Personally, my general complain about the site is the language and its ability to seem like it was testing lots of ports when it never said what it was testing (and from that writeup it tested very little.) If I had BackOrifice on my system, I expected the first version I saw of Shields Up! to detect it. That is how it presents itself. Assuming that article was correct, it wouldn't. Misrepresentation in the area of computer security is really bad.
From your comment below Shields Up! has changed, so I went back to the site and looked again. Happily, the site has been expanded substantially, both in wording and functionality. I still dislike some of the writing style and tone on that web site, but at first look it seems to actually do something more along the lines of what it talks about doing. It no longer says something to the effect of "I am going to scan your computer for open ports" and then only check the ports having to do with windows file shares. That was just wrong and made you feel safe when you actually don't know if you were.


Eric


Douglas Alan wrote:


Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I haven't used Shield's Up, but whether it scans 10 ports or the whole
range probably doesn't matter for most pc users. They only have a small
number to worry about on these M$ machines. Obviously, if you are
offering a remote scanning service, you would want to limit the bandwidth
consumed, and if 10 ports will do the job you want, then its worth it to
do only 10. But of course, that tends to limit the utility of Shield's Up. Probably, Shield's Up isn't going to be suitable for anyone on this list.


Shield's Up has an option to scan the first 1056 ports on your computer,
and it presents the results in a graphically pleasing manner.  Some
people complain that it is not perfectly reliable since packets may get
lost on the way from it to you or vice versa, and this can cause it to
show open ports as closed or "stealth".  Well, duh!

|>oug


_______________________________________________ bblisa mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa

Reply via email to