Forum Overview :: Motherfucking News :: Re: Odds are it's not enabled anyway ..

[quote name="Ice Cream Jonsey"]First, let me say thanks to everyone. <strike>Lt. Saavik</strike> Barbie, <strike>you go right on quoting regulation</strike> I appreciate the depth in that post of yours. After I hit submit on mine, I did sort of reason out that a connection with ICQ itself would be a way of bypassing the unrequested packet problem, but that was great information and a lot more specific than I thought I'd otherwise encounter. Thanks. [quote name="bastage"]If he's got a few systems behind the Linksys then it's probably NAT'ing for him in the first place, and if that's the case then the only way an 'external' system could contact one of the clients behind the Linksys would be if he specically set it up to forward the traffic inbound. (And based on what I've read so far I doubt he did.)[/quote] This would appear to be the case. It appears that I do need to specifically set 135 up, according to what I see in the firmware for the router. Additionally, when I go here: <a href="http://secur1ty.net/">http://secur1ty.net/</a> and do the web-based port scanner, I get no response to everything except for port 113 (which comes back as closed). Hear you on the BSD PC acting as a firewall as well, SB. It's something I'd like to setup myself one of these days, but usually when I get enough equipment kicking about to form a new PC I slap something else on it ("Ooh, ooh, you're now the <i>CD burning</i> PC! Ooh, you're now the browsing PC I'll put in the kitchen, or bathroom, or water heater closet," etc.) the dark and gritty...Ice Cream Jonsey![/quote]