Should My 'Puter Not Respond To -Ping- For Tighter Security?

[Susan]

Symantec's online Security Scan reveals one apparent fault that might have
a correction? I'm posting this here because it is likely something Windows
XP controls or configures.

Here is the security risk:

"ICMP Ping. Ping is a network troubleshooting utility. It asks your
computer to acknowledge its existence. If your computer responds positively
to a ping, hackers are more likely to target your computer."

Symantec's security scan gives me a red mark for the above with only the
explanation I have quoted. I'm not sure that anything can be done about
this or that it needs to be fixed--that's why I am asking. What are the
pros and cons of tightening up this Ping business and getting a green check
mark by Security Scan?

I searched on Ping and found a number of file entries in the computer but
I've never needed to configure it. Also, I don't want to do anything
blindly stupid like managing to foul up my cable Internet connectivity to
where nothing works.

Thanks for the help or remarks on this.

Susan

 

[GHalleck]

Symantec's online Security Scan reveals one apparent fault that might have
a correction? I'm posting this here because it is likely something Windows
XP controls or configures.

Here is the security risk:

"ICMP Ping. Ping is a network troubleshooting utility. It asks your
computer to acknowledge its existence. If your computer responds positively
to a ping, hackers are more likely to target your computer."

Symantec's security scan gives me a red mark for the above with only the
explanation I have quoted. I'm not sure that anything can be done about
this or that it needs to be fixed--that's why I am asking. What are the
pros and cons of tightening up this Ping business and getting a green check
mark by Security Scan?

I searched on Ping and found a number of file entries in the computer but
I've never needed to configure it. Also, I don't want to do anything
blindly stupid like managing to foul up my cable Internet connectivity to
where nothing works.

Thanks for the help or remarks on this.

Susan

A firewall should block the incoming "ping" query from a
remote system. All it sees is a "timed out" message. It may
or may not be problematical, depending on how an ISP may
use it to keep a connection alive. Generally, it should not
be an issue with cable Internet connections.

 

[Plato]

Symantec's online Security Scan reveals one apparent fault that might have
a correction? I'm posting this here because it is likely something Windows
XP controls or configures.

They are just trying to alarm you to sell a product. Run a firewall and
dont worry about pings.

 

[Og]

Besides being a network troubleshooting utility, Ping is a brand of golf
club.
Some people (myself included) feel that swatting a Symantec product with a
Ping golf club is much more satisfying than is having a Symantec product
installed on their PC.

steve

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

Hi Susan,

Lets put it this way: If you don't answer the door when someone rings the
bell, does that mean the house is not there? The point is that if your
system doesn't respond to a ping, but rather "times out", it still indicates
that there is a system there, it just isn't acknowledging the ping - just
like you turning out the lights and not answering the door when the pesky
neighbor is around - you're not responding but you're still there. A
time-out is almost as good an indicator as an acknowledgement. Symantec,
like many others, is going overboard into scaring consumers about there
being an issue when there really isn't. Run a firewall, either the native
WinXP one or a third-party one, and it won't matter whether or not someone
can ping your machine.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Susan]

time-out is almost as good an indicator as an acknowledgement. Symantec,
like many others, is going overboard into scaring consumers about there
being an issue when there really isn't. Run a firewall, either the native
WinXP one or a third-party one, and it won't matter whether or not someone
can ping your machine.

I suppose that if I bought and ran Symantec's Firewall program that this
Ping business would test green instead of red even though it would really
be acknowledging Pings too?

I do run a native firewall in my router that I can't turn off but which
seems to be upstream of XP's Security Center far enough that it doesn't
care. I also run Symantec's SystemWorks and discover that when its Norton
AntiVirus Internet Worm Protection is enabled that Security Center sees it
and XP's Firewall both running and suggests there could be conflicts and to
turn one off.

I turn XP's Firewall off and have been running this way for some time.

I turned XP's Firewall back on last night and ran Symantec's Security Check
again and Ping still checks red. Of course, if I turn off Internet Worm
Protection in Norton AntiVirus and turn on XP's Firewall Symantec doesn't
see XP's Firewall and objects to its worm protection being turned off. I
wonder why XP's Security Center is happy accepting Symantec's Internet Worm
Protection as an adequate Firewall? Is it adequate? I think so since I
have the router firewall and since Ping is the only thing that Security
Check sees red?

I take it that everyone's Ping is "red" and not "green" and that if it was
"green" our Internet connectivity would be crippled?

Thanks.

Susan

 

[Kawosa]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

I suppose that if I bought and ran Symantec's Firewall program that
this Ping business would test green instead of red even though it
would really be acknowledging Pings too?

I do run a native firewall in my router that I can't turn off but
which seems to be upstream of XP's Security Center far enough that it
doesn't care. I also run Symantec's SystemWorks and discover that
when its Norton AntiVirus Internet Worm Protection is enabled that
Security Center sees it and XP's Firewall both running and suggests
there could be conflicts and to turn one off.

I turn XP's Firewall off and have been running this way for some time.

I turned XP's Firewall back on last night and ran Symantec's Security
Check again and Ping still checks red. Of course, if I turn off
Internet Worm Protection in Norton AntiVirus and turn on XP's Firewall
Symantec doesn't see XP's Firewall and objects to its worm protection
being turned off. I wonder why XP's Security Center is happy
accepting Symantec's Internet Worm Protection as an adequate Firewall?
Is it adequate? I think so since I have the router firewall and
since Ping is the only thing that Security Check sees red?

I take it that everyone's Ping is "red" and not "green" and that if it
was "green" our Internet connectivity would be crippled?

Thanks.

Susan

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
Total Privacy via Encryption =----

It's somewhat like sunbathing in the buff. As long as you aren't seen
everything is fine.
Accepting a ping is not a problem, however, none response to a ping
request is considered "Stealth" in the net world. Your dilemma sounds as
though it is created by Norton for Norton and about Norton. If your
pooter does not respond to non-requested pings then it is much more
difficult for the hack bots to find you and probe your ports for easy
access. A trip to the web site "Shields Up" will quickly give you some
idea of how naked you are on the net and how many ports are exposed. Run
their tests and read the explanations. You will soon learn to be more
stealthily protected.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0605-5, 02/03/2006
Tested on: 2/4/2006 2:46:29 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com