Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > Re: How did they get past my NAT?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: How did they get past my NAT?

 
 
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
On Nov 18, 11:54 pm, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <aaf5ac3a-9b60-451a-b03e-36c03533b841
> @w73g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> > Leythos is keen on
> > blocking certain outgoing so he`d probably know of some examples.

>
> SMTP, SQL Command, Windows File Sharing, IM......
>
> I don't allow outbound SMTP from workstations ever.
>
> I don't allow outbound SQL Command from anything, ever.
>
> Windows File Sharing, DNS, etc... never from the local workstations..
>
> IM - only from approved workstations....
>
> While DNS is not a easy exploit the others permit LAN machines to spread
> malware to people on the net with exposed machines.
>



if you block SMTP. Can users only send email via Yahoo like websites?
I guess you don`t block some SMTP and not others, since how would you
distinguish between good and bad. They could(knowingly or not) be bad
and use your SMTP server You`d have to block all.. Do you have
no SMTP server ?

I know one company that has an SMTP server and does not allow Yahoo.
That way they can more easily see all the email that goes in and out.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
On Nov 19, 2:42 am, "Mr. Arnold" <MR. (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 7:17 pm, "Mr. Arnold" <MR. (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

> > <snip>

>
> >> > That page does talk of a firewall as sitting between 2 networks.
> >> > perhaps, as oppose to an individual computer from a network.

>
> >> To keep it simplistic for you, the Internet is a massive/giant network
> >> the
> >> Wide Area Network being protected from by the firewall. The network being
> >> protected by the FW is the Local Area Network.

>
> > What is the complicated way then?

>
> > note- a firewall blocking certain outgoing can help protect other
> > people on the internet from a compromised machine. Leythos is keen on
> > blocking certain outgoing so he`d probably know of some examples.

>
> The proper thing would be to block all outbound traffic, and only allow
> outbound traffic for


well, if you are a techie user on the network of [mostly] idiot users,
then you may not appreciate that.


> those applications or services that need outbound
> traffic. That would mostly apply to a solution such as a FW appliance,
> packet filtering FW router or a software FW running on a secured gateway
> computer that could implement the solution poperly by creating packet
> filtering rules.
>


I wouldn`t say "properly"..

With a network firewall, you cannot see directly, which application
sent the packet or established a connection. But you can block packets
based on criteria that that application may use. like tcp port and app
layer protocol. .It is not literally blocking application blah
though. The techie world does [or have produced software or
techniques to] evade this sort of thing and get through the firewall.

With a software firewall on each machine - an example you did not
mention for obvious reasons - one app could pretend to be another.
That firewallleaktest site prob has examples. But at least with that
you can identify what application sent the packet, if it is not being
evasive or malicious.
And as far as I know, the regular techie world has not come up with a
way to evade that one! I see malware doing it all the time. But
techies are not running commands to let one application pretend to be
another.. I guess it is because the need has not arisen. Companies do
not - and with good reason - run a PFW on each machine! I don`t know
if a techie software firewall like perhaps winipfw, or, I don`t know
if it is a software firewall, but this ipsec thing you mention
sometimes (is it a fw?), can see the application that sent the packet.



<snip>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
In article <533b5129-d008-4dd3-ac15-33ab1c6c5c11
@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Nov 18, 11:54 pm, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > In article <aaf5ac3a-9b60-451a-b03e-36c03533b841
> > @w73g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> >
> > > Leythos is keen on
> > > blocking certain outgoing so he`d probably know of some examples.

> >
> > SMTP, SQL Command, Windows File Sharing, IM......
> >
> > I don't allow outbound SMTP from workstations ever.
> >
> > I don't allow outbound SQL Command from anything, ever.
> >
> > Windows File Sharing, DNS, etc... never from the local workstations..
> >
> > IM - only from approved workstations....
> >
> > While DNS is not a easy exploit the others permit LAN machines to spread
> > malware to people on the net with exposed machines.
> >

>
>
> if you block SMTP. Can users only send email via Yahoo like websites?
> I guess you don`t block some SMTP and not others, since how would you
> distinguish between good and bad. They could(knowingly or not) be bad
> and use your SMTP server You`d have to block all.. Do you have
> no SMTP server ?


Yahoo? Who uses Yahoo?

If you don't have your own email server in your network then you can
limit your SMTP outbound to just the IP of your ISP's SMTP server - this
will cause most SMTP bots to be limited to just the SMTP service of your
ISP and they will contact you shortly after you are compromised.

And yes, we block all SMTP Outbound from Workstations/Devices, Except
for our own SMTP server - if you're not using our SMTP server then
you're not using SMTP.

> I know one company that has an SMTP server and does not allow Yahoo.
> That way they can more easily see all the email that goes in and out.


None of the companies we setup allow IM, Yahoo, MSN, etc... The only
SMTP they allow is from their own email server, and there are a lot of
other things too.

The Pharmacies don't allow ANY outbound except to Business Partner sites
- so that means no HTTPS or HTTP except to approved sites.

--

Leythos - (E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS 1.COM
that create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a
look at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
On 19 Nov, 10:23, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <533b5129-d008-4dd3-ac15-33ab1c6c5c11
> @v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 11:54 pm, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > In article <aaf5ac3a-9b60-451a-b03e-36c03533b841
> > > @w73g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...

>
> > > > Leythos is keen on
> > > > blocking certain outgoing so he`d probably know of some examples.

>
> > > SMTP, SQL Command, Windows File Sharing, IM......

>
> > > I don't allow outbound SMTP from workstations ever.

>
> > > I don't allow outbound SQL Command from anything, ever.

>
> > > Windows File Sharing, DNS, etc... never from the local workstations..

>
> > > IM - only from approved workstations....

>
> > > While DNS is not a easy exploit the others permit LAN machines to spread
> > > malware to people on the net with exposed machines.

>
> > if you block SMTP. Can users only send email via Yahoo like websites?
> > I guess you don`t block some SMTP and not others, since how would you
> > distinguish between good and bad. They could(knowingly or not) be bad
> > and use your SMTP server You`d have to block all.. Do you have
> > no SMTP server ?

>
> Yahoo? Who uses Yahoo?
>
> If you don't have your own email server in your network then you can
> limit your SMTP outbound to just the IP of your ISP's SMTP server - this
> will cause most SMTP bots to be limited to just the SMTP service of your
> ISP and they will contact you shortly after you are compromised.
>
> And yes, we block all SMTP Outbound from Workstations/Devices, Except
> for our own SMTP server - if you're not using our SMTP server then
> you're not using SMTP.


the SMTP server that malicious programs are most likely to access
when on your network, is your SMTP server. Since most SMTP servers are
not "open relays".

<snip>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr. Arnold
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Nov 19, 2:42 am, "Mr. Arnold" <MR. (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 18, 7:17 pm, "Mr. Arnold" <MR. (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > <snip>

>>
>> >> > That page does talk of a firewall as sitting between 2 networks.
>> >> > perhaps, as oppose to an individual computer from a network.

>>
>> >> To keep it simplistic for you, the Internet is a massive/giant network
>> >> the
>> >> Wide Area Network being protected from by the firewall. The network
>> >> being
>> >> protected by the FW is the Local Area Network.

>>
>> > What is the complicated way then?

>>
>> > note- a firewall blocking certain outgoing can help protect other
>> > people on the internet from a compromised machine. Leythos is keen on
>> > blocking certain outgoing so he`d probably know of some examples.

>>
>> The proper thing would be to block all outbound traffic, and only allow
>> outbound traffic for

>
> well, if you are a techie user on the network of [mostly] idiot users,
> then you may not appreciate that.
>
>
>> those applications or services that need outbound
>> traffic. That would mostly apply to a solution such as a FW appliance,
>> packet filtering FW router or a software FW running on a secured gateway
>> computer that could implement the solution poperly by creating packet
>> filtering rules.
>>

>
> I wouldn`t say "properly"..
>
> With a network firewall, you cannot see directly, which application
> sent the packet or established a connection. But you can block packets
> based on criteria that that application may use. like tcp port and app
> layer protocol. .It is not literally blocking application blah
> though. The techie world does [or have produced software or
> techniques to] evade this sort of thing and get through the firewall.


It's not the job of a FW to be blocking applications. A persoanl FW/packet
filter is not a FW. The job of a FW is to stop inbound and outbound packets
coming from the network it is protecting against, and also and leaving the
network if rules have been set to stop outbound packets. A FW sits at tje
juction point between two networks.

>
> With a software firewall on each machine - an example you did not
> mention for obvious reasons - one app could pretend to be another.
> That firewallleaktest site prob has examples. But at least with that
> you can identify what application sent the packet, if it is not being
> evasive or malicious.


