode." In that mode, the firewall > in the Bell modem-router is theoretically disabled. > 2. Checking repeatedly to ensure that both the XP firewall and the > anti-virus firewall are disabled. > 3. A different machine with a different anti-virus service. > 4. Completely removing anti-virus service temporarily. > 5. Static-ip connection to Bell modem-router. > 6. Connecting with the Bell modem-router and DMZing the test computer > (direct > Ethernet-cable connection). All other ports still show closed. > 7. Connecting with the Bell modem-router and TCP port-forwarding common > gaming ports (e.g., "Battle-Net's" ports: 6112-6119). In this > case all other ports except the forwarded ports timeout (scan takes > much longer than without port forwarding-without everything gets > reported as "closed" very quickly). The forwarded ports are > reported closed. > 8. Getting a replacement Speedstream 6520 from Bell. Nothing changes. > 9. Disabling all startup apps with msconfig. Nothing changes. > 10. Getting frustrated. Nothing changes. > > I did some searching on the web for discussion of blocked-port problems > with Sympatico and found almost nothing which leads me to believe they > are not, as a matter of general policy, blocking everything, or nearly > everything. > > I am completely stumped at this point. Does anyone have any ideas > about what might be going on here? > > Thanks in advance! > An ISP wouldn't be able to do much business if they blocked all the ports.
Where are you scanning from? What are you scanning? Even a port scan will only show open ports. What ports are you listening on? Or, better, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Maybe the good proctors and peasants in the group can make a few suggestions on how to get it to happen. ....kurt <paque***@uwo.ca> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote news:1156978459.952383.266860@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Almost all ports appear blocked on Bell Sympatico > > I am completely at a loss to explain why all ports except 3389 and the > MSN Messenger ports appear blocked on our daughter's Sympatico DSL > service. I have spent more time than I should working on this and am > getting nowhere-even with the help of Sympatico "level-2" service > personnel. Has anyone got any idea what is going on? > > First, Sympatico personnel claim they are not blocking any ports except > ports like 21, 25, and 80 that are specific to heavy-use server > applications. Nonetheless, three different scanners all show > everything as closed or "connection refused." > > Our daughter is using a Speedstream 6520 supplied by Bell. > > Here is what I have tried to date: > > 1. Removing the Linksys router she normally uses. Normally she uses > the Bell modem-router in "bridge mode." In that mode, the firewall > in the Bell modem-router is theoretically disabled. > 2. Checking repeatedly to ensure that both the XP firewall and the > anti-virus firewall are disabled. > 3. A different machine with a different anti-virus service. > 4. Completely removing anti-virus service temporarily. > 5. Static-ip connection to Bell modem-router. > 6. Connecting with the Bell modem-router and DMZing the test computer > (direct > Ethernet-cable connection). All other ports still show closed. > 7. Connecting with the Bell modem-router and TCP port-forwarding common > gaming ports (e.g., "Battle-Net's" ports: 6112-6119). In this > case all other ports except the forwarded ports timeout (scan takes > much longer than without port forwarding-without everything gets > reported as "closed" very quickly). The forwarded ports are > reported closed. > 8. Getting a replacement Speedstream 6520 from Bell. Nothing changes. > 9. Disabling all startup apps with msconfig. Nothing changes. > 10. Getting frustrated. Nothing changes. > > I did some searching on the web for discussion of blocked-port problems > with Sympatico and found almost nothing which leads me to believe they > are not, as a matter of general policy, blocking everything, or nearly > everything. > > I am completely stumped at this point. Does anyone have any ideas > about what might be going on here? > > Thanks in advance! > Hello
Do you have ZA installed or another like Kerio? -- Show quoteHide quoteDaphne Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. <paque***@uwo.ca> wrote in message news:1156978459.952383.266860@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Almost all ports appear blocked on Bell Sympatico > > I am completely at a loss to explain why all ports except 3389 and the > MSN Messenger ports appear blocked on our daughter's Sympatico DSL > service. I have spent more time than I should working on this and am > getting nowhere-even with the help of Sympatico "level-2" service > personnel. Has anyone got any idea what is going on? > > First, Sympatico personnel claim they are not blocking any ports except > ports like 21, 25, and 80 that are specific to heavy-use server > applications. Nonetheless, three different scanners all show > everything as closed or "connection refused." > > Our daughter is using a Speedstream 6520 supplied by Bell. > > Here is what I have tried to date: > > 1. Removing the Linksys router she normally uses. Normally she uses > the Bell modem-router in "bridge mode." In that mode, the firewall > in the Bell modem-router is theoretically disabled. > 2. Checking repeatedly to ensure that both the XP firewall and the > anti-virus firewall are disabled. > 3. A different machine with a different anti-virus service. > 4. Completely removing anti-virus service temporarily. > 5. Static-ip connection to Bell modem-router. > 6. Connecting with the Bell modem-router and DMZing the test computer > (direct > Ethernet-cable connection). All other ports still show closed. > 7. Connecting with the Bell modem-router and TCP port-forwarding common > gaming ports (e.g., "Battle-Net's" ports: 6112-6119). In this > case all other ports except the forwarded ports timeout (scan takes > much longer than without port forwarding-without everything gets > reported as "closed" very quickly). The forwarded ports are > reported closed. > 8. Getting a replacement Speedstream 6520 from Bell. Nothing changes. > 9. Disabling all startup apps with msconfig. Nothing changes. > 10. Getting frustrated. Nothing changes. > > I did some searching on the web for discussion of blocked-port problems > with Sympatico and found almost nothing which leads me to believe they > are not, as a matter of general policy, blocking everything, or nearly > everything. > > I am completely stumped at this point. Does anyone have any ideas > about what might be going on here? > > Thanks in advance! > First, my sincere thanks to all the thoughtful reponses to my initial
