«

Is there any way selectively to close ports in Windows (98SE); e.g. by
hacking the registry?

/Scrubbs

Yep, install linux and dump M$ in garbage.

Dino



<Scrubbs> wrote in message news:...
> Is there any way selectively to close ports in Windows (98SE); e.g. by
> hacking the registry?
>
> /Scrubbs

<Scrubbs> wrote in message news:...
> Is there any way selectively to close ports in Windows (98SE); e.g. by
> hacking the registry?
>
> /Scrubbs

Yep try this page and site as well http://grc.com/su-fixit.htm good info

<Scrubbs> wrote in message news:...
> Is there any way selectively to close ports in Windows (98SE); e.g. by
> hacking the registry?
>
> /Scrubbs

IMO, a personal firewall would be preferable to registry hacks for
'selectively closing ports', if you are referring to TCP/IP ports.

http://www.kerio.com/dwn/kpf/kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-win.exe

would be a good start.

What advantage would hacking the registry have in closing ports ?

Regards,

Pete.

Am 02.01.2004 17:38 schrieb Scrubbs:

> Is there any way selectively to close ports in Windows (98SE); e.g. by
> hacking the registry?
>
> /Scrubbs

FYI I did what was recommended by Jbob and it works. Just follow the
instructions at http://grc.com/su-bondage.htm, rebind all network
components, and you will have *all* ports closed unless you need them
for mail/internet. If no ports are constantly "listening" there will be
no open door for malware. You may need DCOMbobulator to finish this
http://grc.com/freepopular.htm.

To check your system, have a look at
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/tcpview.shtml - a pretty useful
tools, only 40 KB!

Do not use programs like "personal firewalls", WIN98SE can be secure by
configuration.

Christa Bartsch

Christa Bartsch wrote:
>
> Am 02.01.2004 17:38 schrieb Scrubbs:
>
> > Is there any way selectively to close ports in Windows (98SE); e.g. by
> > hacking the registry?
> >
> > /Scrubbs
>
> FYI I did what was recommended by Jbob and it works. Just follow the
> instructions at http://grc.com/su-bondage.htm, rebind all network
> components, and you will have *all* ports closed unless you need them
> for mail/internet. If no ports are constantly "listening" there will be
> no open door for malware. You may need DCOMbobulator to finish this
> http://grc.com/freepopular.htm.
>
> To check your system, have a look at
> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/tcpview.shtml - a pretty useful
> tools, only 40 KB!
>
> Do not use programs like "personal firewalls", WIN98SE can be secure by
> configuration.
>
> Christa Bartsch

Thanks for the link. It's always best to close unwanted ports down
regardless of whether one is using a personal firewall or not.

/Scrubbs

"Christa Bartsch" <> wrote in message
news:btb4np$4f8$02$...
> Am 02.01.2004 17:38 schrieb Scrubbs:
>
> > Is there any way selectively to close ports in Windows (98SE); e.g. by
> > hacking the registry?
> >
> > /Scrubbs
>
> FYI I did what was recommended by Jbob and it works. Just follow the
> instructions at http://grc.com/su-bondage.htm, rebind all network
> components, and you will have *all* ports closed unless you need them
> for mail/internet. If no ports are constantly "listening" there will be
> no open door for malware. You may need DCOMbobulator to finish this
> http://grc.com/freepopular.htm.
>
> To check your system, have a look at
> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/tcpview.shtml - a pretty useful
> tools, only 40 KB!
>
> Do not use programs like "personal firewalls", WIN98SE can be secure by
> configuration.
>
> Christa Bartsch
>
You should still think about using a PW for outbound protection. While the
settings help tremendously with inbound traffic, they are of no use to
outbound traffic. Even running a top of the line Virus engine can still
miss the newest worms, etc. A PW can at least notify you of outbound
traffic that is not of your choosing. You could get one of these via mail
and never no you had it except for the firewall alert that something wants
to connect without your knowledge. Spyware works this way too!

On 05.01.2004 17:08 Jbob wrote:

> You should still think about using a PW for outbound protection. While the
> settings help tremendously with inbound traffic, they are of no use to
> outbound traffic. Even running a top of the line Virus engine can still
> miss the newest worms, etc. A PW can at least notify you of outbound
> traffic that is not of your choosing. You could get one of these via mail
> and never no you had it except for the firewall alert that something wants
> to connect without your knowledge. Spyware works this way too!

Though I understand your troubles in these times, I still cannot see why
it should be useful to install a software named "personal firewall" on
the same system that can get infected.

