1. Home
  2. Networking Firewalls
  3. not listening
  4. Page 3

not listening

Yes, pretty common, but not relevant in that context.

Rarely used on a home computer. Anyway, why don't you use IPv6?

This is one the the usual 3.

ARP is a helper protocol to IP with some stupid pseudo-encapsulation.

OK, here's one reasonable assumption: Without patches and a non-f***ed up operating system, you're busted anyway. Hope in another keeping off the exploits is pretty unreliable.

And the worse, most so-called personal firewalls are easily circumvent by fragmentation, some are even DoSed. Beside that, no modern up-to-date system currently has such a problem and is actually pretty resistent.

Reply to
Sebastian Gottschalk
Loading thread data ...

Darned if I know. Microsoft wrote their own IP stack as a subset of their TDI interface. I don't have the patience to go through all the microsoft documentation to find out whether microsoft's listen() always has the same behaviour as POSIX.1's listen() .

Well, since the original poster did not say anything about what kind of system it is, I suppose there's a chance that it is WinSrv03 R2, but since that's not a very common operating system, if that prospect is to be seriously considered then so too should be the possibility that some other OS (or some old Windows OS) is present.

You already know my conclusion: that in the absense of information that establishes that the OP is definitely running a secured system, that the OP needs to be told "Yes, you may well need a firewall".

It should be the First Fundamental Theorem of comp.security.firewalls : that a firewall is needed until the situation is proven safe. If we are missing important information about the situation, then we should not be telling anyone that they definitely do not need a firewall.

Reply to
Walter Roberson

My suggestion: A firewall doesn't provide any security without proper configuration. A configuration is improper until proven safe.

Reply to
Sebastian Gottschalk

Yes. Unfortunately. Have a look at it.

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

I agree.

Ansgar: maybe it could be a good point of time for a apology now.

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

*ahem* - what's the problem with this statement? It's pretty clear following ISO C AFAICS. A 5 is copied into x, followed by an 11, which is copied into x afterwards.

If x is volatile, then this may make sense, while it would be much prettier to write it x = 5; x = 11;

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

It's a question of sequence points and the "as if" rule. Quoting from the long thread starting at

formatting link
In x=(x=5,11);

I am saying that both updates of the x can start at the beginning of the statement. The x=5 has to complete by the comma and the x=11 has to complete at the semicolon. Hence there is a period where two updates can be affecting the same variable at the same time.

It was, for example, determined that p = p -> next = q; has undefined behaviour in C.

See also this official statement on a related topic:

formatting link

Reply to
Walter Roberson

In some cases there are no listening ports; in other cases there are many, listening at localhost (80, 3389, 3390, 3391, 5900, 5901, 5902, 8080, 9080,

11080,...), depending from the ## after the -L parameter ;-)

Greetings Wolfgang

Reply to
Wolfgang Ewert

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.