[BBLISA] Question about Network analysis tools

[Eric Smith]

     Personally, my general complain about the site is the language and 
its ability to seem like it was testing lots of ports when it never said 
what it was testing (and from that writeup it tested very little.)  If I 
had BackOrifice on my system, I expected the first version I saw of 
Shields Up! to detect it.  That is how it presents itself.  Assuming 
that article was correct, it wouldn't.  Misrepresentation in the area of 
computer security is really bad.
     From your comment below Shields Up! has changed, so I went back to 
the site and looked again.  Happily, the site has been expanded 
substantially, both in wording and functionality.  I still dislike some 
of the writing style and tone on that web site, but at first look it 
seems to actually do something more along the lines of what it talks 
about doing.  It no longer says something to the effect of "I am going 
to scan your computer for open ports" and then only check the ports 
having to do with windows file shares.  That was just wrong and made you 
feel safe when you actually don't know if you were.

     Eric


Douglas Alan wrote:

> Dean Anderson <dean at av8.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I haven't used Shield's Up, but whether it scans 10 ports or the whole
>>range probably doesn't matter for most pc users. They only have a small
>>number to worry about on these M$ machines.  Obviously, if you are
>>offering a remote scanning service, you would want to limit the bandwidth
>>consumed, and if 10 ports will do the job you want, then its worth it to
>>do only 10. But of course, that tends to limit the utility of Shield's Up.  
>>Probably, Shield's Up isn't going to be suitable for anyone on this list.
> 
> 
> Shield's Up has an option to scan the first 1056 ports on your computer,
> and it presents the results in a graphically pleasing manner.  Some
> people complain that it is not perfectly reliable since packets may get
> lost on the way from it to you or vice versa, and this can cause it to
> show open ports as closed or "stealth".  Well, duh!
> 
> |>oug
>