If the machine has been compromised, then there is nothing running on the
machine that can stop it, other than, the O/S if it has the means to do so.
So you stop something with a PFW. But what about the boot a login process
that the malware can beat the PFW to the connection and get out, because the
PFW is not an integrated part of the O/S that O/S is going to make other
services wait until the FW is up and running. And besides that, malware can
fool the packet filter with app. control running with the O/S, like it can
fool the O/S with both of them running with the O/S.

And most users flat-out do not know what is legit or non-legit traffic in a
typical situation when they are being asked the questions.
> And as far as I know, the regular techie world has not come up with a
> way to evade that one! I see malware doing it all the time. But
> techies are not running commands to let one application pretend to be
> another.. I guess it is because the need has not arisen. Companies do
> not - and with good reason - run a PFW on each machine! I don`t know
> if a techie software firewall like perhaps winipfw, or, I don`t know
> if it is a software firewall, but this ipsec thing you mention
> sometimes (is it a fw?), can see the application that sent the packet.
>


Like I said, if the solution is not using two NIC(s), it's not a FW solution
and is just a packet filter.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
In article <9e2f2f06-9ae5-41fb-867b-fd30940fcbe6
@f13g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> On 19 Nov, 10:23, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > In article <533b5129-d008-4dd3-ac15-33ab1c6c5c11
> > @v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 18, 11:54 pm, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > > In article <aaf5ac3a-9b60-451a-b03e-36c03533b841
> > > > @w73g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...

> >
> > > > > Leythos is keen on
> > > > > blocking certain outgoing so he`d probably know of some examples.

> >
> > > > SMTP, SQL Command, Windows File Sharing, IM......

> >
> > > > I don't allow outbound SMTP from workstations ever.

> >
> > > > I don't allow outbound SQL Command from anything, ever.

> >
> > > > Windows File Sharing, DNS, etc... never from the local workstations..

> >
> > > > IM - only from approved workstations....

> >
> > > > While DNS is not a easy exploit the others permit LAN machines to spread
> > > > malware to people on the net with exposed machines.

> >
> > > if you block SMTP. Can users only send email via Yahoo like websites?
> > > I guess you don`t block some SMTP and not others, since how would you
> > > distinguish between good and bad. They could(knowingly or not) be bad
> > > and use your SMTP server You`d have to block all.. Do you have
> > > no SMTP server ?

> >
> > Yahoo? Who uses Yahoo?
> >
> > If you don't have your own email server in your network then you can
> > limit your SMTP outbound to just the IP of your ISP's SMTP server - this
> > will cause most SMTP bots to be limited to just the SMTP service of your
> > ISP and they will contact you shortly after you are compromised.
> >
> > And yes, we block all SMTP Outbound from Workstations/Devices, Except
> > for our own SMTP server - if you're not using our SMTP server then
> > you're not using SMTP.

>
> the SMTP server that malicious programs are most likely to access
> when on your network, is your SMTP server. Since most SMTP servers are
> not "open relays".


You seem to think that only an smpt server uses SMTP - but the only
compromised SMTP servers I've seen in years were workstations/laptops
where the idiot had compromised their workstation is a malware that
installs its own SMTP engine - the laptop becomes a SMTP server sending
out hundreds of emails with the infection included per minute. The
malware, in every case, didn't attempt to use the internal SMTP server,
it had it's own built into it.

There are many threats, I look for more than just the common ones.

--

Leythos - (E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS 1.COM
that create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a
look at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
Leythos wrote:

> In article <9e2f2f06-9ae5-41fb-867b-fd30940fcbe6
> @f13g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > On 19 Nov, 10:23, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > In article <533b5129-d008-4dd3-ac15-33ab1c6c5c11
> > > @v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Nov 18, 11:54 pm, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > > > In article <aaf5ac3a-9b60-451a-b03e-36c03533b841
> > > > > @w73g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed)
> > > > > says...
> > >
> > > > > > Leythos is keen on
> > > > > > blocking certain outgoing so he`d probably know of some
> > > > > > examples.
> > >
> > > > > SMTP, SQL Command, Windows File Sharing, IM......
> > >
> > > > > I don't allow outbound SMTP from workstations ever.
> > >
> > > > > I don't allow outbound SQL Command from anything, ever.
> > >
> > > > > Windows File Sharing, DNS, etc... never from the local
> > > > > workstations..
> > >
> > > > > IM - only from approved workstations....
> > >
> > > > > While DNS is not a easy exploit the others permit LAN
> > > > > machines to spread malware to people on the net with exposed
> > > > > machines.
> > >
> > > > if you block SMTP. Can users only send email via Yahoo like
> > > > websites? I guess you don`t block some SMTP and not others,
> > > > since how would you distinguish between good and bad. They
> > > > could(knowingly or not) be bad and use your SMTP server You`d
> > > > have to block all.. Do you have no SMTP server ?
> > >
> > > Yahoo? Who uses Yahoo?
> > >
> > > If you don't have your own email server in your network then you
> > > can limit your SMTP outbound to just the IP of your ISP's SMTP
> > > server - this will cause most SMTP bots to be limited to just the
> > > SMTP service of your ISP and they will contact you shortly after
> > > you are compromised.
> > >
> > > And yes, we block all SMTP Outbound from Workstations/Devices,
> > > Except for our own SMTP server - if you're not using our SMTP
> > > server then you're not using SMTP.

