Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how? - Firewalls

This is a discussion on Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how? - Firewalls ; When I booted up this morning (win XP pro) I went to make a cup of tea and when I got back a program called FlashUtil9D.exe was informing me that Flash Player had an update as described in APSB07-20. What ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

  1. Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    When I booted up this morning (win XP pro) I went to make a cup of tea
    and when I got back a program called FlashUtil9D.exe was informing me
    that Flash Player had an update as described in APSB07-20. What is
    confusing me is how it got access to the internet. I had not started a
    browser, there are no Adobe programs in my startup sequence (I use
    Start Up Control Panel by Mike Lin) and Zone Alarm is configured to
    'ask' for all Adobe applications.

    The only thing I can think is that Flash knew about the update last
    night and waited till restart to tell me, but this doesn't sound right
    because Start Up Monitor normally catches any prog that leaves a
    runonce in the registry.

    Any ideas? Maybe Adobe has given me a rootkit. I wouldn't be overly
    surprised.

  2. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    petethebloke@googlemail.com wrote:

    > When I booted up this morning (win XP pro) I went to make a cup of tea
    > and when I got back a program called FlashUtil9D.exe was informing me
    > that Flash Player had an update as described in APSB07-20. What is
    > confusing me is how it got access to the internet. I had not started a
    > browser, there are no Adobe programs in my startup sequence (I use
    > Start Up Control Panel by Mike Lin)



    So what? It's loaded as a Browser Helper Object throught the MSHTML engine
    in Windows Explorer.

    > and Zone Alarm is configured to 'ask' for all Adobe applications.



    Why should this matter? Anyway, why have you installed such a nonsense?

    > Any ideas? Maybe Adobe has given me a rootkit. I wouldn't be overly
    > surprised.



    Installing privileged services as documented is no rootkit.

    But surely you should expect your system to be compromised and rootkitted,
    since you obviously invited malware.

  3. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    On 12 Feb, 14:19, "Sebastian G." wrote:
    > petethebl...@googlemail.com wrote:
    > > When I booted up this morning (win XP pro) I went to make a cup of tea
    > > and when I got back a program called FlashUtil9D.exe was informing me
    > > that Flash Player had an update as described in APSB07-20. What is
    > > confusing me is how it got access to the internet. I had not started a
    > > browser, there are no Adobe programs in my startup sequence (I use
    > > Start Up Control Panel by Mike Lin)

    >
    > So what? It's loaded as a Browser Helper Object throught the MSHTML engine
    > in Windows Explorer.
    >
    > > and Zone Alarm is configured to 'ask' for all Adobe applications.

    >
    > Why should this matter? Anyway, why have you installed such a nonsense?
    >
    > > Any ideas? Maybe Adobe has given me a rootkit. I wouldn't be overly
    > > surprised.

    >
    > Installing privileged services as documented is no rootkit.
    >
    > But surely you should expect your system to be compromised and rootkitted,
    > since you obviously invited malware.


    Hee hee. Thanks Sebastian. Is it the MS WinXP that you consider
    malware or the Adobe Flash player? Unfortunately, my line of work
    means I have to have Flash player available even though my settings on
    the Proxomitron prevent downloads of most of the nice little movies
    that people seem to value so highly.

    Flash is loaded as a BHO in IE7, you're right there, but I still can't
    see how it updates before I start IE7 - which I don't, very often.
    From what you're saying, it must be started by Windows and allowed out
    through ZoneAlarm as "Generic Host Process win32".

    Why does it matter? Because when you think you have your computer
    nailed down the way you like it, it's a bit annoying to find that a
    sneaky little program that you don't even like using has somehow
    bypassed all your day-to-day controls.

  4. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    petethebloke@googlemail.com wrote:


    > Hee hee. Thanks Sebastian. Is it the MS WinXP that you consider
    > malware or the Adobe Flash player?



    None. I Just told you that you're obviously inviting malware by having
    installed ZoneAlarm.

