Router and Internal IP

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Plato, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. Plato

    Plato Guest

    Plato, Nov 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Plato

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Plato wrote:

    > Just put in a new Linksys router. If I go to:
    >
    > http://www.auditmypc.com/freescan/prefcan.asp
    >
    > It shows my internal IP.
    >
    > Is this normal?



    What internal IP are you talking about? Yes, the test showed the public IP
    that's assigned to my modem and my account with the ISP. For any Internet
    traffic to even reach your network with the router as the gateway device,
    the public IP on the public side of the router must be known that's
    assigned to the modmn by the ISP. The test didn't show the private IP that
    the machine was using on the private side or internal side of my FW
    appliance. I doubt that the test is showing a 192.168.1.x IP that the
    machine is using behind the router.

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Nov 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Plato

    Plato Guest

    Duane Arnold wrote:
    >
    > What internal IP are you talking about? Yes, the test showed the public IP
    > that's assigned to my modem and my account with the ISP. For any Internet
    > traffic to even reach your network with the router as the gateway device,
    > the public IP on the public side of the router must be known that's
    > assigned to the modmn by the ISP. The test didn't show the private IP that
    > the machine was using on the private side or internal side of my FW
    > appliance. I doubt that the test is showing a 192.168.1.x IP that the
    > machine is using behind the router.


    Yep, it is showing the 192.168.1.xxx thus the reason for my inquiry.
     
    Plato, Nov 19, 2004
    #3
  4. Plato

    Thor Guest

    "Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
    news:419e3915$0$82987$...
    > Duane Arnold wrote:
    >>
    >> What internal IP are you talking about? Yes, the test showed the public
    >> IP
    >> that's assigned to my modem and my account with the ISP. For any Internet
    >> traffic to even reach your network with the router as the gateway device,
    >> the public IP on the public side of the router must be known that's
    >> assigned to the modmn by the ISP. The test didn't show the private IP
    >> that
    >> the machine was using on the private side or internal side of my FW
    >> appliance. I doubt that the test is showing a 192.168.1.x IP that the
    >> machine is using behind the router.

    >
    > Yep, it is showing the 192.168.1.xxx thus the reason for my inquiry.


    it would be interesting then, if you were to assign a different IP address
    to your machine, then run the test again, and see if the change is seen.
     
    Thor, Nov 19, 2004
    #4
  5. Plato

    Plato Guest

    Thor wrote:
    >
    > > Yep, it is showing the 192.168.1.xxx thus the reason for my inquiry.

    >
    > it would be interesting then, if you were to assign a different IP address
    > to your machine, then run the test again, and see if the change is seen.


    grin, changed it, the webpage got the new one. Odd thing, this only
    happens on 1 of the 4 pcs on the router. Maybe I'm the DMZ PC :)
     
    Plato, Nov 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Plato

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Plato wrote:

    > Thor wrote:
    >>
    >> > Yep, it is showing the 192.168.1.xxx thus the reason for my inquiry.

    >>
    >> it would be interesting then, if you were to assign a different IP
    >> address to your machine, then run the test again, and see if the change
    >> is seen.

    >
    > grin, changed it, the webpage got the new one. Odd thing, this only
    > happens on 1 of the 4 pcs on the router. Maybe I'm the DMZ PC :)


    What model Linksys router is this? This is strange that's for sure. You may
    want to supplement with a PFW solution on the machine. ;=)

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Nov 20, 2004
    #6
  7. Plato

    Jim Berwick Guest

    Plato <|@|.|> wrote in news:419e802d$0$1714$:

    > grin, changed it, the webpage got the new one. Odd thing, this only
    > happens on 1 of the 4 pcs on the router. Maybe I'm the DMZ PC :)
    >


    Weird. Up until you said it only happens on one I thought maybe there was
    some client side plugin/Active X control that was pulling the IP off of
    your machine. I just tried it on a few machines here on our test LAN
    (basically a bunch of Win 95/98/ME/2000/XP machines, a Mac with OS9 and a
    mac with OS X), and all of them reported our cisco router's public address,
    not the internal IPs. Odd stuff.
     
    Jim Berwick, Nov 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Plato

    Thagor Guest

    Jim Berwick <> wrote in
    news:Xns95A6D346F604Djimbsnipnet@207.103.26.26:

    > Plato <|@|.|> wrote in news:419e802d$0$1714$:
    >
    >> grin, changed it, the webpage got the new one. Odd thing, this only
    >> happens on 1 of the 4 pcs on the router. Maybe I'm the DMZ PC :)
    >>

    >
    > Weird. Up until you said it only happens on one I thought maybe there
    > was some client side plugin/Active X control that was pulling the IP
    > off of your machine. I just tried it on a few machines here on our
    > test LAN (basically a bunch of Win 95/98/ME/2000/XP machines, a Mac
    > with OS9 and a mac with OS X), and all of them reported our cisco
    > router's public address, not the internal IPs. Odd stuff.
    >


    Tried it:
    http://www.auditmypc.com/freescan/prefcan.asp

    WInXP with a D-Link B-band router through a DSL modem here.
    It shows my IP everytime, whether I change it or not. What the hell, it
    even displays my stored clipboard data on the next test!

    Java is set in IE at High Safety.
    Active-X is set in IE for safe scripting and prompt.

    Could this be some sort of packet trap and sniff operation? I have
    limited knowledge in this area and have read the information on the site
    to no avail.
     
    Thagor, Nov 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Plato

    Plato Guest

    Duane Arnold wrote:
    >
    > What model Linksys router is this? This is strange that's for sure. You may
    > want to supplement with a PFW solution on the machine. ;=)


    BEFSR41 4 port
     
    Plato, Nov 20, 2004
    #9
  10. Plato

    Plato Guest

    Jim Berwick wrote:
    >
    > Plato <|@|.|> wrote in news:419e802d$0$1714$:
    >
    > > grin, changed it, the webpage got the new one. Odd thing, this only
    > > happens on 1 of the 4 pcs on the router. Maybe I'm the DMZ PC :)
    > >

    >
    > Weird. Up until you said it only happens on one I thought maybe there was
    > some client side plugin/Active X control that was pulling the IP off of
    > your machine. I just tried it on a few machines here on our test LAN
    > (basically a bunch of Win 95/98/ME/2000/XP machines, a Mac with OS9 and a
    > mac with OS X), and all of them reported our cisco router's public address,
    > not the internal IPs. Odd stuff.


    I've been searching/reading google and google groups and no joy either.
    Already tried setting router to defaults, etc.
     
    Plato, Nov 20, 2004
    #10
  11. Plato

    Jim Berwick Guest

    Plato <|@|.|> wrote in news:419ee0af$0$96197$:

    > I've been searching/reading google and google groups and no joy either.
    > Already tried setting router to defaults, etc.
    >


    I tried it at home, and it showed my internal address. Disabled Java, and
    it didn't. Definitely some java applet they are running.
     
    Jim Berwick, Nov 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Plato

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Jim Berwick <> wrote in
    news:Xns95A814EC9A6ACjimbsnipnet@207.103.26.26:

    > Plato <|@|.|> wrote in news:419ee0af$0$96197$:
    >
    >> I've been searching/reading google and google groups and no joy
    >> either. Already tried setting router to defaults, etc.
    >>

    >
    > I tried it at home, and it showed my internal address. Disabled Java,
    > and it didn't. Definitely some java applet they are running.
    >


    I have Java applet running on IE and this test is not coming past the
    Watchguard showing an internal IP. It's only showing the public IP. I find
    this very strange because nither XP's IE or Firefox gave up the internal IP
    the machines were using. On the other hand, when I ran the test with
    Konqueror on the Linux box, it gave up the internal IP being used.

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Nov 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Plato

    Jim Berwick Guest

    Duane Arnold <> wrote in
    news:Xns95A811E1F6F88notmenotmecom@204.127.199.17:

    > I have Java applet running on IE and this test is not coming past the
    > Watchguard showing an internal IP. It's only showing the public IP. I
    > find this very strange because nither XP's IE or Firefox gave up the
    > internal IP the machines were using. On the other hand, when I ran the
    > test with Konqueror on the Linux box, it gave up the internal IP being
    > used.


    I've tried with XP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP4, both using IE6 and Firefox
    1.0. The only browser I have on my linux box at home is Lynx, and it
    didn't give up anything. What version of the Java Runtime (if any) do you
    have installed?

    I did examine the traffic going through my router and I don't see any
    indication that the private IP is ever being sent back to the server, only
    that the Java applet is displaying it (thus I see no security risk). All
    the machines I've tested on are using the newest 1.5 Java runtime.
     
    Jim Berwick, Nov 21, 2004
    #13
  14. Plato

    Plato Guest

    Jim Berwick wrote:
    >
    > I did examine the traffic going through my router and I don't see any
    > indication that the private IP is ever being sent back to the server, only
    > that the Java applet is displaying it (thus I see no security risk). All
    > the machines I've tested on are using the newest 1.5 Java runtime.


    I dont see any traffic problem either.
     
    Plato, Nov 21, 2004
    #14
  15. Plato

    Plato Guest

    Jim Berwick wrote:
    >
    > > I've been searching/reading google and google groups and no joy either.
    > > Already tried setting router to defaults, etc.

    >
    > I tried it at home, and it showed my internal address. Disabled Java, and
    > it didn't. Definitely some java applet they are running.


    If I'm not mistaken I believe they say they dont, and say take a look at
    their source, but of course that can be hidden/ also. Since I've
    disabled java on this box I dont see the same notices now on that page.
    I'm 'bout to take that link off my page as it seems
    to be somewhat dishonest.
     
    Plato, Nov 21, 2004
    #15
  16. Plato

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Jim Berwick <> wrote in
    news:Xns95A823903C88Djimbsnipnet@207.103.26.26:

    > Duane Arnold <> wrote in
    > news:Xns95A811E1F6F88notmenotmecom@204.127.199.17:
    >
    >> I have Java applet running on IE and this test is not coming past the
    >> Watchguard showing an internal IP. It's only showing the public IP. I
    >> find this very strange because nither XP's IE or Firefox gave up the
    >> internal IP the machines were using. On the other hand, when I ran
    >> the test with Konqueror on the Linux box, it gave up the internal IP
    >> being used.

    >
    > I've tried with XP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP4, both using IE6 and
    > Firefox 1.0. The only browser I have on my linux box at home is Lynx,
    > and it didn't give up anything. What version of the Java Runtime (if
    > any) do you have installed?
    >
    > I did examine the traffic going through my router and I don't see any
    > indication that the private IP is ever being sent back to the server,
    > only that the Java applet is displaying it (thus I see no security
    > risk). All the machines I've tested on are using the newest 1.5 Java
    > runtime.
    >


    Well, IE security settings may allow the running of a Java Applet, but Java
    runtime is not installed on the XP machines as I typed *jview* at the
    Command Prompt and the command is not recognized. I guess that's why IE and
    Firefox are not giving up the information. I have learned something new
    today. ;-)

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Nov 21, 2004
    #16
  17. Plato

    Jim Berwick Guest

    Plato <|@|.|> wrote in news:41a05575$0$50900$:

    > I'm 'bout to take that link off my page as it seems
    > to be somewhat dishonest.
    >


    Seems like they made a more clever version of the "We know your IP address
    and that you are surfing porn" gimmick. I could be lead to believe that a
    linksys router gives up your private IP. I could also be lead to believe
    that my linux based firewall coughs it up. When the site is telling me
    that those two "cheap" solutions and a very expensive cisco router sitting
    on the desk behind me is also doing it, I tend to think something fishy is
    going on. Like I said, also, I do not see my private IP being sent out
    when examining the traffic going through my home linux box/router, and it
    is most certainly /entirely/ dependant on Java being installed and enabled.

    I dunno if it is dishonest or just a scare tactic, but either way it isn't
    right.
     
    Jim Berwick, Nov 21, 2004
    #17
  18. Plato

    Thor Guest

    "Duane Arnold" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns95A837DC8E955notmenotmecom@63.240.76.16...
    > Jim Berwick <> wrote in
    > news:Xns95A823903C88Djimbsnipnet@207.103.26.26:
    >
    >> Duane Arnold <> wrote in
    >> news:Xns95A811E1F6F88notmenotmecom@204.127.199.17:
    >>
    >>> I have Java applet running on IE and this test is not coming past the
    >>> Watchguard showing an internal IP. It's only showing the public IP. I
    >>> find this very strange because nither XP's IE or Firefox gave up the
    >>> internal IP the machines were using. On the other hand, when I ran
    >>> the test with Konqueror on the Linux box, it gave up the internal IP
    >>> being used.

    >>
    >> I've tried with XP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP4, both using IE6 and
    >> Firefox 1.0. The only browser I have on my linux box at home is Lynx,
    >> and it didn't give up anything. What version of the Java Runtime (if
    >> any) do you have installed?
    >>
    >> I did examine the traffic going through my router and I don't see any
    >> indication that the private IP is ever being sent back to the server,
    >> only that the Java applet is displaying it (thus I see no security
    >> risk). All the machines I've tested on are using the newest 1.5 Java
    >> runtime.
    >>

    >
    > Well, IE security settings may allow the running of a Java Applet, but
    > Java
    > runtime is not installed on the XP machines as I typed *jview* at the
    > Command Prompt and the command is not recognized. I guess that's why IE
    > and
    > Firefox are not giving up the information. I have learned something new
    > today. ;-)


    Just an FYI, that command only applies to MS's Java, not Sun's.
    Incidentally, if you have SP1 or SP2 then you should already have MS Java
    installed, since it comes with both of those packages. When you type in
    WJview, (or Jview) and IF you get something like "Java not found class not
    registered" then you do have MS Java installed, but something is wrong with
    it. Both "Jview" and Wjview" come with the MS Java VM software. I got that
    message once and it was because the installation was damaged in some way,
    and a website that I visited http://home.wanadoo.nl/jheroen/VM/check.htm
    that checks your Java installation version said it wasn't installed (yet I
    knew I had it). I reinstalled the latest MS Java VM (build 3810) and it now
    works fine. If you got something like "jview is not recognized as an
    internal or external command" etc. then the Jview command is indeed not
    there, and you may not have Java installed. But if you happend to be patched
    to SP1 or SP2, that would indeed be strange.
     
