Re: Router security

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by chuckcar, Oct 28, 2009.

  1. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    ~BD~ <BoaterDave'remove'@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    news::

    > Hollywood®Boy wrote:
    > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=4702
    > >
    > > A gaping security hole in cable modems distributed to Time

    > Warner/Road Runner customers could potentially be exploited remotely to
    > access private networks and possibly capture and manipulate private
    > data.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Another interesting article on the 'infection' of routers here:-
    >
    > 'Psyb0t' worm infects Linksys, Netgear home routers, modems:
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=15197&tag=btxcsim
    >
    > Does anyone reading here have any idea of just *how* an 'average'
    > computer user, especially at home, would ever realise that their router
    > had been *got at*?
    >
    > Is there any sort of test one could do to determine if one's router is
    > operating properly ..... or if it *has* actually been 'infected?
    >
    > An interesting subject IMO!
    >

    The same could be said of any infection on their computer.



    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Oct 28, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    ~BD~ <BoaterDave'remove'@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    news::

    > chuckcar wrote:
    >
    >> The same could be said of any infection on their computer.
    >>

    >
    > My question was not about a computer. I wonder why you made that
    > statement. Would you care to explain?
    >

    Most users have absolutely no idea when they're infected. Hence the
    success of botnets.



    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Oct 28, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    ~BD~ <BoaterDave'remove'@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    news::

    > chuckcar wrote:
    >> ~BD~ <BoaterDave'remove'@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> chuckcar wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The same could be said of any infection on their computer.
    >>>>
    >>> My question was not about a computer. I wonder why you made that
    >>> statement. Would you care to explain?
    >>>

    >> Most users have absolutely no idea when they're infected. Hence the
    >> success of botnets.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I assume that you are still referring to a computer (rather than a
    > router)? No matter. Would *you* know if you were infected?
    >

    Yes. With the assumption that it was a trojan or malware.

    > If, as you say, "most users have absolutely no idea when they're
    > infected" *how*, exactly, would *you* know that *you* were infected?
    >
    > This is assuming, of course, that there were no obvious symptoms.
    >
    > This is, btw, a serious enquiry! TIA
    >

    Unrequested data paths to use three words. Hence a firewall program.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Oct 29, 2009
    #3
  4. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    ~BD~ <BoaterDave'remove'@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    news::

    > chuckcar wrote:
    >> ~BD~ <BoaterDave'remove'@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
    >> news::


    >> Yes. With the assumption that it was a trojan or malware.
    >>
    >>> If, as you say, "most users have absolutely no idea when they're
    >>> infected" *how*, exactly, would *you* know that *you* were infected?
    >>>
    >>> This is assuming, of course, that there were no obvious symptoms.
    >>>
    >>> This is, btw, a serious enquiry! TIA
    >>>

    >> Unrequested data paths to use three words. Hence a firewall program.

    >
    > Thank you.
    >

    No problem. I have no difficulty with the *reasonable* people here.

    > When I Googled --> No results found for "Unrequested data paths".
    >
    > Could you use a few more words to explain please? :)
    >

    Just concise english really. It *isn't* an actual term I'm aware of as well.

    > At a guess I'd think you mean that you have a firewall which tells you
    > what info. is being sent "from" your computer, unlike the MS firewall in
    > XP which only looks at inbound traffic.
    >

    Actually *both* directons. You have to consider people trying to enter
    a computer by methods other than email or user downloads.

    > Please hazard a guess as to the percentage of computer users who might
    > use a facility such as I perceive you describe. Any idea?
    >

    Not going to try. However, the number of first time posters *here* that
    don't use a firewall program is way up there beyond a doubt.



    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Oct 29, 2009
    #4
  5. chuckcar

    ~BD~ Guest

    On Oct 29, 11:06 pm, chuckcar <> wrote:

    > Actually *both* directons. You have to consider people trying to enter
    > a computer by methods other than email or user downloads.


    <snip>
    > --
    > (setq (chuck nil)  car(chuck) )


    *My* biggest concern is that folk can become infected simply by
    visiting a URL

    Even if they have everything up-to-date and have recommended anti-
    malware programmes, they can *still* be infected!

    Maybe you will read the report from Kaspersky which I posted today.

    The Internet is becoming an ever more dangerous place - IMO :)

    Cheers

    Dave
     
    ~BD~, Nov 15, 2009
    #5
  6. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "~BD~" <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Oct 29, 11:06 pm, chuckcar <> wrote:
    >
    >> Actually *both* directons. You have to consider people trying to enter
    >> a computer by methods other than email or user downloads.

    >
    > <snip>
    >> --
    >> (setq (chuck nil)  car(chuck) )

    >
    > *My* biggest concern is that folk can become infected simply by
    > visiting a URL
    >
    > Even if they have everything up-to-date and have recommended anti-
    > malware programmes, they can *still* be infected!
    >
    > Maybe you will read the report from Kaspersky which I posted today.
    >
    > The Internet is becoming an ever more dangerous place - IMO :)
    >

    Yes, but that's not a long term problem. Soon enough the problem gets
    noticed and the site shut down. It may even be a minor problem due to the
    necessity of it being a static IP address.


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Nov 16, 2009
    #6
    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. AM
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    848
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    741
  3. Rick Sears
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    518
    Rick Sears
    Jul 29, 2003
  4. COMSOLIT Messmer

    IT-Security, Security, e-security

    COMSOLIT Messmer, Sep 5, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    622
    COMSOLIT Messmer
    Sep 5, 2003
  5. Ablang
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    596
    Gimpy
    Jun 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page