Hi. Recently installed Comodo 2.3.6.81, tried it out on https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 (ShieldsUp) (passed) and just now on https://www.hackerwhacker.com/quickscan.php and am still waiting for the results. Been over 15min. What the page shows is a very large list of ports probed, and near the bottom in the orange bar "Scan results for##" and underneath that, "probing " then nothing, then an icon legend, then the scary ads. (you NEED evidence eliminator/Zonealarm, words to that effect..etc). Compared with the sample report on a demo page, which showed a badly compromised system, there's nothing there. I would at least have expected something saying "Clean" or "This vulnerability blah blah". Anyone know this test/know if this is normal?
Testet with Opera; regarding to my FW this site is scanning nothing its a total fake Using IE i am getting a lot of warning message about unsecure element. Canceled.....
Sorry, Tommy, not up with the terminology: whats a testet, and what is FW? Don't have Opera. The test gave me no warnings at all specific to my PC, just generalities that would apply to any setup that's not well secured.
Sorry for my english. I used Opera and IE to test the page. Regarding to my Firewall (FW) this page is scanning _nothing_. It's a fake.
Ah. Gotcha. And yet it's part of the sticky here. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=142036 I'm surprised Wilders would reference it in a sticky if it didn't have some cred.
I had a closer look at the page and if you go http://omicron.hackerwhacker.com/nmapsample.php it says _sample report_, so _no_ real sacnning. If you go: https://whacker7.hackerwhacker.com/quickscan.php it's at least not scanning in my case...strange. Also the IP which is shown (Scan Results for IP Address 135-148-114-200) is reverse to myn. Seams the page is mixed up. But i am still astonished and kind of worried about the alert messages i get with IE.
With mine it got the address right, the firewall logged blocking a ddos attack, and, yeah, IE lets a lot of info out from any stored cookies. (in it's default config.)
That means you've got few or no open ports. It doesn't mean your system is "clean" by any stretch of the imagination though - port scans can only provide a guide to your "online visibility" so HackerWhacker is quite right to limit itself to providing details of open ports only. I've just checked it and it isn't fake at all. If you have a router firewall though you won't see anything since it will block all the connections before they reach your PC. The Online Scans - What to do with Open and Closed Ports thread provides details of how to work around this. No, that's normal - the IP address is listed this way for Reverse DNS Lookups. Normal again, IE will alert on pages which contain both http and https content. The HackerWhacker page does actually warn you of this:
Just got an email back from hackerwhacker support. The guts of it is, that their presentation of a "pass" is just as I described (ie: no actual words that say "passed" or "stealthed" or whatever,) and they actually thanked me for bringing this deficiency to their attention. (So it did pass.All ports stealthed.) Be interesting to see if it changes in a week or 4.
I don't think Hackerwhacker is trustful. At the end of the "test" it recommends ZA Free, but the link given point to www.qksrv.net Here you will get a tracking cookie according to the host file I got from hostsecure. So be careful.
OK, thanks. I did think the advertising was pretty scaremongerey/in your face and bordering on deceptive.. Probably will try them again in a few weeks just to see if anything's changed. Shields Up tells me what I want to know at the level I understand, anyway.
ZA Free is a reasonable recommendation for new users - it is as simple as a firewall can get and while it has its downsides, it provides a good introduction before people move onto more comprehensive products. As for linking via qksrv - yes, this is undesireable for privacy purposes but this is also common behaviour with search and pricing engines. Such items can be blocked and it would seem better to advise people to block them across the board rather than just boycott sites that otherwise provide a useful service. If you find the advertising objectionable, by all means let them know - in many cases sites may not be aware of what ads are being served if they are being handled by a third party.
