Having another brain FW rules fuzzy attack

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by Escalader, Oct 26, 2008.

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

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    Hi Stem et al:

    From the FW sticky forums see:

    I use Dhcp as I have a DSL/Cable with shared router and have disabled DNS. This works fine. But I have questions:

    With my current FW I took this sticky port advice and tried to implement it. How? I have failed so far to achieve this!:oops:

    How do I create a rule allowing svchost.exe -k netsvcs UDP local port 68? if their is no way to put a local port in a rule? Does local imply incoming packet direction?

    How do I create another rule allowing
    svchost.exe -k netsvcs remote port 67? Does remote imply outgoing packet direction?

    If these rules can be created then what is not specifically allowed will be denied, right?

    On any restricted port list should/how should/can users work these 67/68's in some way to advance PC security?


     
  2. act8192

    act8192 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,273
    Is this CrazyM tutorial not sufficient?
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=4413

    What do you mean can't put local host port in the firewall? Ditch the firewall if can't.

    allow udp both directions from/to 67 and 68 for svchost is a simple way.
    Allow udp out to broadcast:67 and allow udp in/out from dhcp server:67 to local:68 for svchost is best I think, but I'm no expert in these issues.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Overkill
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    728
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.