> >
> > the SMTP server that malicious programs are most likely to access
> > when on your network, is your SMTP server. Since most SMTP servers
> > are not "open relays".

>
> You seem to think that only an smpt server uses SMTP - but the only
> compromised SMTP servers I've seen in years were workstations/laptops
> where the idiot had compromised their workstation is a malware that
> installs its own SMTP engine - the laptop becomes a SMTP server
> sending out hundreds of emails with the infection included per
> minute. The malware, in every case, didn't attempt to use the
> internal SMTP server, it had it's own built into it.
>
> There are many threats, I look for more than just the common ones.


I too have seen what I think you describe. users running as
administrator get compromised their windows firewall is taken down and
they end up with an smtp server and others connecting(incoming) or
trying to connect. I think mostly they are saved by their NAT router.
That is a common one!!

They are screwed if they run a Bridge or half bridge thing. Where
there is no NAT. Like some USB dsl modems and perhaps PCI DSL modems.
Typically with those things the PPP is done by windows. ipconfig
displays their public ip. Malicious people connect successfully , spam
gets sent out from the user`s computer and user gets a threatening
email from their ISP to get rid of it or else.

But, we were talking of blocking outgoing, and thus outgoing smtp.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
In article <474192b2$0$21100$(E-Mail Removed)>, jameshanley39
@yahoo.co.uk says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > In article <9e2f2f06-9ae5-41fb-867b-fd30940fcbe6
> > @f13g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > > On 19 Nov, 10:23, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > > In article <533b5129-d008-4dd3-ac15-33ab1c6c5c11
> > > > @v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Nov 18, 11:54 pm, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <aaf5ac3a-9b60-451a-b03e-36c03533b841
> > > > > > @w73g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, (E-Mail Removed)
> > > > > > says...
> > > >
> > > > > > > Leythos is keen on
> > > > > > > blocking certain outgoing so he`d probably know of some
> > > > > > > examples.
> > > >
> > > > > > SMTP, SQL Command, Windows File Sharing, IM......
> > > >
> > > > > > I don't allow outbound SMTP from workstations ever.
> > > >
> > > > > > I don't allow outbound SQL Command from anything, ever.
> > > >
> > > > > > Windows File Sharing, DNS, etc... never from the local
> > > > > > workstations..
> > > >
> > > > > > IM - only from approved workstations....
> > > >
> > > > > > While DNS is not a easy exploit the others permit LAN
> > > > > > machines to spread malware to people on the net with exposed
> > > > > > machines.
> > > >
> > > > > if you block SMTP. Can users only send email via Yahoo like
> > > > > websites? I guess you don`t block some SMTP and not others,
> > > > > since how would you distinguish between good and bad. They
> > > > > could(knowingly or not) be bad and use your SMTP server You`d
> > > > > have to block all.. Do you have no SMTP server ?
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo? Who uses Yahoo?
> > > >
> > > > If you don't have your own email server in your network then you
> > > > can limit your SMTP outbound to just the IP of your ISP's SMTP
> > > > server - this will cause most SMTP bots to be limited to just the
> > > > SMTP service of your ISP and they will contact you shortly after
> > > > you are compromised.
> > > >
> > > > And yes, we block all SMTP Outbound from Workstations/Devices,
> > > > Except for our own SMTP server - if you're not using our SMTP
> > > > server then you're not using SMTP.
> > >
> > > the SMTP server that malicious programs are most likely to access
> > > when on your network, is your SMTP server. Since most SMTP servers
> > > are not "open relays".

> >
> > You seem to think that only an smpt server uses SMTP - but the only
> > compromised SMTP servers I've seen in years were workstations/laptops
> > where the idiot had compromised their workstation is a malware that
> > installs its own SMTP engine - the laptop becomes a SMTP server
> > sending out hundreds of emails with the infection included per
> > minute. The malware, in every case, didn't attempt to use the
> > internal SMTP server, it had it's own built into it.
> >
> > There are many threats, I look for more than just the common ones.

>
> I too have seen what I think you describe. users running as
> administrator get compromised their windows firewall is taken down and
> they end up with an smtp server and others connecting(incoming) or
> trying to connect. I think mostly they are saved by their NAT router.
> That is a common one!!


That's NOT what I'm saying - I'm saying that users, on a LAN, behind a
NAT router with no forwarding enabled, using loaded an application that
was malware and it contained a SMTP service that was sending hundreds of
emails per minute. It was not allowing external connections, it was not
being connected to from the net, it was it's own SMTP service spewing
emails out to domains - the Windows firewall would not an could not stop
this.

> They are screwed if they run a Bridge or half bridge thing. Where
> there is no NAT. Like some USB dsl modems and perhaps PCI DSL modems.
> Typically with those things the PPP is done by windows. ipconfig
> displays their public ip. Malicious people connect successfully , spam
> gets sent out from the user`s computer and user gets a threatening
> email from their ISP to get rid of it or else.
>
> But, we were talking of blocking outgoing, and thus outgoing smtp.


Yes, we are, and in this case, you've mistaken what I've said/shown,
where a blocking of SMTP outbound from the LAN by the workstations, or
where SMTP would be limited to the ISP's SMTP server, would block the
spreading of the malware in question.

--

Leythos - (E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS 1.COM
that create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a
look at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
goarilla
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2007
Unruh wrote:
> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> On 18 Oct, 19:14, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> In article <LWNRi.11385$GO5.3118@edtnps90>, (E-Mail Removed)
>>> says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, agreed. But that is irrelevant. The question is not whether or not a
>>>> firewall is more flexible than a NAT router, it is. The question is whether
>>>> there is a difference in security against unsolicited outside attacks
>>>> between a firewall which blocks all unsolicited outside connections, and a
>>>> NAT router with no port holes punched through (Ie no ports forwarded).
>>> Yes, there is a difference.
>>>
>>> All quality firewalls have certifications from independent authorities
>>> that will state how they work and that they are actually providing xyz.

>
> I am sorry, but you regard paper as a valid computer defense. Who cares if
> they have a piece of paper attached? The question is not who has the paper
> trail, but who has the security.
>


True but one of the things this also shows is that it has been ( thoroughly)
peer-reviewed by ( experts).I have my doubts as well since there is a lot of
potential for fraud in this space.

I like to think of it as the commercial variant to opensource software.
eg with many eyes bugs are shallow.

>>> NAT Routers have no certification (at least in the class we're talking
>>> about) and have been shown, many times, to have exploits that allow
>>> Unsolicited inbound traffic to pass through - even with no rules set by
>>> the owner.

>
> As have firewalls as times.
>
>
>
>> Where has it been shown many times?

>
>> ( Not shown [many times] in this newsgroup. I first heard of any such
>> issue from a few months ago perhaps, from Sebastian, on this
>> newsgroup, and since by Volker. In a thread where you were advocating
>> NAT for - I thought - blocking incoming )

>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Petrowhisky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2007

Leythos;645701 Wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > not true. the WRT54G can block outgoing connections based on any
> > number of specified parameters, and then it has all those extr

> fancy
> > features that I don't understand

>
> is'.


WRT54G is a SOHO product which satisfies only the home or small offic
needs....

It can control the internet access based on some parameters like Tim
,date etc...

It has both NAT and Firewall...

NAT (Network Address Translation )
_________________________

Only converting private ip to public ip and wise versa


Firewall
_____________

Filtering the traffic to and from the internal network to publi
network.....

:wdone

--
Petrowhisk

http://networksolutions4u.blogspot.co
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petrowhisky's Profile: http://www.techtalkz.com/member.php?userid=2
View this thread: http://www.techtalkz.com/showthread.php?t=15885

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
How did they get behind my NAT? Maniaque Computer Security 56 11-12-2007 01:01 PM
so how the heck did they get google to do this? Peter Huebner NZ Computing 7 11-10-2004 09:18 AM
they turn, they power, they make nice pics Keith and Jenn Z. Digital Photography 0 09-21-2003 04:16 AM
Did you own a Olympus D-510 in the past zxcvar Digital Photography 5 08-14-2003 09:34 PM



Advertisments