Netmeeting uses H.323 for conferencing. The problem withH323 is that there is no defined port. I,e except for the well known 1720 used for Q. Signaling during call setup (H.245 ) and other port for tcp and 4 for UDP responsible for maintaining the call are dynamically negotiated and are above 1024. The only way you could get NetMeeting through is by using an application proxy or a circuit gateway firewall (limited utility). Cheers Lucius -----Original Message----- From: Butler, Gary [mailto:butlerg@gillem-emh1.army.mil] Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 1:46 AM To: firewall-wizardsat_private Subject: RE: FW: BlackIce Defender??? If you know what port Netmeeting goes out on you ought to be able to configure it to allow that by editing the Firewall.ini. I've done that so my FTP and HTTP server work. Gary Butler -----Original Message----- From: Noller, Gregory [mailto:Noller2Gat_private] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 3:49 PM To: 'Rick Smith'; R. DuFresne Cc: Butler, Gary; firewall-wizardsat_private Subject: RE: FW: BlackIce Defender??? I have machine on rr.com cable service at home running BOF, BlackIce Defender, and @Guard (recently acquired by Norton/Symantec). I get alerted every day, and every night, to port scans, BackOrifice probes, and pcAnywhere probes by all three. It's constant, and it's usually pretty close to me geographically. Probably on the same "segment" or whatever. Funny though...put a snifferr on and the packets are all screwey: 24.94.x.x is what ipconfig says my local machine address is, but the sniffer records the local address to be a 10.x.x.x address. Weird. Anyway...I find @Guard to be more configureable, but "harder" to use (wife hates it). Black Ice has only four positions so wife likes it (but she turns it off to establish a NetMeeting video call - then forgets to turn it back on) and I dislike it's lack of granularity and poor logging. Greg Noller Wichita On Tuesday,October 26,1999 2:49 PM, Rick Smith [SMTP:rick_smithat_private] wrote: > At 02:27 PM 10/26/99 -0500, R. DuFresne wrote: > > > >I musty be really confused, backofficer is a firewall? I thought it was > >merely a port listener, comprable to netcat or nukenabber, but hardly a > >fully functional firewall utility of any sort... > > Point taken. I think there's something really smart about combining a port > listener with a personal firewall. Maybe it's too geeky for the masses, but > I like the notion of combining the otherwise silent protection of port > blocking with the feedback of a port listener. If Black Ice did the right > thing with the GUI, it may well be a winner. > > What kinds of experiences have people had with "personal firewalls?" > Personally I've generally either lived behind a hairy chested corporate > 'wall or I've done without at home. > > > Rick. > smithat_private > "Internet Cryptography" at http://www.visi.com/crypto/ >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:46:20 PDT