From: "Robsten" <finns.pa.hemsidan@min.com>

| Författare David H. Lipman 2005-07-13 :
>> From: "Louise" <none@nospam.com>
|
>>> Win XP Pro, SP2 with MS firewall turned off. Heavy home/office user
>>> with cable ISP. Use Firefox 85% of the time. Use Outlook as my
>>> email/pim.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering whether I really need to run the amount of security
>>> software I'm running or whether it's taking too much overhead.
>>>
>>> I have a Linksys NAT router. I run Sygate Pro. I run Avast with
>>> all the shields active.
>>>
>>> I used to run Spysweeper only when I actually wanted to scan my
>>> machine every week or so.
>>>
>>> I've just switched to Spyware Doctor (was this a good idea?), and
>>> I'm once again wondering whether I should leave it running "on
>>> guard" all the time or whether it's unnecessary use of resources.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts about Spyware Doctor and is it bloated - does it use an
>>> inordinate amount of resources? Is it intrusive?
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> Louise
|
>> The software sounds fine.
|
>> However, I do suggest the you block both TCP and UDP ports 135 ~ 139
>> and 445 on the Router.
|
>> Depending on the model and version, the settings are at the following
>> URL... http://192.168.1.1/Filters.htm
|
| Why not block every port apart from them you use???
|
| --
| http://w1.853.comhem.se/~u85329080/
| http://web.comhem.se/~u85329080/indexB.htm
| http://web.comhem.se/~u85329080/Freeware.htm
| And I don.t play golf
|

65K+ ports TCP and 65K+ UDP ports ?

Then there is the fact that I connect to a specific port but the return data will be opened
on another post and each connection will opened in succeeding ports. This would wreak havoc
in connectivity and is contraindicated.

Basically you want to block ports that LAN nodes have open for Daemons/Services and can be
compromised by the right kind of protocol connective.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm