Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

How can I tell if a Sygate firewall alert is suspicious or not?

For example, I received this message from Sygate just now:

Sygate Personal Firewall:
Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
[206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Firefox
(firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>
> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?

Look at your TCP/IP configuration. Isn't that your SBC DNS server?

nf

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Gerard Schroeder <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How can I tell if a Sygate firewall alert is suspicious or not?
> For example, I received this message from Sygate just now:
> Sygate Personal Firewall:
> Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?

You can't. This is, why such messages are nonsense. BTW, they're useless,
too, because also Sygate cannot prevent "phoning home" from malicious
programs anyway, as my simple POC here shows:

http://www.dingens.org/breakout.c

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

There are ways you can research these things... however, you will get so
many of these alerts, and it is so fruitless to research them all, that I
strongly recommend you consider a firewall configuration that does not alert
you all the time with these things. Having a firewall ask the user to make
decisions is a security accident waiting to happen, and is also a
significant consumption of your time.

If and when you do want to research these things, you should look up what
the remote IP address is, for example starting with the DNS name lookup and
whois lookup at www.nwtools.com [which also gets the DNS name and a lot of
other things] or www.netsol.com to find out what that IP address is and
whether you or your computer could have had reason to contact it. This IP
is named dns1.snfcca.sbcglobal.net, which is a big hint that suggests this
is probably normal.

It's also useful to know what the protocol [e.g. TCP] and remote port number
is... the firewall alert below didn't seem to tell you, which is really
dumb. If the remote port was, say, TCP 80 or UDP 53, then that gives you
some level of assurance that this is a response to something your computer
requested. There is no such thing as "port 1258." There's TCP port 1258,
and UDP port 1258. Any firewall that doesn't know that this is important
information is dumb [although I generally like Sygate].

A really smart firewall would let you inspect the TCP flags and contents of
the incoming packet, but I guess that's too much to ask.


"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9pl87nx3tjpg$.1ugbsdw9mmwkz$.dlg@40tude.net...
> How can I tell if a Sygate firewall alert is suspicious or not?
>
> For example, I received this message from Sygate just now:
>
> Sygate Personal Firewall:
> Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>
> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9pl87nx3tjpg$.1ugbsdw9mmwkz$.dlg@40tude.net...
> How can I tell if a Sygate firewall alert is suspicious or not?
>
> For example, I received this message from Sygate just now:
>
> Sygate Personal Firewall:
> Firefox (firefox.exe) is being contacted from a remote machine
> [206.13.28.12] using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
> Do you want to allow this program to access the network?
>
> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?

That's for you to determine by using a link like to one below and entering
the IP into the WhoIs search box and finding out of the IP is
dubious or not.

http://www.arin.net/index.html

However, the above is one of the problems with personal FW solutions with
features that try to control programs on the machine as they confuse the
end-user as they whine about nothing.

Duane

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:56:07 -0400, Karl Levinson, mvp wrote:

> There are ways you can research these things... however, you will get so
> many of these alerts, and it is so fruitless to research them all
....
> you should look up what the remote IP address is
> www.nwtools.com or www.netsol.com
....
> A really smart firewall would let you inspect the TCP flags and contents of
> the incoming packet

I thank you for your detailed suggestions summarized below as:
1. There exists innocent common connections reported by the firewall
2. We can find the NAME of the IP address contacting us for clues
3. The content of the incoming packet may contain clues

Regarding the first interesting comment above:
- Is there a site where all the common innocent connections are listed?
- I searched (before I posted) and did not find one (but it may exist).
- If not, I don't mind starting a list (in this post perhaps?).

Regarding looking up the NAME of the IP address:
- WHY would my DNS provider suddently connect (this does not happen often)?
- I keep a list of the common contact requests & this isn't one of them.
- I said NO to the request & I don't see negative consequences.

Regarding the content of the incoming packets:
- Sygate Personal Firewall 5.6 provides a Yes/No/Details response
- The DETAILS button gives more information (cryptic to me, a novice).
- Again I wonder if there is a list of known non-dangerous contacts.

For we novices who still desire basic firewall protection, it would be nice
to refer to a list of known generally non-dangerous requests to accept.
I'll post separately (as it's slightly OT) the list I maintain of what I
THINK are innocent requests (but I'm not sure) that I get every day so as
to START this desired list (if it doesn't exist already).

The particular message I posted from my DNS server does NOT happen often so
that is what startled me.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:14:04 GMT, nutso fasst wrote:

> "Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?
> Look at your TCP/IP configuration. Isn't that your SBC DNS server?

Using DHCP, I don't specify a DNS server so I'd have no clue if that truly
was my DNS server ... but I maintain a list of daily requests and this is
NOT one of them.

So, why, all of a sudden, would my DNS server be contacting me, out of the
blue. And, why, does my network still (apparently) work even though I said
NO to the request?

What would be nice is for users to post (and for experts to doublecheck)
what they consider to be innocuous requests uninitiated by them which
appear in their yes/no request list from Sygate.

I am willing to START that list of what appears to be common innocuous
requests (for expert review).

Here is my list of common requests not explicitly initiated by me which my
Sygate Personal Firewall seems to report daily so that others may consult
it before accepting or rejecting a Sygate Personal Firewall request to
allow access:

NDIS User mode I/O Driver (ndisuio.sys)
has received a Multicast packet from the remote machine [192.168.0.1].
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

NDIS Filter Intermediate Driver (eacfilt.sys)
has received a Multicast packet from the remote machine [192.168.0.1].
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

NDIS Filter Intermediate Driver (eacfilt.sys)
is trying to broadcast to [192.168.0.255]
using remote port 137 (NETBIOS-NS - Browsing request of NetBIOS over
TCP/IP).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

NDIS User mode I/O Driver (ndisuio.sys)
has received a Broadcast packet from the remote machine [192.168.0.100].
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Firefox (firefox.exe)
is being contacted from a remote machine news.google.com [216.239.37.147]
using local port 1615 (NETBILL-AUTH - NetBill Authorization Server).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Firefox (firefox.exe)
is being contacted from a remote machine [206.13.28.12]
using local port 1258 (OPENNL - Open Network Library).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (svchost.exe)
is trying to connect to [207.46.157.60]
using remote port 443 (HTTPS - HTTP protocol over TLS/SSL).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (svchost.exe)
is trying to connect to time.windows.com [207.46.130.100
using remote port 123 (NTP - Network Time Protocol).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Firefox (firefox.exe)
is being contacted from a remote machine [80.237.203.14]
using local port 4503
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Karl Levinson, mvp wrote:

> There are ways you can research these things... however, you will get so
> many of these alerts, and it is so fruitless to research them all, that I
> strongly recommend you consider a firewall configuration that does not alert
> you all the time with these things. Having a firewall ask the user to make
> decisions is a security accident waiting to happen, and is also a
> significant consumption of your time.
>
> If and when you do want to research these things, you should look up what
> the remote IP address is, for example starting with the DNS name lookup and
> whois lookup at www.nwtools.com [which also gets the DNS name and a lot of
> other things] or www.netsol.com to find out what that IP address is and
> whether you or your computer could have had reason to contact it. This IP
> is named dns1.snfcca.sbcglobal.net, which is a big hint that suggests this
> is probably normal.
>
> It's also useful to know what the protocol [e.g. TCP] and remote port number
> is... the firewall alert below didn't seem to tell you, which is really
> dumb. If the remote port was, say, TCP 80 or UDP 53, then that gives you
> some level of assurance that this is a response to something your computer
> requested. There is no such thing as "port 1258." There's TCP port 1258,
> and UDP port 1258. Any firewall that doesn't know that this is important
> information is dumb [although I generally like Sygate].
>
> A really smart firewall would let you inspect the TCP flags and contents of
> the incoming packet, but I guess that's too much to ask.
>

You make good points, and I really like your nwtools.com and netsol.com
suggestions.

However, to expect the average user to understand what the different
protocols are, what they do, and what ports are used for what, is a bit
over the top. Like you hinted at, the firewall responses to incoming and
outgoing packets should be as automated as possible for the average user.

And, yes, it is a bit too much to ask your firewall to let you inspect
the packets. 99% of the users wouldn't have a clue anyway. And if you're
competent enough to know what to look for, and have the time, then
you're going to have to invest a bit more than fifty bucks for the
privilege of doing so.

Since so many users don't even HAVE a decent software firewall
installed, this poster is at least making an attempt to protect his
system - I commend him for that!


--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

The packet filter/personal FW solution is in serious whine mode asking the
end-user unnecessary questions that the average home user just doesn't
understand.

If the user's machine was sitting behind a simple NAT router for the
protection and not running the PFW solution on the machine, none of the
ridiculous authorization questions the end-user is dealing with would be
asked.

Duane

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Gerard Schroeder wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 06:14:04 GMT, nutso fasst wrote:
>
>
>>"Gerard Schroeder" <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>How can I tell if this is suspicious or not?
>>
>>Look at your TCP/IP configuration. Isn't that your SBC DNS server?
>
>
> Using DHCP, I don't specify a DNS server so I'd have no clue if that truly
> was my DNS server ... but I maintain a list of daily requests and this is
> NOT one of them.
>
> So, why, all of a sudden, would my DNS server be contacting me, out of the
> blue. And, why, does my network still (apparently) work even though I said
> NO to the request?
>
> What would be nice is for users to post (and for experts to doublecheck)
> what they consider to be innocuous requests uninitiated by them which
> appear in their yes/no request list from Sygate.
>
> I am willing to START that list of what appears to be common innocuous
> requests (for expert review).

<Snip pointless list>

Without knowing what you were doing at the time, what applications you
need to run, how your network is configured, if you indeed have a
network and a host of other detail, there is no way of knowing. There is
no 'correct' answer.

Example:-
Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (svchost.exe)
is trying to connect to time.windows.com [207.46.130.100
using remote port 123 (NTP - Network Time Protocol).
Do you want to allow this program to access the network?

Well I might want to allow that because I want my clock to synchronise
to time.windows.com but you may not want to use that server preferring
uk.pool.ntp.org which is on a round robin DNS which will respond from a
different server each time giving rise to yet another problem and so on
and so on...

Ditch the stupid software and get a router.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Gerard Schroeder wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:56:07 -0400, Karl Levinson, mvp wrote:
>
>
>>There are ways you can research these things... however, you will get so
>>many of these alerts, and it is so fruitless to research them all
>
> ...
>
>>you should look up what the remote IP address is
>>www.nwtools.com or www.netsol.com
>
> ...
>
>>A really smart firewall would let you inspect the TCP flags and contents of
>>the incoming packet
>
>
> I thank you for your detailed suggestions summarized below as:
> 1. There exists innocent common connections reported by the firewall
> 2. We can find the NAME of the IP address contacting us for clues
> 3. The content of the incoming packet may contain clues
>
> Regarding the first interesting comment above:
> - Is there a site where all the common innocent connections are listed?
> - I searched (before I posted) and did not find one (but it may exist).
> - If not, I don't mind starting a list (in this post perhaps?).
>
> Regarding looking up the NAME of the IP address:
> - WHY would my DNS provider suddently connect (this does not happen often)?
> - I keep a list of the common contact requests & this isn't one of them.
> - I said NO to the request & I don't see negative consequences.
>
> Regarding the content of the incoming packets:
> - Sygate Personal Firewall 5.6 provides a Yes/No/Details response
> - The DETAILS button gives more information (cryptic to me, a novice).
> - Again I wonder if there is a list of known non-dangerous contacts.
>
> For we novices who still desire basic firewall protection, it would be nice
> to refer to a list of known generally non-dangerous requests to accept.

No!! Novices do not have the knowledge as you so patently demonstrate.
You need a hardware firewall like the ones built into Zyxel routers etc.
Tick the box that says enable firewall and just get on with using your
computer without all the silly pointless and misleading popups from your
software firewall.

> The particular message I posted from my DNS server does NOT happen often so
> that is what startled me.

If you had a router you would not have seen it or been startled plus you
would have been protected.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.security,comp.security.firewalls,microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Mike wrote:

>
> Ditch the stupid software and get a router.


You made a good point about the inability to give good advice on how to
respond, when we know nothing about his network or applications.

However, to tell him to trash the software firewall and rely strictly on
a router is simply bad advice.

Unless the router performs stateful packet inspection and is highly
configurable, etc., etc., etc., then the router alone will not be
providing sufficient protection.

His use of a software firewall is not unreasonable, and your advice to
get rid of it is unwise.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

null <null@planetzero.com> wrote:
> However, to tell him to trash the software firewall and rely strictly on
> a router is simply bad advice.

No. It's a very good advice. Also he could use the Windows-Firewall.

> Unless the router performs stateful packet inspection and is highly
> configurable, etc., etc., etc., then the router alone will not be
> providing sufficient protection.

The "Personal Firewalls" we tested all were terribly incompetently
implemented. I doubt, that with a "Personal Firewall" he will be secure
in any way.

> His use of a software firewall is not unreasonable, and your advice to
> get rid of it is unwise.

The opposite is true.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Gerard Schroeder <Gshroeder22031@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I thank you for your detailed suggestions summarized below as:
> 1. There exists innocent common connections reported by the firewall

Yes.

> Regarding the first interesting comment above:
> - Is there a site where all the common innocent connections are listed?

I don't know one. And I think, this will not be possible. There are
too many possibilities for these. Why using a "Personal Firewall" at all,
which is showing useless Popups?

> Regarding looking up the NAME of the IP address:
> - WHY would my DNS provider suddently connect (this does not happen often)?

There may be many reasons for this.

> Regarding the content of the incoming packets:
> - Sygate Personal Firewall 5.6 provides a Yes/No/Details response
> - The DETAILS button gives more information (cryptic to me, a novice).
> - Again I wonder if there is a list of known non-dangerous contacts.

The point is, that this is a b0rken concept to ask the only person,
who for sure does not know what to do here - you, the user.

It's OK, that not everybody is a networking expert. A good security solution
has to work _without_ asking the user.

> For we novices who still desire basic firewall protection, it would be nice
> to refer to a list of known generally non-dangerous requests to accept.

Why not using the Windows-Firewall and not having such problems?

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"