Does anyone know how to config ICQ to allow file tranfers??? I am running XP with it's firewalls in place. I hace selected the setting in ICQ for using a firewall - but it asks it u are using a proxy...and if so what type.......I'm lost!!!
ICQ/NTL/Firewall
- Thread starter andy24
- Start date
I
Igorian
ICQ needs access to port 5190 TCP (bi-directional) for logging into the server and also access to a listening port within the range 1024-65535.
You have several choices.
1) Read this article http://www.winplanet.com/article/1903-.htm and then configure XP.
or
2) Turn off ICF and download a copy of zone alarm from http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/catalog/products/sku_list_za.jsp?lid=home_zainfo
Zone Alarm should detect your attempt at a file tranfer and ask if you want to allow it. You can then open the ports (for a one off transfer or permanently).
or
3) Turn off ICF when you want to send files (turn it back on when done).
Personally, I would go for option 2.
Regards
Ig.
You have several choices.
1) Read this article http://www.winplanet.com/article/1903-.htm and then configure XP.
or
2) Turn off ICF and download a copy of zone alarm from http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/catalog/products/sku_list_za.jsp?lid=home_zainfo
Zone Alarm should detect your attempt at a file tranfer and ask if you want to allow it. You can then open the ports (for a one off transfer or permanently).
or
3) Turn off ICF when you want to send files (turn it back on when done).
Personally, I would go for option 2.
Regards
Ig.
Note "ICF" stands for Internet Connection Firewall - always explain your abbreviations or people won't understand you!
ICF is the built-in firewall that you get with Windows XP, that you should never turn on as it is the most useless firewall ever devised.
As Igorian suggested, try a third party firewall, this will give you (amongst other things) the capability to allow specific ports and block others.
ICF is the built-in firewall that you get with Windows XP, that you should never turn on as it is the most useless firewall ever devised.
As Igorian suggested, try a third party firewall, this will give you (amongst other things) the capability to allow specific ports and block others.
I
Igorian
Point taken ok (okay) 
Back in my early mainframe programming days (during the war...) One of my tutors said he never put comments into programs. The point being, if it was difficult for the programmer to write (no point and click stuff then), it should be difficult for anyone else to understand. I think he taught Bill Gates too!
Back in my early mainframe programming days (during the war...) One of my tutors said he never put comments into programs. The point being, if it was difficult for the programmer to write (no point and click stuff then), it should be difficult for anyone else to understand. I think he taught Bill Gates too!
My old programming lecturer insisted on remarks in source code, but it was more difficult to decide where to remark than to write the programme in the first place! He would get irate (and hence rather tight with marks) if he felt the remarks were patronising.
"I don't want YOU trying to teach me programming, mathematics or physics!" he would tell us.
Nice chap, though often misunderstood.
"I don't want YOU trying to teach me programming, mathematics or physics!" he would tell us.
Nice chap, though often misunderstood.It is now allowing me to transfer but seems to be limiting the bandwidth. I am transfering to my brother, I have a 600k connection - and he has 200k - only seem to get approx 15k/sec. I would normall ydoenload at approx 70k/s and he would at 30k/sec. Any idea's why this is happenig?
I can tell you exactly why that is.
Check out this http://www.ntlhome.com/ntl_internet/broadband.asp
Click on the bit labelled "Click here to check out our upload and download speeds."
As you can see, your connection has an upload speed of 128kbps. This is 16kbytes/sec.
This is what is known as an asymmetric connection: the upload speed is not equal (symmetric) to the download speed. Reason they do this is because usually domestic users don't care so much about upload speed.
If you go for the 1mbit ntl you will get a 256kbps upload. Or if you go for an ADSL offering you will get a 288kbps upload (or possibly more if you go for the 1mbps+ offerings).
Check out this http://www.ntlhome.com/ntl_internet/broadband.asp
Click on the bit labelled "Click here to check out our upload and download speeds."
As you can see, your connection has an upload speed of 128kbps. This is 16kbytes/sec.
This is what is known as an asymmetric connection: the upload speed is not equal (symmetric) to the download speed. Reason they do this is because usually domestic users don't care so much about upload speed.
If you go for the 1mbit ntl you will get a 256kbps upload. Or if you go for an ADSL offering you will get a 288kbps upload (or possibly more if you go for the 1mbps+ offerings).
2
2scoops0406
Why do you say ICF is no good? OK it's a software firewall, but pretty good for a "freebie" in my opinion. I don't think most people could run to using Checkpoint one! (which if anyone is interested is a hardware dedicated firewall, and very expensive)
I
Igorian
Eddie M said:
It's more that it is not particularly user friendly. Some people don't even know how to turn it on/off, let alone configure it.
Eddie M said:
Because it is cr*p!
Igorian said:
You can configure it?!
To be honest I have never done anything with it other than uncheck the box.I read that XP SP2 will have a much better firewall built in, more configurable.
You can't rely entirely on hardware firewalls or the fact you are behind a router. I still get warnings that some script-kiddie has tried to scan me with his latest download from www.i-reckon-i-am-a-hacker.com.
Of course, in order to run any of the lame tools they favour, you can't really be using anything in the way of anti-virus or firewall software as it will go gaga at them installing what will be interpreted as an attack. So, they are very much open to attack and will get scripted themselves.
Kinda like going deer-hunting wearing a deer suit with a big bullseye painted on you.Is it not true that ICF attempts to protect against incoming threats but not out going information / data ?
The recent M$ security upgrades were delivered, quite a while after the 'holes' were found.
The vulnerability could have been exploited already !!
A decent test from here http://grc.com/default.htm Look down the page for 'ShieldsUp' and 'LeakTest' .
There is a similar online test at 'Symantech (Norton)' But this leaves a little more on your machine ... which, apparently, can be a little iffy !
Another neat on-line test :- http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/BrowserSecurity/ Apparently quite well thought of ... perhaps our IT guys know differently ?
P
The recent M$ security upgrades were delivered, quite a while after the 'holes' were found.
The vulnerability could have been exploited already !!
A decent test from here http://grc.com/default.htm Look down the page for 'ShieldsUp' and 'LeakTest' .
There is a similar online test at 'Symantech (Norton)' But this leaves a little more on your machine ... which, apparently, can be a little iffy !
Another neat on-line test :- http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/BrowserSecurity/ Apparently quite well thought of ... perhaps our IT guys know differently ?
P
I
Igorian
AdamW said:
A hardware firewall, if set-up correctly, will provide better protection than a software one. Network Address Translation (NAT), although not primarily a firewall, provides firewall capabilities because it only allows traffic in if there is a matching outgoing request, or if you have used port forwarding. However, it will respond to pings and portscans, so an attacker will know you are there.
Most firewall software will block most incoming ports by default and leave outgoing ports open (some don't block them all). This can be a problem if a trojen server is already running because it can send packets which can then be replied to.
The latest way of getting stuff in is to attach a trojen object to a webpage together with a script. When you download the page into cache (ie, you let it in), the script can run and install the trojen, which starts a server and attempts to contact it's mummy. Hence the need to restrict scripts from running.
Just anothr game of cat & mouse really.
It is a pain, allowing then disallowing scripts.
I have ZA pro and have to juggle a bit if wanting to download a prog file for example.
It is interesting that having set Za to 'ask' for permission to allow certain progs to access the net ... Just how many 'components' being mainly .ocx and .dll files utilised by the programs require access.
Tis a minefield at best !!
Strange how, it would appear, the stuff which has exploited the general user of late, only seems, as an example, to hi-jack the browser .... Is worse being carried out that we cannot normally see ?
P
I have ZA pro and have to juggle a bit if wanting to download a prog file for example.
It is interesting that having set Za to 'ask' for permission to allow certain progs to access the net ... Just how many 'components' being mainly .ocx and .dll files utilised by the programs require access.
Tis a minefield at best !!
Strange how, it would appear, the stuff which has exploited the general user of late, only seems, as an example, to hi-jack the browser .... Is worse being carried out that we cannot normally see ?
P