Netgear DG834 default firewall rules =?windows-1252?Q?don=92t_?==?windows-1252?Q?work?=

Dear All

Ever since I purchased my Netgear DG834 I have been unable to hide my
computer behind the Netgear. With my DG814, all ports were shown as
blocked/stelthed. How ever since I installed the DG834 some of the
ports have been showing up as closed and not blocked/stelthed.

Whilst changing the configuration on the DG834, I added an additional
block rule for all udp/tcp ports, this time with logging turned on.

To my amazement all the ports are now blocked/stelthed. This to me can
only mean that the original default rule is not functioning correctly.


Any comments any one???

Andrew

It's a Netgear, did you expect it to work 100 % ? Wait for the 5th firmware
revision...
Regards,
Martin

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:32:55 +0000, Andrew <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>
>Dear All
>
>Ever since I purchased my Netgear DG834 I have been unable to hide my
>computer behind the Netgear. With my DG814, all ports were shown as
>blocked/stelthed. How ever since I installed the DG834 some of the
>ports have been showing up as closed and not blocked/stelthed.
>
>Whilst changing the configuration on the DG834, I added an additional
>block rule for all udp/tcp ports, this time with logging turned on.
>
>To my amazement all the ports are now blocked/stelthed. This to me can
>only mean that the original default rule is not functioning correctly.
>
>
>Any comments any one???
>
>Andrew


Mmmmmm, I have had the same symptom with my DG834G except I have not
tried the setting with 'logging on'. I'll be interested in any other
responses as well......


Filthy Rich
Music House

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:32:55 +0000, Andrew <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:


>
>Whilst changing the configuration on the DG834, I added an additional
>block rule for all udp/tcp ports, this time with logging turned on.
>
>To my amazement all the ports are now blocked/stelthed. This to me can
>only mean that the original default rule is not functioning correctly.
>


Can you let me know exactly what rule you added? I have tried it but
still got the same result. You are not blocking all Outbound udp/tcp
traffic, surely????


Filthy Rich
Music House

I'm blocking all inbound TCP & UDP ports from any wan device
Basically the same as the last default rule.
Not sure if logging has anything to do with it .


Andrew


Filthy Rich wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:32:55 +0000, Andrew <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Whilst changing the configuration on the DG834, I added an additional
>>block rule for all udp/tcp ports, this time with logging turned on.
>>
>>To my amazement all the ports are now blocked/stelthed. This to me can
>>only mean that the original default rule is not functioning correctly.
>>
>
>
>
> Can you let me know exactly what rule you added? I have tried it but
> still got the same result. You are not blocking all Outbound udp/tcp
> traffic, surely????
>
>
> Filthy Rich
> Music House

Most interesting. I did the same blocking and got fully stealthed on
everything except port zero so I'm a happy bunny. Logging doesn't
seem to be relevant.....

I've experienced far more serious software bugs than this....


On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:56:20 +0000, Andrew <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I'm blocking all inbound TCP & UDP ports from any wan device
>Basically the same as the last default rule.
>Not sure if logging has anything to do with it .
>
>
>Andrew
>
>
>Filthy Rich wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:32:55 +0000, Andrew <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Whilst changing the configuration on the DG834, I added an additional
>>>block rule for all udp/tcp ports, this time with logging turned on.
>>>
>>>To my amazement all the ports are now blocked/stelthed. This to me can
>>>only mean that the original default rule is not functioning correctly.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you let me know exactly what rule you added? I have tried it but
>> still got the same result. You are not blocking all Outbound udp/tcp
>> traffic, surely????
>>
>>
>> Filthy Rich
>> Music House

Filthy Rich
Music House

Probably not relevant, but Netgear have just posted an firmware flash.

MK





On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:18:26 +0000, Filthy Rich
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Most interesting. I did the same blocking and got fully stealthed on
>everything except port zero so I'm a happy bunny. Logging doesn't
>seem to be relevant.....
>
>I've experienced far more serious software bugs than this....
>
>
>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:56:20 +0000, Andrew <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm blocking all inbound TCP & UDP ports from any wan device
>>Basically the same as the last default rule.
>>Not sure if logging has anything to do with it .
>>
>>
>>Andrew
>>
>>
>>Filthy Rich wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:32:55 +0000, Andrew <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Whilst changing the configuration on the DG834, I added an additional
>>>>block rule for all udp/tcp ports, this time with logging turned on.
>>>>
>>>>To my amazement all the ports are now blocked/stelthed. This to me can
>>>>only mean that the original default rule is not functioning correctly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you let me know exactly what rule you added? I have tried it but
>>> still got the same result. You are not blocking all Outbound udp/tcp
>>> traffic, surely????
>>>
>>>
>>> Filthy Rich
>>> Music House
>
>Filthy Rich
>Music House

__________________________________________________ _____________________
Michael Kenward Words for sale

>Probably not relevant, but Netgear have just posted an firmware flash.

Yawn. They do it as often as M$ fixes another IE vulnerability.
As always they test the stuff on punters.
I will never buy any Netgear.
Regards,
Martin

"Martin²" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: As always they test the stuff on punters.
: I will never buy any Netgear.

Whereas I, like many people, have have 100% postive experiences with both
my Netgear routers and would recommend them to anyone!

On 14 Dec 2003, Brian McIlwrath <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>have have 100% postive experiences with both my Netgear routers

and of two DG814s I use/access, one works and one failed (ADSL modem
side - made line appear engaged all the time, never got in sync) so I
would be less enthusiastic, especially as there are plenty of others
from which to choose (I've been very happy with cheaper ones :-) PM