    Thor, Nov 21, 2004
    #18
  19. Plato

    Duane Arnold Guest

    "Thor" <> wrote in news::

    >
    > "Duane Arnold" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns95A837DC8E955notmenotmecom@63.240.76.16...
    >> Jim Berwick <> wrote in
    >> news:Xns95A823903C88Djimbsnipnet@207.103.26.26:
    >>
    >>> Duane Arnold <> wrote in
    >>> news:Xns95A811E1F6F88notmenotmecom@204.127.199.17:
    >>>
    >>>> I have Java applet running on IE and this test is not coming past
    >>>> the Watchguard showing an internal IP. It's only showing the public
    >>>> IP. I find this very strange because nither XP's IE or Firefox gave
    >>>> up the internal IP the machines were using. On the other hand, when
    >>>> I ran the test with Konqueror on the Linux box, it gave up the
    >>>> internal IP being used.
    >>>
    >>> I've tried with XP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP4, both using IE6 and
    >>> Firefox 1.0. The only browser I have on my linux box at home is
    >>> Lynx, and it didn't give up anything. What version of the Java
    >>> Runtime (if any) do you have installed?
    >>>
    >>> I did examine the traffic going through my router and I don't see
    >>> any indication that the private IP is ever being sent back to the
    >>> server, only that the Java applet is displaying it (thus I see no
    >>> security risk). All the machines I've tested on are using the
    >>> newest 1.5 Java runtime.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well, IE security settings may allow the running of a Java Applet,
    >> but Java
    >> runtime is not installed on the XP machines as I typed *jview* at the
    >> Command Prompt and the command is not recognized. I guess that's why
    >> IE and
    >> Firefox are not giving up the information. I have learned something
    >> new today. ;-)

    >
    > Just an FYI, that command only applies to MS's Java, not Sun's.
    > Incidentally, if you have SP1 or SP2 then you should already have MS
    > Java installed, since it comes with both of those packages. When you
    > type in WJview, (or Jview) and IF you get something like "Java not
    > found class not registered" then you do have MS Java installed, but
    > something is wrong with it. Both "Jview" and Wjview" come with the MS
    > Java VM software. I got that message once and it was because the
    > installation was damaged in some way, and a website that I visited
    > http://home.wanadoo.nl/jheroen/VM/check.htm that checks your Java
    > installation version said it wasn't installed (yet I knew I had it). I
    > reinstalled the latest MS Java VM (build 3810) and it now works fine.
    > If you got something like "jview is not recognized as an internal or
    > external command" etc. then the Jview command is indeed not there, and
    > you may not have Java installed. But if you happend to be patched to
    > SP1 or SP2, that would indeed be strange.
    >


    Thanks for this information and the XP machines have SP2. I don't know
    what the deal is with this but I may download the Sun version of Java for
    XP and install it. I did read a MS article where MS is abandoning MSJVM.
    I guess that this is due to .Net.

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Nov 21, 2004
    #19
  20. Plato

    Plato Guest

    Jim Berwick wrote:
    >


    Remember that html code you put on your webpage, forgot what is is now,
    that when lets say you visit site xxxxx is says "I can see your c:
    drive" and yep, there's your C: drive in your browser. It's simply
    pulling it up locally. That's what I think is happening ie a trick.

    > > I'm 'bout to take that link off my page as it seems
    > > to be somewhat dishonest.

    >
    > Seems like they made a more clever version of the "We know your IP address
    > and that you are surfing porn" gimmick. I could be lead to believe that a
    > linksys router gives up your private IP. I could also be lead to believe
    > that my linux based firewall coughs it up. When the site is telling me
    > that those two "cheap" solutions and a very expensive cisco router sitting
    > on the desk behind me is also doing it, I tend to think something fishy is
    > going on. Like I said, also, I do not see my private IP being sent out
    > when examining the traffic going through my home linux box/router, and it
    > is most certainly /entirely/ dependant on Java being installed and enabled.
    >
    > I dunno if it is dishonest or just a scare tactic, but either way it isn't
    > right.
     
    Plato, Nov 21, 2004
    #20
    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. Mike

    internal to internal NAT?

    Mike, Apr 19, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    705
  2. EG
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,188
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 30, 2004
  3. GeekMarine1972
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,293
    Walter Roberson
    Jan 15, 2005
  4. JoelSeph
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    6,766
    JoelSeph
    Jan 23, 2006
  5. eric the brave
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,130
    eric the brave
    Mar 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page