Bookmark and Share

Author Topic: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?  (Read 5562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trpted

  • PcWinTech Guru
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Karma: 37
Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports, besides:

a) Your tool requires less steps.

b) Your tool is portable (no install is needed).

c) Using my method, one must secure the program against attack.

??

Thanks

Quote
#1 I downloaded and installed Wireshark.

#2 As need be, I secure it.

For example, I point to

http://steve.kargs.net/bacnet/wireshark-on-ubuntu-not-as-root/

#3 I started sniffing the traffic to and from my computer.

#4 I went to http://nmap.online-domain-tools.com/

#5 If my public IP was 71.242.247.999 and I wanted to check TCP and UDP port numbers 5153 through 5155, I would:

a) Select Custom Scan

b) And put in -p5154-5155 -sU -v -sA 71.242.247.999

#6 In Wireshark, I would put in not dns and not ssl and tcp.dstport >= 5153 and tcp.dstport <= 5155 and ip.dst==192.168.0.104 and not ip.src==192.168.0.0/16 and not icmp into the filter area and pressed Apply.

#7 I clicked on Scan Now!.

#8 I looked in Wireshark to see if any TCP traffic came in.

#9 In Wireshark to see the UDP traffic, I would put in not dns and not ssl and udp.dstport >= 5153 and udp.dstport <= 5155 and not icmp and ip.dst==192.168.0.104 and not ip.src==192.168.0.0/16 into the filter area and press Apply.

^^^
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 12:11:45 PM by trpted »
Private messages (PM) are not for support questions or for hints to not yet answered topics. The PMs are basically for confident conversation between the users, off the forum.

PcWinTech.com Forums


Offline Shane

  • Top Geek, err uh Dog.
  • PcWinTech Administrator
  • PcWinTech Guru
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 16,846
  • Location: USA
  • Karma: 523
  • "Knowledge should be shared not hidden."
Re: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2013, 01:18:02 PM »
Didn't you kind of already answer your own question with a & b? lol

The program is made for users to do a quick test. It is safe because it only opens the port when testing and it doesn't process anything from the connection. So there is no way to attack it.

Even if a port is open to the net the only way you can get attacked or hacked is if you have something using that port that the hacker can use. If the port isnt in use and nothing is using it the port will just come back as closed.

If your method works for you then stick with it, just a lot of extra work to get the same results :-)

Shane
(My weekends belong to my wife and kids, I will try my best to answer all posts daily during the work week)

(About Shane)
Site Owner, Top Admin, Lead Programmer, Wife & 5 kids, Needs a lot more coffee.

When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
Honor & Respect is all that matters.

Owner & Programmer of: www.pcwintech.com & www.tweaking.com

Offline trpted

  • PcWinTech Guru
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Karma: 37
Re: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2013, 06:24:52 PM »
Thank you.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 11:20:59 AM by trpted »
Private messages (PM) are not for support questions or for hints to not yet answered topics. The PMs are basically for confident conversation between the users, off the forum.

Offline trpted

  • PcWinTech Guru
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Karma: 37
Re: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2013, 11:23:25 AM »
With your answer above in mind and the answer to my question at DSLR (dslreports.com) -> Forums -> OS and Software -> All Things Unix -> Mac OS has Unix/Linux code in it? why is there no port checker with built in server for Unix when you have a port checker for a Mac?

Thank you
Private messages (PM) are not for support questions or for hints to not yet answered topics. The PMs are basically for confident conversation between the users, off the forum.

Offline Shane

  • Top Geek, err uh Dog.
  • PcWinTech Administrator
  • PcWinTech Guru
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 16,846
  • Location: USA
  • Karma: 523
  • "Knowledge should be shared not hidden."
Re: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2013, 11:26:04 AM »
I taught myself how to program for mac using xcode in a week. I don't program in other languages normally out side of Windows. So I have never made a unix one yet. I may in the future.

Shane
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 12:10:35 PM by Shane »
(My weekends belong to my wife and kids, I will try my best to answer all posts daily during the work week)

(About Shane)
Site Owner, Top Admin, Lead Programmer, Wife & 5 kids, Needs a lot more coffee.

When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
Honor & Respect is all that matters.

Owner & Programmer of: www.pcwintech.com & www.tweaking.com

Offline trpted

  • PcWinTech Guru
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Karma: 37
Re: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2013, 12:02:45 PM »
Interesting.

Thank you.

Hopefully some day in the future :)
Private messages (PM) are not for support questions or for hints to not yet answered topics. The PMs are basically for confident conversation between the users, off the forum.

Offline trpted

  • PcWinTech Guru
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Karma: 37
Re: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2013, 10:16:47 AM »
Ok.