    > Flash is loaded as a BHO in IE7, you're right there, but I still can't
    > see how it updates before I start IE7



    Because Windows Explorer uses some shell control from IE.

    > From what you're saying, it must be started by Windows and allowed out
    > through ZoneAlarm as "Generic Host Process win32".



    Nonsense. Every service running under LocalSystem account can use Raw
    Sockets to bypass NDIS filtering drivers. Which is exactly what the Adobe
    License Manager Servie used in some of the expensive Adobe software packages
    does (according to documentation and supervision).

    > Why does it matter? Because when you think you have your computer
    > nailed down the way you like it, it's a bit annoying to find that a
    > sneaky little program that you don't even like using has somehow
    > bypassed all your day-to-day controls.



    Your computer is anything but nailed down. Heck, you have installed ZoneAlarm!

  5. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    On 12 Feb, 15:03, "Sebastian G." wrote:
    > petethebl...@googlemail.com wrote:
    > > Hee hee. Thanks Sebastian. Is it the MS WinXP that you consider
    > > malware or the Adobe Flash player?

    >
    > None. I Just told you that you're obviously inviting malware by having
    > installed ZoneAlarm.
    >
    > > Flash is loaded as a BHO in IE7, you're right there, but I still can't
    > > see how it updates before I start IE7

    >
    > Because Windows Explorer uses some shell control from IE.
    >
    > > From what you're saying, it must be started by Windows and allowed out
    > > through ZoneAlarm as "Generic Host Process win32".

    >
    > Nonsense. Every service running under LocalSystem account can use Raw
    > Sockets to bypass NDIS filtering drivers. Which is exactly what the Adobe
    > License Manager Servie used in some of the expensive Adobe software packages
    > does (according to documentation and supervision).
    >
    > > Why does it matter? Because when you think you have your computer
    > > nailed down the way you like it, it's a bit annoying to find that a
    > > sneaky little program that you don't even like using has somehow
    > > bypassed all your day-to-day controls.

    >
    > Your computer is anything but nailed down. Heck, you have installed ZoneAlarm!


    Thanks for the comments. I use Dreamweaver and the FNPLicensing
    Service has to be going or DW won't start. That probably explains it
    (although Adobe Updater still gets blocked by ZA before I allow it
    access to the internet - that must be the less surreptitious version
    of Adobe updater).

    It's interesting what you say about ZA. I've been using it for several
    years and I suppose habit is bad thing. It has become less what I want
    it to be in the last year or two, but I complacently figured that it
    would give me the protection I need when combined with my network
    router. I did get a nasty shock at Christmas though, my son's Xbox 360
    was able to reconfigure my router entirely without so much as asking
    if I minded. I presume that's uPNP?

  6. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    petethebloke@googlemail.com wrote:


    > Thanks for the comments. I use Dreamweaver and the FNPLicensing
    > Service has to be going or DW won't start. That probably explains it
    > (although Adobe Updater still gets blocked by ZA before I allow it
    > access to the internet - that must be the less surreptitious version
    > of Adobe updater).



    According to Adobe's documentation, the License Manager Service's connection
    can be used to circumvent obvious misconfigurations (like ZoneAlarm) when
    Adobe Updater can't find any connection.


    > It's interesting what you say about ZA. I've been using it for several
    > years and I suppose habit is bad thing. It has become less what I want
    > it to be in the last year or two, but I complacently figured that it
    > would give me the protection I need when combined with my network
    > router.



    I figured that many computer users are unable to recognize the overly
    spurious claims of ZoneAlarm as the pure irony it is. I also figured that
    these people never bother to verify the functionality, much lesser inform
    themselves about known problems and vulnerabilities.

    > I did get a nasty shock at Christmas though, my son's Xbox 360
    > was able to reconfigure my router entirely without so much as asking
    > if I minded. I presume that's uPNP?



    Most likely. uPNP, due to being totally unauthenticated, is one of the most
    stupid ideas in computer history.

