Constant Network Activity

Steve Gibson was wrong when he wrote the article, and dead wrong after Service Pack 1 and subsequently.

Without UPnP there is no NAT Traversal. Why you would deny yourself this valuable service is beyond my comprehension. There is not one credible security expert who agrees with Steve Gibson on UPnP.

 

Since I have received four PMs asking be to explain the above in more detail:

• The above comment was about NAT Traversal, not NAT.
• Why should NAT Traversal matter to me?
  
• What role does UPnP play in NAT Traversal?
  
• Are there other ways to solve the problem of NAT traversal? If so, why is using UPnP the best choice?

Aren't you a little tired of making port-forwarding entries? Aren't you a little afraid your router will not have room for additional entries? Aren't you a little tired of managing those entries when the IPs change? Would you like to be able to view and log attempts to create service entries that establish port forwards?

Having issues using FTP behind NAT?

These are some of the issues that UPnP and NAT Traversal can handle natively under XP if enabled. I no longer make port-forwards on my routers. I firewall accepted applications, and let UPnP do the configuration.

On a go-forward basis, Vista deprecates NETBIOS. (XP wanted to as well, but was not allowed). Native name resolution under Vista client and Vista server is done through UPnP and SSDP and not by Netbios broadcasts. No more elections, and no more Master Browser issues. Why? Because it uses UPnP and SSDP to create a hostname table for name resolution.

Disable it if you wish, but please do not do so based on the information you read at Steve Gibson's site.

Is Steve Gibson wrong that this is a serious security issue? Absolutely wrong. There has never been a UPnP exploit. If you read the site, be sure to distinguish between unsecured socket connections and UPnP. I think Steve had a good point about sockets, pre-Service Pack 1. But since that was his claim to fame he throws it in anywhere in a discussion, muddling and confusing and creating FUD about what turned out to be perfectly safe features of the OS; features that will only grow in importance.

I have no particular agenda in discussing Steve Gibson, and I wish him well. What compels Steve is that the industry has ignored him and his advice, and did so with good reason. There are serious technical concerns about SpinRite, for example, and especially his claims. While some marketing bluster is to be expected, he is really over the top as far as a summary of the technical community would reveal.

 

Hi Bill,

Well thanks for your last reply. An interesting read. Just goes to show that you can't trust all you read! For now I think I will keep NPNP switched off but eventually, as you say, its looks as though it is here to stay. In any case I have learnt a thing or two about this service and feel easier over it.

Thanks for all your time.

Best regards BrokenPC

 

My honest pleasure, BrokenPC, as you raised I think issues that are poorly understood, or even worse, technicly misrepresented.

Your choice of action will find no argument with me, just remember for future purposes that you did disable these client services.

Best regards,
Bill