Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Computer Learning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Magnatizer who wrote (16121)	2/10/2001 4:34:29 PM
From: mr.mark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110652

hi mag i appreciate that you posted that bugnet article calling attention to a flaw with norton's email protection. i want you to know that i just went to the gibson site, shut down za and blackice, and ran his two tests. results came back STEALTH all the way. the bugnet article states that port 110 is exposed. here is gibson's results for my port 110 with just norton products running: "110 POP3 Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer) exists at this IP address!" for the record, i am running nsw2001 on this partition, but will boot into w98se where i am running nsw2000 and try the same gibson tests there. but i am confident that symantec has addressed this issue long ago, and if you are one who likes to update frequently, then you are good to go with norton's email protection. but i'll report back. thanks again, mag :) mark

To: Magnatizer who wrote (16121)	2/10/2001 5:01:35 PM
From: mr.mark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110652

mag as promised, i jumped over here to w98se where i have nsw2000 (the version you are running). once again, i turned off za and blackice and left just norton personal firewall and nav email protection enabled. then i revisited steve gibson's test site. here's the results for the port that bugnet says is wide open.... "110 POP3 Stealth! There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a port (or even any computer) exists at this IP address!" and it displays STEALTH straight across the board, just like in nsw2001. the bugnet article you posted is dated december of 1999. symantec has tightened everything up since then. i'm glad that you prompted me to test everything again. :) mark