message! What started this quest was an attempt to connect to a password-protected ftp site on my main home machine (yes, I am aware of the risks of ftp's unencrypted password mechanism and only turn the ftp site on when I know someone is going to use it) using a non-standard port (Sympatico does block port 21). Given the way FTP works and given that passive mode fails, my idea was to identify the FTP data-return port with the well-known P1 X 256 + P2 formula, open that port, and hopefully this would work. This led to using several well-known scanners (e.g., canyouseeme and whatsmyip.org) and my shock at finding that even ports like 443 (SSL) which definitely should be open on our daughter's machines, I think, weren't. Our daughter uses Norton AntiVirus. As I mentioned in the initial post, I disabled it and eventually removed it entirely temporarily as part of testing. She is not using Zone Alarm or Kerio. I hope this helps. BTW, I've been unable to get a VPN service to work on the home machine (XP Pro, SP2). The setup seems to go fine. Port 1732 is open there. But authentication from a remote computer never works--hence attempt at FTP solution. Again, thanks for any help! In very simple terms ....
Ports are open if a service is running and can answer a request. Ports are closed if the system answers rather than a service. Ports are stealth if no answer is received. Try a port check from this URL https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 Don <paque***@uwo.ca> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote news:1156978459.952383.266860@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Almost all ports appear blocked on Bell Sympatico > > I am completely at a loss to explain why all ports except 3389 and the > MSN Messenger ports appear blocked on our daughter's Sympatico DSL > service. I have spent more time than I should working on this and am > getting nowhere-even with the help of Sympatico "level-2" service > personnel. Has anyone got any idea what is going on? > > First, Sympatico personnel claim they are not blocking any ports except > ports like 21, 25, and 80 that are specific to heavy-use server > applications. Nonetheless, three different scanners all show > everything as closed or "connection refused." > > Our daughter is using a Speedstream 6520 supplied by Bell. > > Here is what I have tried to date: > > 1. Removing the Linksys router she normally uses. Normally she uses > the Bell modem-router in "bridge mode." In that mode, the firewall > in the Bell modem-router is theoretically disabled. > 2. Checking repeatedly to ensure that both the XP firewall and the > anti-virus firewall are disabled. > 3. A different machine with a different anti-virus service. > 4. Completely removing anti-virus service temporarily. > 5. Static-ip connection to Bell modem-router. > 6. Connecting with the Bell modem-router and DMZing the test computer > (direct > Ethernet-cable connection). All other ports still show closed. > 7. Connecting with the Bell modem-router and TCP port-forwarding common > gaming ports (e.g., "Battle-Net's" ports: 6112-6119). In this > case all other ports except the forwarded ports timeout (scan takes > much longer than without port forwarding-without everything gets > reported as "closed" very quickly). The forwarded ports are > reported closed. > 8. Getting a replacement Speedstream 6520 from Bell. Nothing changes. > 9. Disabling all startup apps with msconfig. Nothing changes. > 10. Getting frustrated. Nothing changes. > > I did some searching on the web for discussion of blocked-port problems > with Sympatico and found almost nothing which leads me to believe they > are not, as a matter of general policy, blocking everything, or nearly > everything. > > I am completely stumped at this point. Does anyone have any ideas > about what might be going on here? > > Thanks in advance! > Thanks--I actually went to this site earlier and for some reason didn't
use its scanner. I will do so, however, and report back to the group since it seems much more thorough than the others. Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the
following. Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 1 Ports Open 1049 Ports Closed 6 Ports Stealth --------------------- 1056 Ports Tested The port found to be OPEN was: 135 Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my success--or lack thereof. nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. > following. > > Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 > > 1 Ports Open > 1049 Ports Closed > 6 Ports Stealth > --------------------- > 1056 Ports Tested > > The port found to be OPEN was: 135 > > Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 > > Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > > So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. > > Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my > success--or lack thereof. > I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the test which is ideal. http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a computer that you may not know about. I would never leave a machine unprotected by a firewall for more than a
momentary test. These results were simply to try to get my head around what is happening. Here is the final surprising state of play on all of this which I still can't explain even in light of the very helpful messages I have received. Using shields up and momentarily DMZing my main home machine I discovered that Sympatico is NOT blocking port 21 so I reset my FTP service on that machine to the standard port 21. It works fine with another test client but our daughter's machine--even with firewall disabled and a known, working DNS server explicitly in the tcp-ip setup, can't find my server on ftp (no problem to my web site on the same machine--I have DDNS). Any ideas on why her machine, even with all firewalling off and a known functioning DNS server explicitly entered in tcp-ip configuration can't find my ftp server while another client has no problem doing so??? Again, thanks to all for the help!!! Dan wrote: Show quoteHide quote > nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the > > following. > > > > Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 > > > > 1 Ports Open > > 1049 Ports Closed > > 6 Ports Stealth > > --------------------- > > 1056 Ports Tested > > > > The port found to be OPEN was: 135 > > > > Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 > > > > Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > > > > So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. > > > > Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my > > success--or lack thereof. > > > > I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. > I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine > comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the > test which is ideal. > > http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm > > I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall > in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet > security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for > security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially > those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be > used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be > careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with > strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a > computer that you may not know about. One final note on security. I never place any financial or other
strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that respect but I appreciate the concern. Dan wrote: Show quoteHide quote > nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the > > following. > > > > Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 > > > > 1 Ports Open > > 1049 Ports Closed > > 6 Ports Stealth > > --------------------- > > 1056 Ports Tested > > > > The port found to be OPEN was: 135 > > > > Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 > > > > Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > > > > So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. > > > > Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my > > success--or lack thereof. > > > > I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. > I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine > comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the > test which is ideal. > > http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm > > I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall > in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet > security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for > security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially > those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be > used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be > careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with > strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a > computer that you may not know about. no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > One final note on security. I never place any financial or other You are most welcome. I am glad you appreciate the concern because we > strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very > occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that > respect but I appreciate the concern. > > Dan wrote: >> nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: >>> Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the >>> following. >>> >>> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 >>> >>> 1 Ports Open >>> 1049 Ports Closed >>> 6 Ports Stealth >>> --------------------- >>> 1056 Ports Tested >>> >>> The port found to be OPEN was: 135 >>> >>> Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 >>> >>> Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. >>> >>> So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. >>> >>> Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my >>> success--or lack thereof. >>> >> I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. >> I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine >> comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the >> test which is ideal. >> >> http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm >> >> I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall >> in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet >> security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for >> security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially >> those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be >> used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be >> careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with >> strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a >> computer that you may not know about. > all need to be really careful what with increasing identity theft and other problems in our society. I wonder if spyware or malware are causing problems on the machine. Have you checked for viruses, malware, spyware, rootkits, etc. and what tools have you used? My daughter has the full Norton suite. I've also tested her connection
with my laptop which has the full Trend suite. I haven't gone looking for rootkits, however. Dan wrote: Show quoteHide quote > no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > One final note on security. I never place any financial or other > > strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very > > occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that > > respect but I appreciate the concern. > > > > Dan wrote: > >> nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > >>> Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the > >>> following. > >>> > >>> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 > >>> > >>> 1 Ports Open > >>> 1049 Ports Closed > >>> 6 Ports Stealth > >>> --------------------- > >>> 1056 Ports Tested > >>> > >>> The port found to be OPEN was: 135 > >>> > >>> Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 > >>> > >>> Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > >>> > >>> So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. > >>> > >>> Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my > >>> success--or lack thereof. > >>> > >> I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. > >> I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine > >> comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the > >> test which is ideal. > >> > >> http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm > >> > >> I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall > >> in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet > >> security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for > >> security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially > >> those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be > >> used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be > >> careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with > >> strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a > >> computer that you may not know about. > > > You are most welcome. I am glad you appreciate the concern because we > all need to be really careful what with increasing identity theft and > other problems in our society. I wonder if spyware or malware are > causing problems on the machine. Have you checked for viruses, malware, > spyware, rootkits, etc. and what tools have you used? no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > My daughter has the full Norton suite. I've also tested her connection Ah, you mention Norton. A number of posters have had trouble with > with my laptop which has the full Trend suite. I haven't gone looking > for rootkits, however. > > Dan wrote: >> no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: >>> One final note on security. I never place any financial or other >>> strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very >>> occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that >>> respect but I appreciate the concern. >>> >>> Dan wrote: >>>> nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: >>>>> Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the >>>>> following. >>>>> >>>>> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 >>>>> >>>>> 1 Ports Open >>>>> 1049 Ports Closed >>>>> 6 Ports Stealth >>>>> --------------------- >>>>> 1056 Ports Tested >>>>> >>>>> The port found to be OPEN was: 135 >>>>> >>>>> Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 >>>>> >>>>> Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. >>>>> >>>>> So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my >>>>> success--or lack thereof. >>>>> >>>> I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. >>>> I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine >>>> comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the >>>> test which is ideal. >>>> >>>> http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm >>>> >>>> I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall >>>> in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet >>>> security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for >>>> security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially >>>> those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be >>>> used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be >>>> careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with >>>> strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a >>>> computer that you may not know about. >> You are most welcome. I am glad you appreciate the concern because we >> all need to be really careful what with increasing identity theft and >> other problems in our society. I wonder if spyware or malware are >> causing problems on the machine. Have you checked for viruses, malware, >> spyware, rootkits, etc. and what tools have you used? > Norton products and there may be something in Norton that is causing your problem but I also would try to make sure the machine is fully safe too. I think the finger is probably pointing in the direction of Norton.
Does anyone know if Norton blocks FTP in some way. I have now set up "port triggering" for ftp on ports 20 and 21 on our daughter's router (a Linksys) and forwarded ports 20 and 21. FTP to my home site is working perfectly on my laptop (Trend) but I keep getting a DNS error in Internet Explorer. I can ping the ftp address on her machine and I get a DNS error from Internet Explorer even if I type in the ip number currently assigned at home (I have DDNS and my main machine is on a static local ip). Any ideas--I've tried disabling Norton to no avail! Dan wrote: Show quoteHide quote > no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > My daughter has the full Norton suite. I've also tested her connection > > with my laptop which has the full Trend suite. I haven't gone looking > > for rootkits, however. > > > > Dan wrote: > >> no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > >>> One final note on security. I never place any financial or other > >>> strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very > >>> occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that > >>> respect but I appreciate the concern. > >>> > >>> Dan wrote: > >>>> nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > >>>>> Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the > >>>>> following. > >>>>> > >>>>> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 > >>>>> > >>>>> 1 Ports Open > >>>>> 1049 Ports Closed > >>>>> 6 Ports Stealth > >>>>> --------------------- > >>>>> 1056 Ports Tested > >>>>> > >>>>> The port found to be OPEN was: 135 > >>>>> > >>>>> Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 > >>>>> > >>>>> Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > >>>>> > >>>>> So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my > >>>>> success--or lack thereof. > >>>>> > >>>> I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. > >>>> I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine > >>>> comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the > >>>> test which is ideal. > >>>> > >>>> http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm > >>>> > >>>> I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall > >>>> in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet > >>>> security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for > >>>> security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially > >>>> those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be > >>>> used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be > >>>> careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with > >>>> strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a > >>>> computer that you may not know about. > >> You are most welcome. I am glad you appreciate the concern because we > >> all need to be really careful what with increasing identity theft and > >> other problems in our society. I wonder if spyware or malware are > >> causing problems on the machine. Have you checked for viruses, malware, > >> spyware, rootkits, etc. and what tools have you used? > > > > Ah, you mention Norton. A number of posters have had trouble with > Norton products and there may be something in Norton that is causing > your problem but I also would try to make sure the machine is fully safe > too. I tried disabling all Symantec-related apps and services in msconfig
and rebooting on our daughter's main computer. Still no luck--IE produces a DNS error trying to go to my FTP site. It works fine, however, with Micosoft's ftp site so it's something specific to my site. We've now tried two computers on the same home network and both can now access my site with no problem?????????? no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I think the finger is probably pointing in the direction of Norton. > Does anyone know if Norton blocks FTP in some way. > > I have now set up "port triggering" for ftp on ports 20 and 21 on our > daughter's router (a Linksys) and forwarded ports 20 and 21. FTP to my > home site is working perfectly on my laptop (Trend) but I keep getting > a DNS error in Internet Explorer. I can ping the ftp address on her > machine and I get a DNS error from Internet Explorer even if I type in > the ip number currently assigned at home (I have DDNS and my main > machine is on a static local ip). > > Any ideas--I've tried disabling Norton to no avail! > > Dan wrote: > > no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > My daughter has the full Norton suite. I've also tested her connection > > > with my laptop which has the full Trend suite. I haven't gone looking > > > for rootkits, however. > > > > > > Dan wrote: > > >> no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > >>> One final note on security. I never place any financial or other > > >>> strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very > > >>> occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that > > >>> respect but I appreciate the concern. > > >>> > > >>> Dan wrote: > > >>>> nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > >>>>> Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the > > >>>>> following. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 1 Ports Open > > >>>>> 1049 Ports Closed > > >>>>> 6 Ports Stealth > > >>>>> --------------------- > > >>>>> 1056 Ports Tested > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The port found to be OPEN was: 135 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my > > >>>>> success--or lack thereof. > > >>>>> > > >>>> I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. > > >>>> I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine > > >>>> comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the > > >>>> test which is ideal. > > >>>> > > >>>> http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm > > >>>> > > >>>> I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall > > >>>> in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet > > >>>> security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for > > >>>> security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially > > >>>> those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be > > >>>> used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be > > >>>> careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with > > >>>> strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a > > >>>> computer that you may not know about. > > >> You are most welcome. I am glad you appreciate the concern because we > > >> all need to be really careful what with increasing identity theft and > > >> other problems in our society. I wonder if spyware or malware are > > >> causing problems on the machine. Have you checked for viruses, malware, > > >> spyware, rootkits, etc. and what tools have you used? > > > > > > > Ah, you mention Norton. A number of posters have had trouble with > > Norton products and there may be something in Norton that is causing > > your problem but I also would try to make sure the machine is fully safe > > too. I tried disabling all Symantec-related apps and services in msconfig
and rebooting on our daughter's main computer. Still no luck--IE produces a DNS error trying to go to my FTP site. It works fine, however, with Micosoft's ftp site so it's something specific to my site. We've now tried two computers on the same home network and both can now access my site with no problem?????????? no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I think the finger is probably pointing in the direction of Norton. > Does anyone know if Norton blocks FTP in some way. > > I have now set up "port triggering" for ftp on ports 20 and 21 on our > daughter's router (a Linksys) and forwarded ports 20 and 21. FTP to my > home site is working perfectly on my laptop (Trend) but I keep getting > a DNS error in Internet Explorer. I can ping the ftp address on her > machine and I get a DNS error from Internet Explorer even if I type in > the ip number currently assigned at home (I have DDNS and my main > machine is on a static local ip). > > Any ideas--I've tried disabling Norton to no avail! > > Dan wrote: > > no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > My daughter has the full Norton suite. I've also tested her connection > > > with my laptop which has the full Trend suite. I haven't gone looking > > > for rootkits, however. > > > > > > Dan wrote: > > >> no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > >>> One final note on security. I never place any financial or other > > >>> strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very > > >>> occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that > > >>> respect but I appreciate the concern. > > >>> > > >>> Dan wrote: > > >>>> nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > >>>>> Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the > > >>>>> following. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 1 Ports Open > > >>>>> 1049 Ports Closed > > >>>>> 6 Ports Stealth > > >>>>> --------------------- > > >>>>> 1056 Ports Tested > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The port found to be OPEN was: 135 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my > > >>>>> success--or lack thereof. > > >>>>> > > >>>> I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. > > >>>> I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine > > >>>> comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the > > >>>> test which is ideal. > > >>>> > > >>>> http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm > > >>>> > > >>>> I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall > > >>>> in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet > > >>>> security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for > > >>>> security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially > > >>>> those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be > > >>>> used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be > > >>>> careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with > > >>>> strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a > > >>>> computer that you may not know about. > > >> You are most welcome. I am glad you appreciate the concern because we > > >> all need to be really careful what with increasing identity theft and > > >> other problems in our society. I wonder if spyware or malware are > > >> causing problems on the machine. Have you checked for viruses, malware, > > >> spyware, rootkits, etc. and what tools have you used? > > > > > > > Ah, you mention Norton. A number of posters have had trouble with > > Norton products and there may be something in Norton that is causing > > your problem but I also would try to make sure the machine is fully safe > > too. Found the last remaining problem--a configuration problem with IE. It
was not configured to display folders. Many thanks again to all of you who responded. I've learned a lot this morning and solved a vexing problem thanks to you! nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I tried disabling all Symantec-related apps and services in msconfig > and rebooting on our daughter's main computer. Still no luck--IE > produces a DNS error trying to go to my FTP site. It works fine, > however, with Micosoft's ftp site so it's something specific to my > site. > > We've now tried two computers on the same home network and both can now > access my site with no problem?????????? > > > no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > I think the finger is probably pointing in the direction of Norton. > > Does anyone know if Norton blocks FTP in some way. > > > > I have now set up "port triggering" for ftp on ports 20 and 21 on our > > daughter's router (a Linksys) and forwarded ports 20 and 21. FTP to my > > home site is working perfectly on my laptop (Trend) but I keep getting > > a DNS error in Internet Explorer. I can ping the ftp address on her > > machine and I get a DNS error from Internet Explorer even if I type in > > the ip number currently assigned at home (I have DDNS and my main > > machine is on a static local ip). > > > > Any ideas--I've tried disabling Norton to no avail! > > > > Dan wrote: > > > no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > > My daughter has the full Norton suite. I've also tested her connection > > > > with my laptop which has the full Trend suite. I haven't gone looking > > > > for rootkits, however. > > > > > > > > Dan wrote: > > > >> no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > >>> One final note on security. I never place any financial or other > > > >>> strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very > > > >>> occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that > > > >>> respect but I appreciate the concern. > > > >>> > > > >>> Dan wrote: > > > >>>> nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > >>>>> Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the > > > >>>>> following. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1 Ports Open > > > >>>>> 1049 Ports Closed > > > >>>>> 6 Ports Stealth > > > >>>>> --------------------- > > > >>>>> 1056 Ports Tested > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The port found to be OPEN was: 135 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my > > > >>>>> success--or lack thereof. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. > > > >>>> I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine > > > >>>> comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the > > > >>>> test which is ideal. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall > > > >>>> in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet > > > >>>> security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for > > > >>>> security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially > > > >>>> those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be > > > >>>> used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be > > > >>>> careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with > > > >>>> strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a > > > >>>> computer that you may not know about. > > > >> You are most welcome. I am glad you appreciate the concern because we > > > >> all need to be really careful what with increasing identity theft and > > > >> other problems in our society. I wonder if spyware or malware are > > > >> causing problems on the machine. Have you checked for viruses, malware, > > > >> spyware, rootkits, etc. and what tools have you used? > > > > > > > > > > Ah, you mention Norton. A number of posters have had trouble with > > > Norton products and there may be something in Norton that is causing > > > your problem but I also would try to make sure the machine is fully safe > > > too. Found the last remaining problem--a configuration problem with IE. It
was not configured to display folders. Many thanks again to all of you who responded. I've learned a lot this morning and solved a vexing problem thanks to you! nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I tried disabling all Symantec-related apps and services in msconfig > and rebooting on our daughter's main computer. Still no luck--IE > produces a DNS error trying to go to my FTP site. It works fine, > however, with Micosoft's ftp site so it's something specific to my > site. > > We've now tried two computers on the same home network and both can now > access my site with no problem?????????? > > > no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > I think the finger is probably pointing in the direction of Norton. > > Does anyone know if Norton blocks FTP in some way. > > > > I have now set up "port triggering" for ftp on ports 20 and 21 on our > > daughter's router (a Linksys) and forwarded ports 20 and 21. FTP to my > > home site is working perfectly on my laptop (Trend) but I keep getting > > a DNS error in Internet Explorer. I can ping the ftp address on her > > machine and I get a DNS error from Internet Explorer even if I type in > > the ip number currently assigned at home (I have DDNS and my main > > machine is on a static local ip). > > > > Any ideas--I've tried disabling Norton to no avail! > > > > Dan wrote: > > > no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > > My daughter has the full Norton suite. I've also tested her connection > > > > with my laptop which has the full Trend suite. I haven't gone looking > > > > for rootkits, however. > > > > > > > > Dan wrote: > > > >> no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > >>> One final note on security. I never place any financial or other > > > >>> strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very > > > >>> occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that > > > >>> respect but I appreciate the concern. > > > >>> > > > >>> Dan wrote: > > > >>>> nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > >>>>> Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the > > > >>>>> following. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1 Ports Open > > > >>>>> 1049 Ports Closed > > > >>>>> 6 Ports Stealth > > > >>>>> --------------------- > > > >>>>> 1056 Ports Tested > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The port found to be OPEN was: 135 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my > > > >>>>> success--or lack thereof. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. > > > >>>> I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine > > > >>>> comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the > > > >>>> test which is ideal. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall > > > >>>> in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet > > > >>>> security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for > > > >>>> security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially > > > >>>> those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be > > > >>>> used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be > > > >>>> careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with > > > >>>> strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a > > > >>>> computer that you may not know about. > > > >> You are most welcome. I am glad you appreciate the concern because we > > > >> all need to be really careful what with increasing identity theft and > > > >> other problems in our society. I wonder if spyware or malware are > > > >> causing problems on the machine. Have you checked for viruses, malware, > > > >> spyware, rootkits, etc. and what tools have you used? > > > > > > > > > > Ah, you mention Norton. A number of posters have had trouble with > > > Norton products and there may be something in Norton that is causing > > > your problem but I also would try to make sure the machine is fully safe > > > too. Found the last remaining problem--a configuration problem with IE. It
was not configured to display folders. Many thanks again to all of you who responded. I've learned a lot this morning and solved a vexing problem thanks to you! nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I tried disabling all Symantec-related apps and services in msconfig > and rebooting on our daughter's main computer. Still no luck--IE > produces a DNS error trying to go to my FTP site. It works fine, > however, with Micosoft's ftp site so it's something specific to my > site. > > We've now tried two computers on the same home network and both can now > access my site with no problem?????????? > > > no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > I think the finger is probably pointing in the direction of Norton. > > Does anyone know if Norton blocks FTP in some way. > > > > I have now set up "port triggering" for ftp on ports 20 and 21 on our > > daughter's router (a Linksys) and forwarded ports 20 and 21. FTP to my > > home site is working perfectly on my laptop (Trend) but I keep getting > > a DNS error in Internet Explorer. I can ping the ftp address on her > > machine and I get a DNS error from Internet Explorer even if I type in > > the ip number currently assigned at home (I have DDNS and my main > > machine is on a static local ip). > > > > Any ideas--I've tried disabling Norton to no avail! > > > > Dan wrote: > > > no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > > My daughter has the full Norton suite. I've also tested her connection > > > > with my laptop which has the full Trend suite. I haven't gone looking > > > > for rootkits, however. > > > > > > > > Dan wrote: > > > >> no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > >>> One final note on security. I never place any financial or other > > > >>> strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very > > > >>> occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that > > > >>> respect but I appreciate the concern. > > > >>> > > > >>> Dan wrote: > > > >>>> nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: > > > >>>>> Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the > > > >>>>> following. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1 Ports Open > > > >>>>> 1049 Ports Closed > > > >>>>> 6 Ports Stealth > > > >>>>> --------------------- > > > >>>>> 1056 Ports Tested > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The port found to be OPEN was: 135 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my > > > >>>>> success--or lack thereof. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. > > > >>>> I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine > > > >>>> comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the > > > >>>> test which is ideal. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall > > > >>>> in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet > > > >>>> security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for > > > >>>> security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially > > > >>>> those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be > > > >>>> used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be > > > >>>> careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with > > > >>>> strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a > > > >>>> computer that you may not know about. > > > >> You are most welcome. I am glad you appreciate the concern because we > > > >> all need to be really careful what with increasing identity theft and > > > >> other problems in our society. I wonder if spyware or malware are > > > >> causing problems on the machine. Have you checked for viruses, malware, > > > >> spyware, rootkits, etc. and what tools have you used? > > > > > > > > > > Ah, you mention Norton. A number of posters have had trouble with > > > Norton products and there may be something in Norton that is causing > > > your problem but I also would try to make sure the machine is fully safe > > > too. nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Found the last remaining problem--a configuration problem with IE. It Well, I am glad you finally figured it out.> was not configured to display folders. > > Many thanks again to all of you who responded. I've learned a lot this > morning and solved a vexing problem thanks to you! > > nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: >> I tried disabling all Symantec-related apps and services in msconfig >> and rebooting on our daughter's main computer. Still no luck--IE >> produces a DNS error trying to go to my FTP site. It works fine, >> however, with Micosoft's ftp site so it's something specific to my >> site. >> >> We've now tried two computers on the same home network and both can now >> access my site with no problem?????????? >> >> >> no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: >>> I think the finger is probably pointing in the direction of Norton. >>> Does anyone know if Norton blocks FTP in some way. >>> >>> I have now set up "port triggering" for ftp on ports 20 and 21 on our >>> daughter's router (a Linksys) and forwarded ports 20 and 21. FTP to my >>> home site is working perfectly on my laptop (Trend) but I keep getting >>> a DNS error in Internet Explorer. I can ping the ftp address on her >>> machine and I get a DNS error from Internet Explorer even if I type in >>> the ip number currently assigned at home (I have DDNS and my main >>> machine is on a static local ip). >>> >>> Any ideas--I've tried disabling Norton to no avail! >>> >>> Dan wrote: >>>> no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: >>>>> My daughter has the full Norton suite. I've also tested her connection >>>>> with my laptop which has the full Trend suite. I haven't gone looking >>>>> for rootkits, however. >>>>> >>>>> Dan wrote: >>>>>> no_spam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: >>>>>>> One final note on security. I never place any financial or other >>>>>>> strictly "personal" information on any computer beyond the very >>>>>>> occasional transitory SSL transaction so I presume I am secure in that >>>>>>> respect but I appreciate the concern. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan wrote: >>>>>>>> nospam_paquette@uwo.ca wrote: >>>>>>>>> Ran a ShieldsUp scan with everything disabled and came back with the >>>>>>>>> following. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Results from scan of ports: 0-1055 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1 Ports Open >>>>>>>>> 1049 Ports Closed >>>>>>>>> 6 Ports Stealth >>>>>>>>> --------------------- >>>>>>>>> 1056 Ports Tested >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The port found to be OPEN was: 135 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ports found to be STEALTH were: 25, 136, 137, 138, 139, 445 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So I gather this means all problems are router/NAT related. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks again to those who replied. I will report back on my >>>>>>>>> success--or lack thereof. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I warn you that your machine is not safe from hackers and port scanning. >>>>>>>> I urge you to increase your security ASAP. In this scan, my machine >>>>>>>> comes back with a notice that all my ports are stealthed and I pass the >>>>>>>> test which is ideal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.grc.com/port_135.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I use Zone Alarm Pro. for my software firewall, have a hardware firewall >>>>>>>> in my router and disable unneeded services to increase my Internet >>>>>>>> security. A multi-layered approach is essential and critical for >>>>>>>> security for all users in this day and age. Even home users especially >>>>>>>> those with broadband (aka DSL Cable Satellite etc.) are targeted to be >>>>>>>> used by hackers for spamming or more nefarious purposes. I would be >>>>>>>> careful about having any personnel information on my computer even with >>>>>>>> strong 256 bit encryption because there can always be a backdoor into a >>>>>>>> computer that you may not know about. >>>>>> You are most welcome. I am glad you appreciate the concern because we >>>>>> all need to be really careful what with increasing identity theft and >>>>>> other problems in our society. I wonder if spyware or malware are >>>>>> causing problems on the machine. Have you checked for viruses, malware, >>>>>> spyware, rootkits, etc. and what tools have you used? >>>> Ah, you mention Norton. A number of posters have had trouble with >>>> Norton products and there may be something in Norton that is causing >>>> your problem but I also would try to make sure the machine is fully safe >>>> too. > |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics