How hard is it to hack through a router being used as a NAT server for a home network?
Bruce T. Berger
Plato
Bruce T. Berger
planet do you live on?
btb
"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
news:426b3b02$0$90589$bb4e...@newscene.com...
> Ask your ISP.
>
Rôgêr
> Sure, they'll be happy to support a router bought from a third party...what
> planet do you live on?
If you stopped to think about it, it might make sense to tell what it is
you're trying to accomplish - if it isn't dastardly. The subject (with
nothing in the body) quite clearly seems to say "I'm trying to hack
someone's computer". What did you expect for an answer?
Bruce T. Berger
"Rôgęr" <ab...@your.isp.com> wrote in message
news:M4CdnUUmGrT...@pghconnect.com...
>>
> If you stopped to think about it, it might make sense to tell what it is
> you're trying to accomplish - if it isn't dastardly. The subject (with
> nothing in the body) quite clearly seems to say "I'm trying to hack
> someone's computer". What did you expect for an answer?
I'm trying to save home customers some money rather than forcing them to buy
the more sophisticated routers I generally use for business networks. My
subject in no way indicates that I want to hack into anything...but it's
interesting that you chose that interpretation. Isps are utterly useless if
not downright hostile when it comes to 3rd party routers. Furthermore I
don't like long rambling posts & if the header will suffice I see no reason
to go beyond it.
btb
trout
> "Rôgęr" <ab...@your.isp.com> wrote in message
> news:M4CdnUUmGrT...@pghconnect.com...
>>>
>> If you stopped to think about it, it might make sense to tell what
>> it is you're trying to accomplish - if it isn't dastardly. The
>> subject (with nothing in the body) quite clearly seems to say "I'm
>> trying to hack someone's computer". What did you expect for an
>> answer?
>
> I'm trying to save home customers some money rather than forcing them
> to buy the more sophisticated routers I generally use for business
> networks.
That wasn't an awfully long ramble, was it?
My subject in no way indicates that I want to hack into
> anything...but it's interesting that you chose that interpretation.
> Isps are utterly useless if not downright hostile when it comes to
> 3rd party routers. Furthermore I don't like long rambling posts & if
> the header will suffice I see no reason to go beyond it.
One reason, is that posts with empty message fields are not
propagated on some servers (I still don't see the original, here).
--
Lessens your chances of finding some less-suspicious types.
Bruce T. Berger
"trout" <trout...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:426b60dd$0$33151$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> One reason, is that posts with empty message fields are not
> propagated on some servers (I still don't see the original, here).
Thanks for the info...I didn't know that some news servers ignored posts
with empty message fields & will post accordingly in the future.
btb
Rôgêr
<not a rambling question>
I hoped that someone with hacking expertise would pipe up. That's not
me, but maybe an expert will correct my guessing. I can tell you that
NAT makes it difficult to get past if you don't have a trojan or some
other way of compromising the computer behind the router. You'd have to
attack the NAT router itself otherwise. NAT basically hides the IP of
the computers behind it. Some NAT routers don't do a very good job of
hiding them because the dynamic IPs they hand out are pretty
predictable. So making some basic changes to the default configuration
are good.
After putting a LAN behind a NAT router, your weakest link becomes the
girl sitting at the desk that doesn't know any better than to do what
the guy on the phone says to do because "he's from the ISP".
Mike Easter
> You'd have
> to attack the NAT router itself otherwise.
That's what many of the articles on nat router vulnerabilities I read
are about.
LinkSys had problems with a firmware allowing access to the browser
control center of the router without a password. Some people leave the
router's pw as the default. There were some other wifi routers with
vulnerabilities. Cisco's had some problems too.
Searching on router vulnerability will get a wealth of returns.
Bruce T. Berger wrote:
> if
> the header will suffice I see no reason to go beyond it.
Nope, that doesn't work. Practice proper subject creation by creating a
sufficiently well described question in the body of the message, so that
people can address their answers underneath where you've asked your
question by trimming and contextualizing, and then formulate a brief
subject to characterize the content of the body's question.
--
Mike Easter