Router configuration for security?

[Concerned User]

Sigh!

My router was not working and I had it replaced by a new one.

Did a shields up test and this is what I got:

Solicited TCP Packets: RECEIVED (FAILED) — As detailed in the port report below, one or more of your system's ports actively responded to our deliberate attempts to establish a connection. It is generally possible to increase your system's security by hiding it from the probes of potentially hostile hackers. Please see the details presented by the specific port links below, as well as the various resources on this site, and in our extremely helpful and active user community.

The PC flank test results:

TCP "ping" non-stealthed
TCP NULL non-stealthed
TCP FIN non-stealthed
TCP XMAS non-stealthed
UDP stealthed



I'm using the firewall from Comodo and the network security policy is custom.

I'm guessing that the shields up and PC flank tests are saying that some ports maybe open through my router? (I'm only guessing)

On another note, guess I have no need to be completely paranoid right?

I always made screenshots of my previous router settings. Unfortunately, this router is completely new and the old settings are well useless.....

Any help would be appreciated! thanks!

Edit:

GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2011-01-03 at 06:32:11

Results from scan of ports: 0, 21-23, 25, 79, 80, 110, 113,
119, 135, 139, 143, 389, 443, 445,
1002, 1024-1030, 1720, 5000

0 Ports Open
13 Ports Closed
13 Ports Stealth
---------------------
26 Ports Tested

NO PORTS were found to be OPEN.

Ports found to be CLOSED were: 0, 21, 22, 23, 79, 80, 110, 113,
119, 143, 389, 443, 1002

Other than what is listed above, all ports are STEALTH.

TruStealth: FAILED - NOT all tested ports were STEALTH,
- NO unsolicited packets were received,
- NO Ping reply (ICMP Echo) was received.

Using Windows XP SP 3 with comodo firewall and MSE

[MidnightCowboy]

Depending on your own point of view, having read this you might not be too bothered

http://www.hansenonline.net/Networking/stealth.html

[wdhpr]

Originally Posted by MidnightCowboy

Depending on your own point of view, having read this you might not be too bothered

http://www.hansenonline.net/Networking/stealth.html

This is the very first time I read this and if I may say I am left with a sense of bewilderment. It make my eyes bleed to see this kind of thing .

Has things become so complicated that it has steeped the general population in such a high state of paranoia? With no iron clad safeguard short of highly skilled technicians to run our personal security. Or those that truly understand how to use Comodo to its full potential
Yes some common sense precautions go a long way.
But it begs the question. Does this sort of thing make all average Window users with even small networks vulnerable?

I have read many of your security threads MC and I just can't figure out why Microsoft has not come up with a more secure OS even if it means it has to start from scratch. Based on your link even Linux users are vulnerable to being seen. I hope the difference that keeps Linux systems safer is the permissions hierarchy. Which from what I've seen windows have been trying to implement since XP.

Wdhpr

[Ritho]

Originally Posted by MidnightCowboy

Depending on your own point of view, having read this you might not be too bothered

http://www.hansenonline.net/Networking/stealth.html

I asked for the "expert" opinions over at Wilders about the above article.

Here is my thread http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=290187

And here are two older threads that are referenced. http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=12543

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=216892

Their worth a read I think.

[wdhpr]

I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the closed versus stealth mode. Although the links Ritho provided helps. Its a lot to comprehend.

I have a 2 to 3 computers using my router Depending on who's home.
I use a cisco router which is locked with weps security that uses a rather long password If I understand things properly this will prevent unauthorized people from getting on and using my router. But this has nothing to do with closed or stealth ports. Is this correct?

Wdhpr

[MidnightCowboy]

Life is all about choices, it's just making them that's the difficult part

It's the same with the article I posted a while back which stated that realtime protection for Windows was just as irrelevant as it is for Linux. These are all opinions, expressed with heart felt passion by those making them.

I think the issue with hackers is that folks still envisage some spotty adolescent sitting in his bedroom with a laptop trying to break into your PC. In reality most of this is being done by automated bots who scan thousands of IP addresses to a pattern irrespective of whether they are stealthed, closed or open.

Through it all, your mouse remains the most potent protection you can ever have.
"A Click Too Far" would be a great film to make

[Concerned User]

Thanks Midnight Cowboy! I feel better already

[Concerned User]

Sorry to bump my own post!

There is a "firewall" option in my router. If that is enabled, the GRC test says that I have "passed" the test . Enabling the firewall option did not affect my normal browsing set up. We do live in a strange world

Your system has achieved a perfect "TruStealth" rating. Not a single packet — solicited or otherwise — was received from your system as a result of our security probing tests. Your system ignored and refused to reply to repeated Pings (ICMP Echo Requests). From the standpoint of the passing probes of any hacker, this machine does not exist on the Internet. Some questionable personal security systems expose their users by attempting to "counter-probe the prober", thus revealing themselves. But your system wisely remained silent in every way. Very nice.