They could do nothing as well. It was just a side-effect that in some cases it behaves in firewall-ish manner. NAT is not a proper firewall.
Ports locked by Chome: Code: 69, 137, 161, 554, 1719, 1720, 1723, 5060, 5061, 6566. I checked if New Moon 28 has also implemented this port sequence. Unfortunately, port 69 was not blocked. So I blocked it: Many thanks to: @nicolaasjan for pointing out my mistake P.S. I recommend W. members using Chrome-based browsers to check if port lock 10080 is active,and who uses Firefox-based browsers to check if blocking for port 69 is active. And in case you enable its blocking.
With Firefox-based browsers it is possible to enable ports that are disabled but also disable enabled ports: Block a port: Code: about:config new string network.security.ports.banned Unblock a port: Code: about:config new string network.security.ports.banned.override With Chrome-based browsers it seems to me that it is only possible to enable ports: Code: --explicitly-allowed-ports=69,137 Of course, it is necessary to check if the flag actually works. P.S. If any member of W. knows a method for blocking a port that is currently enabled in Chrome I would be interested in knowing it.
Windows Firewall can deny packet flow based on destination TCP/UDP ports and process executable path.
TH. If you want to test, port 10080 is enabled in Chrome (Also in Edge Chromium and probably all other Chrome-based browsers). https://example.com:10080/
Blocked by default-deny policy in Linux. Code: [UFW BLOCK] IN= OUT=wlp5s0 SRC=192.168.1.68 DST=93.184.216.34 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=26755 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=42570 DPT=10080 WINDOW=64240 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Windows as well using WFC interface. I don't know if the port is enabled in Ungoogled-chromium but I don't care either, as the firewall takes care of this.
