spendabuck
join:2000-11-28
Dover, NJ |  OK I Thought I Had It....
I still can't access my computer away from home. I tried using different ports seeing that port 80 is filtered. I'm using zonealarm set to high, I tried medium setting still nothing. I'm running win2k server because it's easier to set up. any ideas |
|
nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY
| What software are you trying to set up? Or how are you trying to access your Win2K computer? Are you trying to map network drives or remote takeover software or....?
--
I want my - I want my - I want my port ayyyeetteee!
(to the tune of "I want my MTV" Money for Nothing) |
|
spendabuck
join:2000-11-28
Dover, NJ | I'm trying to access it the same way I use to before port 80 was filtered, using a browser where I would type in my IP address / whatever folder I assigned or shared. |
|
nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY
| reply to spendabuck
So it's a web server you're trying to run on a different port?
If that's the case simply changing the port number that the server is on should do the trick. Unless your personal firewall is getting in the way...
The easy way to test is to not run ZA and try to connect. If that works then you know where you have to start looking.
I'm not a ZoneAlarm pro (in fact, never touched it, causes too much grief) but I'm betting you'll have to open up the port in ZoneAlarm that your web server is running on so your client/browser can connect.
While I'm at it, if you have actual HTML web pages with references in them, make sure they're either all relative or if they specify a host that the right [new] port appears in the reference.
--
I want my - I want my - I want my port ayyyeetteee!
(to the tune of "I want my MTV" Money for Nothing) |
|
spendabuck
join:2000-11-28
Dover, NJ | reply to spendabuck
I GOT IT!!!
I setup an old computer (486 66) used a dial up connection (outside of my home local network) and logged into my computer using port 8080. |
|
jnmhayes$
join:2001-07-26
Howell, NJ | reply to spendabuck
nothing00:
Why are you so anti-ZA? What do you use?
Jn |
|
nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY
| reply to spendabuck
Fair enough. I guess I'm anti-ZA because it has a history of reporting totally innocuous activity and alarming people. The software has gotten much better in not reporting innocent activity but it still brings a lot of information forward to the user - who usually doesn't know how to interpret it - and the user fears they're under some sort of attack.
Personally I have a Linux machine sitting between my home network and the rest of the world. My security strategy is pretty simple. All of my ports are closed except for those I've explicitly opened and I don't bother logging. If someone finds an exploit and gets into my gateway machine they do - I'll find out about it quickly enough and hopefully the Linux community will have a patch available soon after.
Years ago (about 4/5 now) I was a network admin and took care of a whole range of machines. Mostly Windows but a few Unix boxes too. On one FreeBSD box I had someone found an exploit for rlogin and cut right through the front door. They did this late at night and I found out the next morning. The really interesting part was that the person covered their tracks pretty well, none of their processes showed up in the process list and the logs were wiped clean of their activity. The directory they set up for themselves for a network sniffer didn't show up in 'ls -la' either. Pretty slick work, they really knew what they were doing. Still there were traces here and there that I noticed, figured out what was happening and then cleaned up the mess. Thankfully two days later the bug was fixed but people had to live without rlogin until then.
So why am I anti-ZA? Because ZA doesn't do much to protect Windows PCs from network attacks. And the reports do more harm than good. Even if someone is "under attack" if their system is up to date it's usually best to just ignore the attack. Attacks happen on the net and the overwhelming majority of them are failures. The single most important thing that people can do is run a current virus checker and that's usually to protect users from themselves.
--
I want my - I want my - I want my port ayyyeetteee!
(to the tune of "I want my MTV" Money for Nothing) |
|
Kerryman
Ryan's Corollary - Murphy Is An Optimist
join:2000-07-19
New York
| Since ZA can be set to run in the background and bring forward no information, I'm confused why this appears to be the sole reason you're down on it. Even if it did report, you contend that you're more than able to interpret the results.
It appears you just want to put the rap on a good (free) tool for the internet user who couldn't care less about home networks with Linux machines standing guard.
|
|
Beelzebub
United We Stand
join:2001-07-29
Bronx, NY | Unix Security is the way to go IP Chains he is right! |
|
nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY
| reply to Kerryman
I'm not suggesting everyone should use Linux, FreeBSD or a real firewall for enhanced security. ZA certainly does serve a purpose and as I'll admit it's improving. My beef with it is solely that it has a tendency to false and/or alarm people. Earlier versions were much worse so my opinion is probably carried over from that.
If I find time I should honestly check it out and see what it looks like now.
--
I want my - I want my - I want my port ayyyeetteee!
(to the tune of "I want my MTV" Money for Nothing) |
|
