i have a big problem, i’m unstealth on the stealthtest from PC flank with TCP
I don’t understand why but when i do a port scan on the website shield’up i see TCP port
0, 1 and some others closed and not sthealthed, i think it’s the reason why i’m not stealthed cause PC flank use TCP port 1 for the stealth test…
How i can fix that??
I use the lastest ComodoFW, i have an adsl2+ routeur with DHCP serveur.
Thank to try help me and to answer me in a simple english with simple words
Hi tommymacange, welcome to the forums
If your using a router, the tests you run with pcflank or shields-up will test the router ports, not CFP.
I have a similar problem…a test with GRC’s “Shields Up” shows all common ports in stealth mode, but failed the ping reply test. CFP is latest and Spysweeper with AV is updated for this stand-alone PC w/ Win XP Home SP2.
Should I try to fix that? GRC makes it sound scary! Hope you haven’t already discussed this…I’m new to this forum.
Do not worry about people being able to ping you.
The response from an IP address that is fully stealthed is different from an IP address that is just not there. This means that even if you blocked ping packets a hacker will know that your IP address has a computer or network behind it.
Ok thanks to reply.
So i may use my modem-router in the bridge mode for a better protection with ComodoFW? Or do you think I can stay in router mode cause the protection is enought good?
Cause my router is not capable to activate the hard FW capability when i’m using it in the “one user” autoconfigurate router mode…
Toggie you said true, i have past the PC flank stealth test and the shield up common port scan in the bridge mode (all ports are stealthed).
In the bridge mode Comodo FW detect the ppp dial up WAN interface.
So i ask me the same question… The protection is equal with comodoFW in the router mode comparate to the bridge mode? Cause the router mode is more confortable to use for me…