  7. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    On 12 Feb, 17:42, "Sebastian G." wrote:
    > petethebl...@googlemail.com wrote:
    > > Thanks for the comments. I use Dreamweaver and the FNPLicensing
    > > Service has to be going or DW won't start. That probably explains it
    > > (although Adobe Updater still gets blocked by ZA before I allow it
    > > access to the internet - that must be the less surreptitious version
    > > of Adobe updater).

    >
    > According to Adobe's documentation, the License Manager Service's connection
    > can be used to circumvent obvious misconfigurations (like ZoneAlarm) when
    > Adobe Updater can't find any connection.
    >
    > > It's interesting what you say about ZA. I've been using it for several
    > > years and I suppose habit is bad thing. It has become less what I want
    > > it to be in the last year or two, but I complacently figured that it
    > > would give me the protection I need when combined with my network
    > > router.

    >
    > I figured that many computer users are unable to recognize the overly
    > spurious claims of ZoneAlarm as the pure irony it is. I also figured that
    > these people never bother to verify the functionality, much lesser inform
    > themselves about known problems and vulnerabilities.
    >
    > > I did get a nasty shock at Christmas though, my son's Xbox 360
    > > was able to reconfigure my router entirely without so much as asking
    > > if I minded. I presume that's uPNP?

    >
    > Most likely. uPNP, due to being totally unauthenticated, is one of the most
    > stupid ideas in computer history.


    Thanks again Sebastian. You've given me some food for thought. I'll
    look at replacing ZA.

    Your assumption that "people" never bother to check functionality is
    not quite correct in my case - I use GRC's ShieldsUp scan
    periodically. I don't expect this to make me totally cracker-proof but
    I imagine most script kiddies will move on to easier pickings. You'll
    probably poo-poo my naive faith in such amateur methods of defence but
    I don't have a lot to hide so I'll probably keep gambling!

    But seriously... thanks for your time.

    Pete

  8. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    petethebloke@googlemail.com wrote:


    > Your assumption that "people" never bother to check functionality is
    > not quite correct in my case - I use GRC's ShieldsUp scan
    > periodically.



    Which in turn proves my statement, since this lousy web application of the
    well-known charlatan Gibson is about the most wonderful creator of fantasy
    reports I've ever seen.

    > I don't expect this to make me totally cracker-proof but
    > I imagine most script kiddies will move on to easier pickings.



    With only two missing points:

    - Your system is trivially vulnerable.
    - Scripts are not intelligent enough to tell differences. They simply fire
    out all exploits and wait for the compromised systems to report back.
    - It's not about them choosing your machine, it's about you choosing their
    webservers. Just surfing to a website is enough to compromise a system
    running ZoneAlarm, and since many legitimate websites including content from
    untrusted third partys, it's not like you could avoid this.

  9. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    On 12 Feb, 19:25, "Sebastian G." wrote:
    > petethebl...@googlemail.com wrote:
    > > Your assumption that "people" never bother to check functionality is
    > > not quite correct in my case - I use GRC's ShieldsUp scan
    > > periodically.

    >
    > Which in turn proves my statement, since this lousy web application of the
    > well-known charlatan Gibson is about the most wonderful creator of fantasy
    > reports I've ever seen.
    >
    > > I don't expect this to make me totally cracker-proof but
    > > I imagine most script kiddies will move on to easier pickings.

    >
    > With only two missing points:
    >
    > - Your system is trivially vulnerable.
    > - Scripts are not intelligent enough to tell differences. They simply fire
    > out all exploits and wait for the compromised systems to report back.
    > - It's not about them choosing your machine, it's about you choosing their
    > webservers. Just surfing to a website is enough to compromise a system
    > running ZoneAlarm, and since many legitimate websites including content from
    > untrusted third partys, it's not like you could avoid this.


    You're a bundle of fun. I must read through your old posts to find out
    what you recommend as a solution.

  10. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    "petethebloke@googlemail.com" writes:

    > You're a bundle of fun. I must read through your old posts to find out
    > what you recommend as a solution.


    Pete,

    Welcome to the group, and sorry I didn't intervene sooner.

