1. Home
  2. Networking Firewalls
  3. Unblocking a port

Unblocking a port

I have Google Desktop Search installed and it claims to be able to index my Gmail mail as well, if only it could connect via port 995 to Gmail.

Well, I run Norton Internet Security (NIS) 2005 and frankly, I don't understand this. Shouldn't Google Desktop get access to port 995 just like any other program get access to a port, just by attempting to use the port? A warning should then come up and I should be able to say "Yes/No".

So I investigate a little bit and places like GRC.com says port 995 is stealthed. And I'm thinking perhaps the connection is the other way round and if I open port 995 to gmail then my indexing will take place. I create a rule that says to allow inbound and outbound connections on port 995 if the traffic is to/from google.com, gmail.com and GRC.com (to test). On testing, all I get is a bunch of warnings that NIS has blocked the port due to it being "unused" - it seems if there is not a program that have actively opened a port, then NIS will still block traffic to that port.

So I thought I would ask those that perhaps understand firewalls better than I do (I'm in the GWF league) if I misunderstood the situation, should have done something different or if the problem might be elsewhere?

Thanks in advance, MikeB

Reply to
MPBrede
Loading thread data ...

first, input rules on port x are distinct from output rules on the same port.

usually, the requester makes action toward a server port X using some other port above 1024 local to the requesters machine. The reply comes back on the 'other port'.

this says that to make the request only requires a default outbound allow on any port (which is debatible).

If the server needs to access your system on port X, your firewall must allow it AND you must install or enable some software on that port.

attempting to ALLOW I/O any ip port X tcp+udp says the request must be made FROM port X to another system TO port X -- most unusual.

Personally, I dislike Google Desktop Search as an invastion of privacy. Other dislike Norton (anything) for emtional/political reason.

The above is written in the spirit of helping to 'use what you have' rather that P***ing on something in which I might disaprove.

CAVEOT EMPTOR

Reply to
Jeff B

OK, thanks. I get this part. It makes sense. Unfortunately, in the sense of Murphy's law, as soon as I posted, after about 2 weeks of struggling, Google indexed my gmail. I went back to review the error message and it was gone.

Each to his own. I don't feel as if there is much about my internet habits and email I need to keep private. If the US government wins their subpoena against Google I might review my position.

What can I say. Sometimes I hate it myself. :)

And this I appreciate. I actually read the newsgroup for a few days before I posted and I saw the treatment newbies get, but what can I do? I can ask and perhaps a kind person points me in the right direction or I can wander in the maze for a long while.

BTW, is FSM the acronym for "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? I see no other acronym that would explain that. And at least I now have a heads-up that the sun doesn't go down when Steve Gibson sits down.

MikeB

Reply to
MPBrede

And others again dislike Norton InSecurity for it's huge bloat and many security design flaws.

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.