#1 I asked what I asked at DSLR in the Unix/Linux forum/area, because:

a) Maybe some day, I would like to write some code for Unix/Linux.

b) I know that you will be interested in writing for Unix/Linux, some day in the future.. ;)

#2 I asked at DSLR (dslreports.com) -> Forums -> OS and Software -> All Things Unix -> Write program for Unix/Linux question source code or distro

Quote
#1 If someone wanted to write a program for Unix/Linux, what would recommend:

a) Give away the source code?

b) Only write for, pardon the pun, root distros?

c) Only write for one distro?

#2 If only write for one distro, what distro would that be?

#3 And why do you recommend what you recommend?

#4 So you can find out what I meant by root distro: Here is a list of some of the root distros that I see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions

a) Debian

b) Gentoo

c) Red Hat

d) Mandriva

e) Slackware

Thank you

#3 I got some interesting replies back..
Private messages (PM) are not for support questions or for hints to not yet answered topics. The PMs are basically for confident conversation between the users, off the forum.

Offline Shane

  • Top Geek, err uh Dog.
  • PcWinTech Administrator
  • PcWinTech Guru
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 16,846
  • Location: USA
  • Karma: 523
  • "Knowledge should be shared not hidden."
Re: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2013, 10:28:09 AM »
Unix/Linux users are a whole different breed than Windows users lol.

They normally know what they are doing very well and only use programs to make things easier, otherwise they do everything with commands in terminal.

That also means that they will be the hardest to make happy with any program as well since they will be more techs like us instead of normal users.

Shane
(My weekends belong to my wife and kids, I will try my best to answer all posts daily during the work week)

(About Shane)
Site Owner, Top Admin, Lead Programmer, Wife & 5 kids, Needs a lot more coffee.

When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
Honor & Respect is all that matters.

Owner & Programmer of: www.pcwintech.com & www.tweaking.com

Offline trpted

  • PcWinTech Guru
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Karma: 37
Re: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2013, 10:41:53 AM »
One of the replies asked me questions and I answered for my self first and then tried to reply for you.

Quote

a) To answer your questions on my own behalf.

#1 Right now, I am only interested.

#2 And I also know that there is a port checker with built in server for Windows and for Mac, I am not aware of any port checker with built in server for Unix/Linux computer(s).

The port checker with built in server for Windows and for Mac, I found at http://www.pcwintech.com/ called Simple Port Tester

b) To answer your questions on Shane's behalf:

Quote
Are you writing operating system level code or applications?

Are you writing this code for a company? For yourself?

Do you have mouths to feed?

Do you have any reason at all to reduce your audience size/customer base?

#1 I would think: Applications

#2 I would think: For his company.

#3 Unknown, but I think for a port checker with built in server for Unix/Linux it would be free.

#4 Unknown what you mean by that.

#1 Please consider replying to them.

#2 Thank you

#3 PS some notes:

a) You do not need to register to post expect in certain area(s) and I sure the Unix/Linux area is not one of those areas where you must be registered to post.

b) I know it is possible to post without registering at DSLR, since I have posted some threads without logging in even while I am registered user.

c) Without registered status all post at DSLR must be approved by an admin before they show up.

d) Without registered status, you can not reply after a certain period of time. I believe that time is one week.

^^
« Last Edit: May 14, 2013, 10:44:53 AM by trpted »
Private messages (PM) are not for support questions or for hints to not yet answered topics. The PMs are basically for confident conversation between the users, off the forum.

Offline Shane

  • Top Geek, err uh Dog.
  • PcWinTech Administrator
  • PcWinTech Guru
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 16,846
  • Location: USA
  • Karma: 523
  • "Knowledge should be shared not hidden."
Re: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2013, 10:56:23 AM »
I really dont want to post over there and start talking with unix guys, I am a Windows programmer, they will just eat me for lunch lol

But again you are seeing how they can be a little on the touchy side based on how he replied to you.

Quote
Are you writing operating system level code or applications?

Are you writing this code for a company? For yourself?

Do you have mouths to feed?

Do you have any reason at all to reduce your audience size/customer base?

1. Simple program to listen on a port on the system, now system level needed.
2. It will be a free program on the site to help other users.
3. Doesnt matter as the program would be free and meant to help fellow users. Just because I make a program doesn't mean I will make people pay for it.
4. Have no clue why he would say that unless he was being sarcastic about it. Basically he is saying if I make the program it will lower my user base for some reason.

Now you know why I have no desire to post over there on this as I have no clue when and if I will do a unix/linux tester.

Right now I am in the middle of multiple projects and multiple sites. So it isnt at the top of my list :-)

Shane
(My weekends belong to my wife and kids, I will try my best to answer all posts daily during the work week)

(About Shane)
Site Owner, Top Admin, Lead Programmer, Wife & 5 kids, Needs a lot more coffee.

When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
Honor & Respect is all that matters.

Owner & Programmer of: www.pcwintech.com & www.tweaking.com

PcWinTech.com Forums

Re: Why is Simple Port Tester better than my method of checking ports?
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2013, 10:56:23 AM »