    You need to know that Sebastian was apparently breastfed by his
    father. His mother said she only liked him as a friend. It explains
    his winning personality a bit.

    Among his more interesting takes, Sebastian recommends using no anti-
    virus software at all and using Windows firewall exclusively for
    inbound protection. He seems to prefer the latter yet argues oddly
    that there isn't any value in home gateway devices that default deny
    all unsolicited inbound connections. I intentionally avoid the use of
    the word "firewall" here because it's another of Sebastian's ranting
    points that such devices aren't "real firewalls."

    Sebastian's contributions aren't entirely worthless, but you do have
    to apply a liberal filter to his Tech Support Guy bully idiom to glean
    those things. We know far more about what Sebastian dislikes than
    what we know about what he actually likes. The world has been cruel
    to him, perhaps. We may never be sure.

    At any rate, I certainly wouldn't take anything he says as the final
    word on anything.

    Best Regards,
    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/

  11. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    Todd H. wrote:

    > He seems to prefer the latter yet argues oddly
    > that there isn't any value in home gateway devices that default deny
    > all unsolicited inbound connections.



    Well, because they don't and shouldn't anyway.

    > I intentionally avoid the use of
    > the word "firewall" here because it's another of Sebastian's ranting
    > points that such devices aren't "real firewalls."



    A packet filter inside a router can implement a firewall very well. However,
    most implementations in SOHO routers are horribly broken and lacking
    sufficient configurability.

    > At any rate, I certainly wouldn't take anything he says as the final
    > word on anything.



    You mean that he should wait until someone triggers the unpatched buffer
    overflow in ZoneAlarm's HTTP parser?

  12. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    "Sebastian G." writes:

    > Todd H. wrote:
    >
    > > He seems to prefer the latter yet argues oddly
    > > that there isn't any value in home gateway devices that default deny
    > > all unsolicited inbound connections.

    >
    > Well, because they don't and shouldn't anyway.


    I'm open to hearing an example. Say... oh, Broadcom
    based box runnin Tomato, openwrt or dd-wrt (by the way you have
    anything/everything to do with that project or is your name just
    rather similar to Sebastian Gottschall?).

    And why shouldnt' they block unsolicited inbound?

    > > I intentionally avoid the use of the word "firewall" here because
    > > it's another of Sebastian's ranting points that such devices
    > > aren't "real firewalls."

    >
    >
    > A packet filter inside a router can implement a firewall very
    > well. However, most implementations in SOHO routers are horribly
    > broken and lacking sufficient configurability.


    Horribly broken how? Name names.


    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/

  13. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    On Feb 13, 5:58 am, comph...@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
    > You need to know that Sebastian was apparently breastfed by his
    > father. His mother said she only liked him as a friend. It explains
    > his winning personality a bit.


    Sorry, but this outrageous comment makes you a sick bastard lacking
    any kind of decency.

    Gerald

  14. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    Gerald Vogt writes:

    > On Feb 13, 5:58 am, comph...@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
    > > You need to know that Sebastian was apparently breastfed by his
    > > father. His mother said she only liked him as a friend. It explains
    > > his winning personality a bit.

    >
    > Sorry, but this outrageous comment makes you a sick bastard lacking
    > any kind of decency.


    Truth be known, I'm more of a guy who can recall and apply some really
    good Rodney Dangerfield lines when the opportunity arises. :-)

    Best Regards,
    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/

  15. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    On 13 Feb, 06:49, comph...@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
    > Gerald Vogt writes:
    > > On Feb 13, 5:58 am, comph...@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
    > > > You need to know that Sebastian was apparently breastfed by his
    > > > father. His mother said she only liked him as a friend. It explains
    > > > his winning personality a bit.

    >
    > > Sorry, but this outrageous comment makes you a sick bastard lacking
    > > any kind of decency.

    >
    > Truth be known, I'm more of a guy who can recall and apply some really
    > good Rodney Dangerfield lines when the opportunity arises. :-)
    >
    > Best Regards,
    > --
    > Todd H.http://www.toddh.net/


    Thanks Todd, for your intervention. Please don't let yourself be
    dragged into a flame war when you were just coming to the aid of this
    passing traveller (even if you did kind of start the ball rolling in
    the insult department - but Sebastian doesn't come across as the sort
    of fellow who needs mollycoddling). I read a few other threads
    Sebastian contributed to and he strikes me as a very clever, polyglot,
    computer expert who is torn between being generous with his time and
    maintaining his contempt for the average joe. He may not have have
    oozed the milk of human kindness, but he took the time to reply and to
    justify his point of view, even if he didn't suggest or recommend
    alternatives. I'm indebted to him - USENET depends on people who give
    up a few minutes here and a few minutes there to help strangers and
    I'm always astonished by the generosity I find in groups like this.

    Pete

  16. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    Todd H. wrote:

    > "Sebastian G." writes:
    >
    >> Todd H. wrote:
    >>
    >>> He seems to prefer the latter yet argues oddly
    >>> that there isn't any value in home gateway devices that default deny
    >>> all unsolicited inbound connections.

    >> Well, because they don't and shouldn't anyway.

    >
    > I'm open to hearing an example. Say... oh, Broadcom
    > based box runnin Tomato, openwrt or dd-wrt (by the way you have
    > anything/everything to do with that project or is your name just
    > rather similar to Sebastian Gottschall?).



    Excuse me... I thought you understood the meaning. I should have written
    "generally don't". Some implementations, mostly from free volunteers instead
    of the vendor, actually are reliable.

    > And why shouldnt' they block unsolicited inbound?



    Because it's not the purpose of NAT. NAT is supposed to provide
    connectivity, and in fact for a 1:1 NAT anything but forwarding all inbound
    traffic would be technically wrong.

    >>> I intentionally avoid the use of the word "firewall" here because
    >>> it's another of Sebastian's ranting points that such devices
    >>> aren't "real firewalls."

    >>
    >> A packet filter inside a router can implement a firewall very
    >> well. However, most implementations in SOHO routers are horribly
    >> broken and lacking sufficient configurability.

    >
    > Horribly broken how?



    application layer NAT helpers, heuristics, bad IP fragment reassembly...

  17. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    Todd H. wrote:
    > You need to know that Sebastian was apparently breastfed by his
    > father. His mother said she only liked him as a friend. It explains
    > his winning personality a bit.


    *plonk*

    cu
    59cobalt
    --
    "If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
    their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
    --Mark Russinovich

  18. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    "Sebastian G." writes:

    > Todd H. wrote:
    >
    > > "Sebastian G." writes:
    > >
    > >> Todd H. wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> He seems to prefer the latter yet argues oddly
    > >>> that there isn't any value in home gateway devices that default deny
    > >>> all unsolicited inbound connections.
    > >> Well, because they don't and shouldn't anyway.

    > > I'm open to hearing an example. Say... oh, Broadcom
    > > based box runnin Tomato, openwrt or dd-wrt (by the way you have
    > > anything/everything to do with that project or is your name just
    > > rather similar to Sebastian Gottschall?).

    >
    >
    > Excuse me... I thought you understood the meaning. I should have
    > written "generally don't". Some implementations, mostly from free
    > volunteers instead of the vendor, actually are reliable.


    Fair nuff. Your saying "they don't [provide any value]" did paint
    with an awfully broad brush.

    So I guess then Buffalo branded devices will soon have your stamp of
    approval and soften you from the "home nat routers are worthless"
    stance?

    > > And why shouldnt' they block unsolicited inbound?

    >
    > Because it's not the purpose of NAT. NAT is supposed to provide
    > connectivity, and in fact for a 1:1 NAT anything but forwarding all
    > inbound traffic would be technically wrong.


    That's like saying "real muscle cars didn't have seatbelts and modern
    ones shouldn't either," then calling a modern car "unsafe and
    shouldn't be." That's kinda bizarre to me.

