Paul wrote:
> Just recieved a warning form Zonealarm:
>
> "ZoneAlarm blocked traffic to port 2869 on your machine from port 1054
> on a remote computer whose IP address is 192.168.1.1"
>
> My soho router is 192.168.1.1. Does that mean a hacker owns my router
> and is launching attacks inside my network? Or does it mean that any
> attack form the outside would come through that and that's just what
> Zone alarm thinks? Or does it mean somethig completely different?

It means that ZA blocked a packet with source IP 192.168.1.1, source
port 1054 and destination port 2869. Nothing more, nothing less.

It could be your router is owned. It could be your router is letting
unsolicited traffic through. It could be valid traffic originating from
your router. It could be someone else on your LAN. It could even be ZA
producing a brainfart. There's no way to tell without knowing more about
the packet's contents, your router, or your network.

cu
59cobalt
--
"Personal Firewalls are crap. Throw away any personal firewall. Personal
Firewalls are bad[tm]."
--Malte von dem Hagen on security-basics

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:49:33 -0500, "Paul" wrote:

>Just recieved a warning form Zonealarm:
>
>"ZoneAlarm blocked traffic to port 2869 on your machine from port 1054 on a
>remote computer whose IP address is 192.168.1.1"
>
>My soho router is 192.168.1.1. Does that mean a hacker owns my router and
>is launching attacks inside my network? Or does it mean that any attack
>form the outside would come through that and that's just what Zone alarm
>thinks? Or does it mean somethig completely different?

As far as ZoneAlarm is concerned, 192.168.1.1 *is* the outside world.

Spender wrote:
> As far as ZoneAlarm is concerned, 192.168.1.1 *is* the outside world.

OMN!

Those unfortunate people who are trapped into using such crap!

VB.
--
"Life was simple before World War II. After that, we had systems."
Grace Hopper

In article <457d9643@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> Spender wrote:
> > As far as ZoneAlarm is concerned, 192.168.1.1 *is* the outside world.
>
> OMN!
>
> Those unfortunate people who are trapped into using such crap!

How does that reply help the poster?

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

You see with all the people on the internet two people will have the same user
name and password to access their router just by chance. Just so happens you
and me must have the same user name and password. Small world eh but you're
just riding on my coattails. I'm not changing a thing you change yours'. By the
way did they ever get the free zone alarm to work with windows XP?

Paul wrote:

> Just recieved a warning form Zonealarm:
>
> "ZoneAlarm blocked traffic to port 2869 on your machine from port 1054 on a
> remote computer whose IP address is 192.168.1.1"
>
> My soho router is 192.168.1.1. Does that mean a hacker owns my router and
> is launching attacks inside my network? Or does it mean that any attack
> form the outside would come through that and that's just what Zone alarm
> thinks? Or does it mean somethig completely different?
>
> Thanks.

Tony wrote:

> By the way did they ever get the free zone alarm to work with windows XP?

What does "work" in terms of a system-deconstruction software and personal
network disco (makes funny blinking lights on network traffic) actually
mean?

"Tony" wrote in message
news:457DA8E7.AB478F6D@TheDeli.Sandwich...
> You see with all the people on the internet two people will have the same
> user
> name and password to access their router just by chance. Just so happens
> you
> and me must have the same user name and password. Small world eh but
> you're
> just riding on my coattails. I'm not changing a thing you change yours'.
> By the
> way did they ever get the free zone alarm to work with windows XP?

Is this guy BS-ing me? I have to assume he is but reply anyway.

In article , lof@invalid.com
says...
> "Tony" wrote in message
> news:457DA8E7.AB478F6D@TheDeli.Sandwich...
> > You see with all the people on the internet two people will have the same
> > user
> > name and password to access their router just by chance. Just so happens
> > you
> > and me must have the same user name and password. Small world eh but
> > you're
> > just riding on my coattails. I'm not changing a thing you change yours'.
> > By the
> > way did they ever get the free zone alarm to work with windows XP?
>
> Is this guy BS-ing me? I have to assume he is but reply anyway.

He's a disruptive troll.

Anyone that has a router and any sense of security will have followed
the router vendors basic instructions and changed the default password.


--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

This wad of weasel **** just shows up out of nowhere and disrupts the whole
can.internet.highspeed newsgroup hijacking threads touting some 2 cent piece of
**** dlink router. His vast knowledge of firewalls is the day he watched the
movie backdraft and he still thinks a firewall is the side of the building on
fire.

Leythos wrote:

> In article , lof@invalid.com
> says...
> > "Tony" wrote in message
> > news:457DA8E7.AB478F6D@TheDeli.Sandwich...
> > > You see with all the people on the internet two people will have the same
> > > user
> > > name and password to access their router just by chance. Just so happens
> > > you
> > > and me must have the same user name and password. Small world eh but
> > > you're
> > > just riding on my coattails. I'm not changing a thing you change yours'.
> > > By the
> > > way did they ever get the free zone alarm to work with windows XP?
> >
> > Is this guy BS-ing me? I have to assume he is but reply anyway.
>
> He's a disruptive troll.
>
> Anyone that has a router and any sense of security will have followed
> the router vendors basic instructions and changed the default password.
>
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

In article <457E2711.1292F2AB@TheDeli.Sandwich>, Tony@TheDeli.Sandwich
says...
> This wad of weasel **** just shows up out of nowhere and disrupts the whole
> can.internet.highspeed newsgroup hijacking threads touting some 2 cent piece of
> **** dlink router. His vast knowledge of firewalls is the day he watched the
> movie backdraft and he still thinks a firewall is the side of the building on
> fire.

LOL - you mean that "you showed up" and disrupted. You don't seem to be
able to understand anything, and your a sad little troll too, even
PCBUTTS1 is a better troll than you.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

You come from a long line of trolls from that isp most notably someone called -= Hawk
=- is the head troll from roadrunner.

Leythos wrote:

> In article <457E2711.1292F2AB@TheDeli.Sandwich>, Tony@TheDeli.Sandwich
> says...
> > This wad of weasel **** just shows up out of nowhere and disrupts the whole
> > can.internet.highspeed newsgroup hijacking threads touting some 2 cent piece of
> > **** dlink router. His vast knowledge of firewalls is the day he watched the
> > movie backdraft and he still thinks a firewall is the side of the building on
> > fire.
>
> LOL - you mean that "you showed up" and disrupted. You don't seem to be
> able to understand anything, and your a sad little troll too, even
> PCBUTTS1 is a better troll than you.
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

In article <457E2C08.DC776BDC@TheDeli.Sandwich>, Tony@TheDeli.Sandwich
says...
> You come from a long line of trolls from that isp most notably someone called -= Hawk
> =- is the head troll from roadrunner.

LOL, I think that is the only thing you and I will agree on - Hawk is a
troll, not a smart one, but a troll. Did you teach him?

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Are you kidding? That guy's mind is in the clouds. Sig files like "Exxy is my hero!"

Leythos wrote:

> In article <457E2C08.DC776BDC@TheDeli.Sandwich>, Tony@TheDeli.Sandwich
> says...
> > You come from a long line of trolls from that isp most notably someone called -= Hawk
> > =- is the head troll from roadrunner.
>
> LOL, I think that is the only thing you and I will agree on - Hawk is a
> troll, not a smart one, but a troll. Did you teach him?
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:37:33 GMT, Leythos wrote:

>In article <457d9643@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
>> Spender wrote:
>> > As far as ZoneAlarm is concerned, 192.168.1.1 *is* the outside world.
>>
>> OMN!
>>
>> Those unfortunate people who are trapped into using such crap!
>
>How does that reply help the poster?

Unfortunately, it doesn't. That's what happens when the trolls eat.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:43:18 -0500, "Paul" wrote:

>Is this guy BS-ing me? I have to assume he is but reply anyway.

Welcome to c.s.f.home-of-the-usenet-trolls

Enjoy your stay

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:50:41 -0500, Tony
wrote:

>His vast knowledge of firewalls is the day he watched the
>movie backdraft and he still thinks a firewall is the side of the building on
>fire.
>

ROTMFFLMMFAO!

fyrfaktry wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:37:33 GMT, Leythos wrote:
>
>>In article <457d9643@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
>>> Spender wrote:
>>> > As far as ZoneAlarm is concerned, 192.168.1.1 *is* the outside world.
>>>
>>> OMN!
>>>
>>> Those unfortunate people who are trapped into using such crap!
>>
>>How does that reply help the poster?
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't. That's what happens when the trolls eat.

Unfortunately, Usenet is not a support medium, but intended for discussion.
There's no need or suppose for helping the OP.

At any rate, it was helpful. Such a constellation (treating the default
gateway in the same LAN segment as being in the same security domain as the
external WAN) is utter ****.

In article <4u7nlgF16g6k8U2@mid.dfncis.de>, seppi@seppig.de says...
> fyrfaktry wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:37:33 GMT, Leythos wrote:
> >
> >>In article <457d9643@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> >>> Spender wrote:
> >>> > As far as ZoneAlarm is concerned, 192.168.1.1 *is* the outside world.
> >>>
> >>> OMN!
> >>>
> >>> Those unfortunate people who are trapped into using such crap!
> >>
> >>How does that reply help the poster?
> >
> > Unfortunately, it doesn't. That's what happens when the trolls eat.
>
> Unfortunately, Usenet is not a support medium, but intended for discussion.
> There's no need or suppose for helping the OP.
>
> At any rate, it was helpful. Such a constellation (treating the default
> gateway in the same LAN segment as being in the same security domain as the
> external WAN) is utter ****.

So when someone asks a direct question or makes a statement, there is no
reason for the person making a reply to address what they are replying
too?

The reply was a misguided opinion posted in response to something that
it didn't address - which appears to be typical from your limited groups
of misfits.

What are you afraid of - why not answer the posters question or
statement?

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me