Only 1 example from many, I think: Poster reported system infected by
virus Raleka, installed by false action (? - sorry for my English -
reason unknown for installing, probably by visiting the wrong site and
clicking too fast at OK) which disguised as "Generic Host Process for
Win32 Services". Would you ever deny that process if your "firewall"
asked you?

Fact is, no system is secure unless you are constantly patching
Microsoft OS and avoid unsecure software (IE and OE should be avoided
for unpatched holes that allow so many viruses to work), check your
behaviour (do not accept attachments from unknown sources, stop
file-sharing and many more) and try to understand that your computer is
more than just a dish-washer, with complicated settings that can make it
vulnarable.

This is a WIN ME machine now, and I'm connected to the internet since
1996 and I never got infected by anything. Without "personal firewall" .
Just lucky?

As for the viruses, I happened to be in the usenet when the first German
mail administrations reported about something strange - it was Sober.C
at last. Hours before anti-virus companies even knew about it, and days
before the signature files were updated, thousands of mails containing
the worm were spread and the worm was activated because users believed
the message and it couldn't be detected by any software.
Anti-virus-software has got its limits.

Outbound traffic is generally a problem of privacy (unless you were
hijacked of course) - my printer and realplayer and the MS media player
want to "phone home". I found out by
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/tdimon.shtml. No "firewall"
required for a stand-alone home computer. And their Process Explorer
tells me what's going on.

Christa

Christa Bartsch wrote:
>
> On 05.01.2004 17:08 Jbob wrote:
>
> > You should still think about using a PW for outbound protection. While the
> > settings help tremendously with inbound traffic, they are of no use to
> > outbound traffic. Even running a top of the line Virus engine can still
> > miss the newest worms, etc. A PW can at least notify you of outbound
> > traffic that is not of your choosing. You could get one of these via mail
> > and never no you had it except for the firewall alert that something wants
> > to connect without your knowledge. Spyware works this way too!
>
> Though I understand your troubles in these times, I still cannot see why
> it should be useful to install a software named "personal firewall" on
> the same system that can get infected.
>
> Only 1 example from many, I think: Poster reported system infected by
> virus Raleka, installed by false action (? - sorry for my English -
> reason unknown for installing, probably by visiting the wrong site and
> clicking too fast at OK) which disguised as "Generic Host Process for
> Win32 Services". Would you ever deny that process if your "firewall"
> asked you?
>
> Fact is, no system is secure unless you are constantly patching
> Microsoft OS and avoid unsecure software (IE and OE should be avoided
> for unpatched holes that allow so many viruses to work), check your
> behaviour (do not accept attachments from unknown sources, stop
> file-sharing and many more) and try to understand that your computer is
> more than just a dish-washer, with complicated settings that can make it
> vulnarable.
>
> This is a WIN ME machine now, and I'm connected to the internet since
> 1996 and I never got infected by anything. Without "personal firewall" .
> Just lucky?
>
> As for the viruses, I happened to be in the usenet when the first German
> mail administrations reported about something strange - it was Sober.C
> at last. Hours before anti-virus companies even knew about it, and days
> before the signature files were updated, thousands of mails containing
> the worm were spread and the worm was activated because users believed
> the message and it couldn't be detected by any software.
> Anti-virus-software has got its limits.
>
> Outbound traffic is generally a problem of privacy (unless you were
> hijacked of course) - my printer and realplayer and the MS media player
> want to "phone home". I found out by
> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/tdimon.shtml. No "firewall"
> required for a stand-alone home computer. And their Process Explorer
> tells me what's going on.
>
> Christa

I think Steve Gibson's site is a great resource. What I was really
looking for, though, was a means of selectively closing individual ports
- not speaking here of 135-139, or even port 445, which are already
closed. And yes I do use a firewall already. However it's good practice
to close down unwanted and unneeded ports; e.g rpc (remote procedure
call) and others. It seems that this is not possible in windows98 (or in
XP for that matter).

Linux advocates point to their ability to close down whatever port they
like, either on a single machine or selectively on a local network of
PCs.

I was wondering it this was possible in windows. Seems it isn't (?)

/Scrubbs

Scrubbs wrote:
> I think Steve Gibson's site is a great resource. What I was really
> looking for, though, was a means of selectively closing individual ports
> - not speaking here of 135-139, or even port 445, which are already
> closed. And yes I do use a firewall already. However it's good practice
> to close down unwanted and unneeded ports; e.g rpc (remote procedure
> call) and others. It seems that this is not possible in windows98 (or in
> XP for that matter).

I used Conseal from Signal9 for that.
I was a great packetfilter.

Groetjes
John