Just recieved a warning form Zonealarm:
"ZoneAlarm blocked traffic to port 2869 on your machine from port 1054 on a remote computer whose IP address is 192.168.1.1"
My soho router is 192.168.1.1. Does that mean a hacker owns my router and is launching attacks inside my network? Or does it mean that any attack form the outside would come through that and that's just what Zone alarm thinks? Or does it mean somethig completely different?
Thanks.
It means that ZA blocked a packet with source IP 192.168.1.1, source port 1054 and destination port 2869. Nothing more, nothing less.
It could be your router is owned. It could be your router is letting unsolicited traffic through. It could be valid traffic originating from your router. It could be someone else on your LAN. It could even be ZA producing a brainfart. There's no way to tell without knowing more about the packet's contents, your router, or your network.
cu
59cobalt
OMN!
Those unfortunate people who are trapped into using such crap!
VB.
As far as ZoneAlarm is concerned, 192.168.1.1 *is* the outside world.
How does that reply help the poster?
What does "work" in terms of a system-deconstruction software and personal network disco (makes funny blinking lights on network traffic) actually mean?
Is this guy BS-ing me? I have to assume he is but reply anyway.
He's a disruptive troll.
Anyone that has a router and any sense of security will have followed the router vendors basic instructions and changed the default password.
LOL - you mean that "you showed up" and disrupted. You don't seem to be able to understand anything, and your a sad little troll too, even PCBUTTS1 is a better troll than you.
LOL, I think that is the only thing you and I will agree on - Hawk is a troll, not a smart one, but a troll. Did you teach him?
Unfortunately, it doesn't. That's what happens when the trolls eat. ;)
Welcome to c.s.f.home-of-the-usenet-trolls
Enjoy your stay ;)
ROTMFFLMMFAO!
Unfortunately, Usenet is not a support medium, but intended for discussion. There's no need or suppose for helping the OP.
At any rate, it was helpful. Such a constellation (treating the default gateway in the same LAN segment as being in the same security domain as the external WAN) is utter s*it.
So when someone asks a direct question or makes a statement, there is no reason for the person making a reply to address what they are replying too?
The reply was a misguided opinion posted in response to something that it didn't address - which appears to be typical from your limited groups of misfits.
What are you afraid of - why not answer the posters question or statement?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required