Closing open ports in windows 98SE

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Scrubbs, Jan 2, 2004.

  1. Scrubbs

    Scrubbs Guest

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

    /Scrubbs
    Scrubbs, Jan 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    D-Tech Services, Jan 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Scrubbs

    Jbob Guest

    <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
    Jbob, Jan 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Scrubbs

    Pete Guest

    <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.
    Pete, Jan 2, 2004
    #4
  5. 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, Jan 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Scrubbs

    Scrubbs Guest

    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
    Scrubbs, Jan 5, 2004
    #6
  7. Scrubbs

    Jbob Guest

    "Christa Bartsch" <> wrote in message
    news:btb4np$4f8$02$-online.com...
    > 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!
    Jbob, Jan 5, 2004
    #7
  8. 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, Jan 5, 2004
    #8
  9. Scrubbs

    Scrubbs Guest

    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, Jan 8, 2004
    #9
  10. Scrubbs

    John Guest

    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
    John, Jan 8, 2004
    #10
  11. On 08.01.2004 11:33 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).
    >
    > 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


    As far as I understand: A port will be closed if no sercice or
    application at this port is listening. The command "netstat -a" or
    TCPView by www.sysinternals.com will show any process doing that by
    listing the ports. Without your browser or any other internet
    application opened there should be nothing even if you're connected to
    the internet. If a request (be it a virus or any other internet traffic)
    to a port arrives (just think of someone knocking at your door) the
    answer will be like "I'm here, but I'm buying nothing." The end.

    If you followed Steve Gibson's advice all ports should be closed and
    will only be opened again if an application such as your browser needs
    it. This is what you can do with all windows computers and they will be
    less vulnerable to exploits.

    IMHO If you are not running web or mail servers you do not need what
    linux is able to. But you should ask someone who knows more about linux
    than I do.

    Christa Bartsch
    Christa Bartsch, Jan 8, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    501
    joevan
    Nov 3, 2004
  2. Richard Owlett

    Closing ports in WinXp

    Richard Owlett, Mar 6, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    5,110
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Mar 7, 2005
  3. doofus

    Closing the doors 15 minutes before closing.

    doofus, Jun 10, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,004
    Blinky the Shark
    Jun 11, 2005
  4. timmi

    Closing Open Ports

    timmi, Sep 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    10,793
    Peter Young
    Sep 9, 2003
  5. MZB

    closing all open windows

    MZB, Aug 7, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    394
    Ponder
    Aug 7, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page