Free 180 days: FortKnox Personal Firewall

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by J_L, Jun 30, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses

    The mind boggles Stem!

    A FW with an inbound users can't block with a rule if they knew?

    Could they block it with a rule now they know?
     
  2. majoMo

    majoMo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Posts:
    993
    Both 113 and 8215 ports are in stealth status here.

    :doubt:
     
  3. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK

    Are you behind a router?


    - Stem
     
  4. majoMo

    majoMo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Posts:
    993
    YES, I forgot that... :D

    Thanks.
     
  5. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    No problem.

    Thanks.


    - Stem
     
  6. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    Not by user rule no. The only way to block it (that I have found within the firewall) is to "Block all".
    It must be related to the "Enable site control system" -> "Filtering proxy server port" which is set to that port, but cannot find info relating to that, or find any change by changing the port setting.

    I have sent an e-mail to FK support concerning this. Lets see if I get a reply.


    - Stem
     
  7. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses

    While we wait, let me ask you 3 questions?

    1. Do you think/believe/know that since one 3rd party FW has this issue of such a hard coded rule
      that it is know/suspect that other vendors (names excluded) do the same thing?
    2. How do we find out if our 3rd party FW's do this? Clearly we could just ask them but that doesn't seem a step that would led to clarity.
    3. I would rather find out which ones DON"T do this hard coding thing a sort of white list of FW's. Is that practical?
     
  8. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    Hi Escalader,

    1:- It is not something I normally see (hard_coded rule for inbound). I have seen some security products with an option for alerts, that do open a port for that inbound, but it is usually filtered via IP for security reasons, and the option can be turned off, which then closes the port.

    2:- A 3rd party app such as cports or tcpview should show any ports being listened to.
    When I check firewalls, I also run full external scans on all ports (0-65535)

    3:- Probably not.


    - Stem
     
  9. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    I had a reply concerning port 8215, stating the port is used internally for HTTP filtering. Well yes, I have seen the setting for that, but the reply did not actually answer the question as to why it is showing as open and allowing unsolicited inbound connections.
    I have asked again. Maybe the "Accepting unsolicited inbound connections" in my e-mail was not clear enough the first time around.


    - Stem
     
  10. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    update for port 8215:

    Well, I am getting nowhere with the e-mails up to now. I am now on number 4 sent.

    The replies up to now are putting forward:- It is a local proxy port used internally only, and that it only looks like inbound is allowed but it is only local.

    Of course, that is, well, not correct, certainly not on my setup and the tests I have made. The port is open and allowing unsolicited inbound connections from any remote IP.
    There is little point my running around in circles trying to explain a problem that is being simply brushed aside with incorrect statements (really, I should be used to it with the many times I have contacted vendors)


    - Stem
     
  11. blasev

    blasev Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Posts:
    763
    thx for the info, I'll stay with LnS :D
     
  12. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,979
    Re - hard coded rule for inbound port 8215

    Backdoor ?

    Or would that be seen as a possible conspiracy theory, by "some" :p
     
  13. cm1971

    cm1971 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Posts:
    727
    It wouldn't be the first time a security company was involved in shady practices.
     
  14. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    More of an "open front door"

    If a vendor wants a back_door, they would (and certainly could) make it less conspicuous.

    Have just received a reply to my last e-mail, and they now state that they will put it on their "todo" list, to see if they can stealth it against inbound connections.

    Oh well, could be a possible fix, but could just as well be a fob-off to stop me bugging them.


    - Stem
     
  15. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,979
    Originally Posted by Stem

    I guess so :D

    I'll put my $ on that ;)
     
  16. zip

    zip Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Posts:
    359
    Location:
    Mars
    FortKnox fails Shields Up, port 113 isn't stealth, shows up as closed.

    Oops! Awhile back I reset my router and forgot to stealth port 113 in my

    router. By default my router closes port 113.:oops:
     
  17. guest

    guest Guest

    Well I was running FK
    but now I went back to Look n Stop
    think I will just stay with it
    I have not found any better firewall

    If you really want this baby to shine get the Phant0m Custom Ruleset Deluxe

    well worth the small amount he is asking
     
  18. ruinebabine

    ruinebabine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Posts:
    1,097
    Location:
    QC
    well said :thumb:
     
  19. AaLF

    AaLF Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Posts:
    986
    Location:
    Sydney
    This FortKnox FW thread goes back to July 2011. Now that plenty have actually taken it for a drive what's your opinion in hindsight?

    What other FWs does it equal or excel over?
    What FWs in your opinion does it trail behind?

    Myself, excluding LnS I think FortKnox is in the next-best category. Although I don't really know how it works under the hood. I think Stem fired a couple of tech-savvy bullets into it, but for me it just runs smooth & light, handles nice and looks smart on my XP sp3.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2011
  20. kewljerk

    kewljerk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Posts:
    11
    Did Fort Knox ever resolve this Open Port issue?

    Cause at the moment they have a 70% off
    sale over at Bitsdujour, and if the Firewall itself
    is not a security hole, this would be a nice BUY
    for personal use and gifting.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.