    I think that criticism is poorly placed. These boxes are not sold as
    "pristine brilliant pure NAT devices" nor should they be. They're
    sold in no small part to protect home networks from the constant
    barrage of network based scans. No one cares about the purity of the
    NAT definition - so long as unsolicited inbound network traffic is
    reliably blocked, what does it matter?

    > >>> I intentionally avoid the use of the word "firewall" here because
    > >>> it's another of Sebastian's ranting points that such devices
    > >>> aren't "real firewalls."
    > >>
    > >> A packet filter inside a router can implement a firewall very
    > >> well. However, most implementations in SOHO routers are horribly
    > >> broken and lacking sufficient configurability.

    > > Horribly broken how?

    >
    > application layer NAT helpers, heuristics, bad IP fragment
    > reassembly...


    This also paints with a pretty broad brush. Has nyone published
    anything on say, the oft-recommended Linksys WRT54G about such issues?

    Best Regards,
    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/

  19. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    "petethebloke@googlemail.com" writes:

    > On 13 Feb, 06:49, comph...@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
    > > Gerald Vogt writes:
    > > > On Feb 13, 5:58 am, comph...@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:
    > > > > You need to know that Sebastian was apparently breastfed by his
    > > > > father. His mother said she only liked him as a friend. It explains
    > > > > his winning personality a bit.

    > >
    > > > Sorry, but this outrageous comment makes you a sick bastard lacking
    > > > any kind of decency.

    > >
    > > Truth be known, I'm more of a guy who can recall and apply some really
    > > good Rodney Dangerfield lines when the opportunity arises. :-)
    > >
    > > Best Regards,
    > > --
    > > Todd H.http://www.toddh.net/

    >
    > Thanks Todd, for your intervention. Please don't let yourself be
    > dragged into a flame war when you were just coming to the aid of this
    > passing traveller (even if you did kind of start the ball rolling in
    > the insult department - but Sebastian doesn't come across as the sort
    > of fellow who needs mollycoddling). I read a few other threads
    > Sebastian contributed to and he strikes me as a very clever, polyglot,
    > computer expert who is torn between being generous with his time and
    > maintaining his contempt for the average joe. He may not have have
    > oozed the milk of human kindness, but he took the time to reply and to
    > justify his point of view, even if he didn't suggest or recommend
    > alternatives. I'm indebted to him - USENET depends on people who give
    > up a few minutes here and a few minutes there to help strangers and
    > I'm always astonished by the generosity I find in groups like this.
    >
    > Pete


    You make a good point. As I hinted earlier, for all of the faults of
    the ever acerbic Sebastian, when pressed on technical points, he will
    give up information if asked, which is why this forum is certainly
    better off with him than without. However it's the default "bash,
    trash, but not compellingly explain" modus operandi that leaves me
    scratching my head many times. It's a strange thing to be on one hand
    generous with your time, yet be contemptuous toward those to whom
    you're giving it. Depends on one's
    altruism-to-makin-myself-feel-smart motivation ratio for participating
    in usenet, I suppose.

    Best Regards,
    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/

  20. Re: Adobe Flash Updater accessed internet....but how?

    Todd H. wrote:


    > So I guess then Buffalo branded devices will soon have your stamp of
    > approval and soften you from the "home nat routers are worthless"
    > stance?



    No. The problem with NAT is that there're multiple ways to influence client
    applications to trigger forwarding rules. Just take a look at Flash and
    Java, not mentioning VoIP applications...

    > No one cares about the purity of the
    > NAT definition - so long as unsolicited inbound network traffic is
    > reliably blocked, what does it matter?



    Because it creates connectivity problems?
    Because your proclaimed reliable doesn't exist, by design?
    Because such a blockade is pretty superfluos?

    > This also paints with a pretty broad brush. Has nyone published
    > anything on say, the oft-recommended Linksys WRT54G about such issues?


    Yes, see . Please denote
    that this is not a problem of the implementation, but the configuration: If
    the interface would allow proper low-level access to netfilter/iptables
    instead of the limited front-end, one could properly take the FTP NAT helper
    into account (or even deactivate it).

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast