Re: failed shields up test
- From: Paul J Gans <gans@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:53:34 +0000 (UTC)
Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I can see how that test might have a point on Windows systems. Well,
strike that, actually I think it doesn't have a real point for any
system, excect some very old Windows XP systems with no service pack
installed. For a recent Linux grc.com has nothing relevant to offer.
Their "results" are simply meant to make you feel good but are
irrelevant. Responding to pings is normal and there's no point in not
responding to them. It can also cause problems.
So IMO, there's nothing to solve since everything is in order and working.
I think this is a matter of philosophy. I have another view,
which, you understand, does not mean that yours is wrong.
My belief is that thousands of guys trying to break into machines
do not waste their time on machines that are powered down. They
are *VERY* hard to break into.
So, my theory is, don't let them know you are there.
On the other hand, I myself don't follow this advice. I have
two machines in my office that I check from home to see if they
are "on" by pinging them.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: failed shields up test
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: failed shields up test
- From: Nikos Chantziaras
- Re: failed shields up test
- References:
- failed shields up test
- From: Derk
- Re: failed shields up test
- From: Nikos Chantziaras
- failed shields up test
- Prev by Date: Re: dependency hell
- Next by Date: Re: dependency hell
- Previous by thread: Re: failed shields up test
- Next by thread: Re: failed shields up test
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|