Did I obfuscate my usenet newsreader & who I am in this posting?

NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.110.4.48

In short, no.

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-07-01 19:10 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

old777salt@yahoo hath wroth:

shows San Jose, CA.

RDNS at:

I'll resist the temptation to probe your IP address directly for additional information.

Your IP address can be pinged, so you aren't using a router or effective firewall. A visit to , especially the ShieldsUP! site might be educational.

Ernie B. in a fit of rage spewed

Gibson is a joke waiting for a punchline.

You can do better? What's the URL for your site?

Ernie B. in a fit of rage spewed

nmap

You trying to say you can't accept a ping if you use a router or a firewall?

Ernie B. hath wroth:

My routers can be pinged. However, all have "no ip redirects" to prevent Smurf attacks. Responding to ICMP ping is not necessarily a security risk or indication of cluelessness.

Steve Gibson is a mixed bag of useful and useless information. Much of what he says is quite interesting. His tools are also quite good. However, much of his alarmist rantings and incorrect conclusions are rubbish. He's such a good writer, that I often have trouble making the distinction. Tread carefully.

(to 2004).

ShieldsUP is fine for looking for open ports. There are other online firewall checkers and port scanners that will do the same thing. I prefer to run my own (offline) test using NMAP.

The problem I have with GRC is his analysis of the collected information and what he considers a vulnerability. Using his criteria, all open ports are evil, dangerous, and a security risk. That's not the case as it really depends what is running on the open port.

The orginal had nothing to do with wireless, and nothing to do with security. It has to do with whether "Tamara?" can be identified. However, topic drift is always fun.

hmfic in a fit of rage spewed

Ernie isn't too bright.

You're pregnant?

Nope. I'm saying that a router, if it's doing its job, or an effective firewall will reject pings. Try pinging my IP address and see what happens.

So educate me please. I'm willing to learn.

Ernie B. in a fit of rage spewed

Ernie, you clueless idiot, your IP isn't in your headers, how the fsck is someone going to ping it.

BTW, I reject pings too, but at least I know when I post that my IP is blocked too.

I've used Gibson's tools before, but I'm not familiar with Omicron. Can the *average* user handle those tools [i.e. won't do more harm than good trying them]? bj

Well it is, sorta, but I'll make it easy for you. Try IP 68.103.243.44.

Good for you. ;-þ

chicagofan hath wroth:

Huh? It's a simple menu driven web page. Click here to test your security. I think even a below average user can handle that. Same with Shields UP and other port scanners. They're easy to use. Hmmm... the one on DSLReports.com is offline. There are also commerical "test your security" services.

The problem is in interpreting the results. Most scanners will find holes in the firewall installed by UPnP. Is that safe or a problem? Well, that depends on your level of paranoia. Same with open ports on

None of the scanners make any changes to your router, so I think it's fairly safe to run them. My big worry is if the site run by some hacker that later comes back and uses the reports to attack the scanned systems.

Incidentally, try running:

on your router. I've seen a few routers that hang on some of the tests.

Thanks for reminding me, I meant to disable UPnP when I got this laptop.

That's why I was looking for what sites the regulars here use. :)

Thanks, will do! bj

I know. I just prefer to be invisible to pings, etc. so my router is set to "Block Anonymous Internet Requests".

Interesting sites. Like anything else, one must separate the wheat from the chaff. Steve seems to have a lot of knowledge on his site, I've learned a few things from visiting it.

I tried that site. It ran a scan but didn't show any results past "Scan Finished", just an icon for a broken connection. Maybe that's because I have my hosts file set to read only.

True.

Well, we've located her in Southern California but haven't found her name, SSN, etc.