On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 16:11 +0000, Iznogoud wrote: > > > > > > I'm confused. Is "That's good news!" your notation or did that > > display > > with the test. It seems your box wasn't analyzed. > > > Sorry this did not come across clearly. That was _not_ my editorial > comment; > that was what the website put out in large green font, quoted again > below: > > > > > > > > > > > > THE EQUIPMENT AT THE TARGET IP ADDRESS > > > DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR UPnP PROBES! > > > (That's good news!) > > > > But the above only says "UPnP probes, whatever that happens to be. > > > > > > You should be receiving an analysis of your first 1,056 > > ports. Each > > port should be reported as open, closed, or stealth. That message > > indicates to me ShieldsUP! isn't analyzing your box. > > > I was expecting something more verbose, as you are suggesting. That > did not > happen. My forwarded ports are upwards of 10000, on purpose, so they > would > not be probed. > > If it is just a port-scan, I do not know how useful it is for > somebody like > me. Any attempt to penetrate the DSL modem would have to be > exploiting some > vanurability of the firmware, or a "back door" of the hardware (say, > some > strange sequence of ICMP -ping- packets that triggers a back door to > open). > This is part of the reason why I have a router sitting behind the > modem, i.e. > to have another layer that needs to be pentrated. The inner router is > running > some embedded linux and is pretty good at providing report logs, > which are > emailed to an internal email account on a box that is sitting behind > the second > router. I have had only one scare in several years where I did not > know where > some connections were going, but maybe I have got lucky overall. > > I am especially paranoid on the hardware backdoors being in place. > There was > a very interesting 2-minute long segment on NPR/MPR yesterday morning > around > 8:30am where a journalist was asking "Alexa" about a government > agency, and > the final question (and I quote) was: "Alexa, are you connected to > the ...?" > The software did not respond with anything audible, and the other > journalist's > commentary was: "That must be Alexa's version of 'no comment'." > Welcome to > 1984. What a surreal feeling to be thinking of books like 1984 > looking like > "history" and funny films like Idiocracy looking like > "documentaries." Or maybe > I am just way to old and cynical... Most young people among my > colleauges have > no concern whatsoever for all that we find out is fact when it comes > to our > digital presense being captured and scrutinized. That fact on people > bothers me > more than the fact that my digital existence is being scrutinized. > > I just received my "I support encryption" shirt from EFF. Donate $100 > and get > yours. It is money well spent. > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > Ioannis - Right below that UPnP probe button are what look like column headers, but in reality they are also buttons. Click the "All Service Ports" text to get the port scan being referenced. I should hope to spit that UPnP ports are not exposed externally by *any* device - that would be a wide open front door with a flashing welcome sign and you'd already be compromised if that were so. I don't even have UPnP enabled internally. Hope that helps. Shields up tells me that I am responding to pings. I have my cable modem set to bridge mode and my firewall device explicitly has "respond to ping" disabled. That means either my firewall is broken or the cable modem is responding to pings and I bet it's the cable modem. I couldn't find a way to disable responding to pings by logging into the cable modem... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20170311/44880f6e/attachment.html>