 djaThe 'd' is silent ... unlike the member.Premium
join:2002-03-25
Niagara
| reply to SYNACK
Re: Port 1025-1027 said by SYNACK:
He was one of the few who saw the complete uselessness of the ongoing discussion.
How was it useless?
Much useful info was posted
long before Larry arrived.
said by SYNACK:
It took you 14 posts deep into this thread to enlighten us that the destination port was actually 137.
In post (#8) I openly clarified what I had
correctly believed the member had meant.
He then confirmed this.
said by SYNACK:
Up to that point basically wasting everybody's time with irrelevant information.
What's irrelevant about the
links I posted in post (#5)?
said by SYNACK:
So, please recognize sincere help as such. 
He did. Twice.
Granted the member was confused
about the source and destination ports,
but we knew with so much going on and
many threads already begun that this
member was dealing with NetBIOS Name requests.
Before you even posted, the member had
received all the information that was
required to understand what he was observing.
--
the "d" is silent - unlike the member
[text was edited by author 2002-10-02 01:57:36] |
|
 SYNACKJust Firewall ItPremium,Mod
join:2001-03-05
Venice, CA
Networking
Virtual Private Ne..
Netgear
ZyXEL
| Well, in a techical forum I typically don't rely on guessing and abstain from an interpretation based on incomplete data and up to that point you had to wildly guess. (At the same time it triggered a flood of the typical knee-jerk blackjack&Co. answers.)
There was nothing wrong with your links, but they were based on guesses and not on anything in the posts above it. (If you ask what is 2+2 and I answer "the sky is blue", I make a perfectly true statement (at least in california), but it is not related to the question).
There were (and still are) ongoing threads about the new 137/UDP epidemic (after all they biased your guess;)). If a new thread such as this is started I would rightfully assume a different topic until proven otherwise.
I really would encourage everybody to abstain from answering (=guessing) until all the vital facts are in. A final conclusion can never be better than the underlying data. |
|
 WildcatboyPremium,Mod
join:2000-10-30
Toronto, ON
kudos:2
Security Product V..
Security
| reply to garciamd
I agree with NetWatchMan an SYNACK on this. If you need help with anything, you first need to be precise. Most importantly, if you fail to be precise in the first place, you need to follow the instructions of those who try to help you by providing the information they ask of you, at least as a courtesy.
This thread may have a lot of good information but they are not focused on the main problem. A simple log entry could have clarified the problem and you would have had a clear and precise answer a long time ago and unfortunately that's something you still don't have.
--
You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him long. |
|
djaThe 'd' is silent ... unlike the member.Premium
join:2002-03-25
Niagara | reply to garciamd
Point taken.
Though, with the ports, and protocol
cited by the member, (however mis-stated)
combined with the fact that virtually
the entire internet was being 'flooded',
the 'guess' was hardly "wild".
I will, however, try to elicit more precise
information from members, before responding.
--
the "d" is silent - unlike the member |
|
| reply to dja
Thank you dja, you hit in on the nose!!!
Now let's all go and take a coffee break.
Keep up the good work! |
|
