|
zain Newbie
Joined: 06 Nov 2006 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:54 pm
conetcion issues |
i cant conect to any mud with cmud i just get
Host xxxx unreachable
any ideadrs ofhow to fix this? |
|
|
|
Seb Wizard
Joined: 14 Aug 2004 Posts: 1269
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:42 am |
Blocked by firewall? Internet down? DNS not working?
|
|
|
|
zain Newbie
Joined: 06 Nov 2006 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:02 am |
nope none of that is just cmud to all the rest is working
|
|
|
|
Seb Wizard
Joined: 14 Aug 2004 Posts: 1269
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:21 am |
Is your MUD down? Have you tried connecting with zMUD? Have you checked the host and port numbers that CMUD is trying?
|
|
|
|
zain Newbie
Joined: 06 Nov 2006 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:52 am |
yep i am playing my mud on zmud is just cmud wont conect with anything at all
|
|
|
|
Seb Wizard
Joined: 14 Aug 2004 Posts: 1269
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:10 pm |
Blocked by Windows Firewall? You a computer administrator?
|
|
|
|
Zugg MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000 Posts: 23379 Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:05 pm |
CMUD uses the same network socket code as zMUD, so I can't think of how zMUD would work when CMUD doesn't. Check to make sure you don't have CMUD set up to use a proxy server or something like that. It has to be some difference in preference settings between the two. But I'm not having any problem at all connecting to MUDs with CMUD.
|
|
|
|
Seb Wizard
Joined: 14 Aug 2004 Posts: 1269
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:09 pm |
Actually personal firewall (software) programs usually block or allow based on the filename or processname of the process making the connection attempt, so it is possible for CMUD to be blocked when zMUD isn't (due to zMUD having been allowed through the personal firewall).
|
|
|
|
Zugg MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000 Posts: 23379 Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:00 am |
That's very true...good point Seb. This could easily be a Windows Firewall issue.
|
|
|
|
Seb Wizard
Joined: 14 Aug 2004 Posts: 1269
|
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:37 am |
Except that I remembered that Windows Firewall doesn't block connections made out from your computer (even the improved version in XP SP2). The version in XP SP1 only blocks connections _to_ your computer, and the version in SP2 adds blocking of listening ports (when you press the "Keep blocking" button that pops up - not until then - duh!). The version in Windows Vista, however, does block outbound connections (although I've not tested it).
But, there are also an array of other personal firewalls that are more effective then the Windows Firewalls in WinXP and do block connections out from your computer... |
|
|
|
Zugg MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000 Posts: 23379 Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:53 am |
Umm, yes it does. It depends upon how it's configured. With my Windows Firewall, which I think is the default settings, whenever I install a new program that tries to make an *outgoing* connection I get a popup message asking if I want to Unblock it. This is in XP SP2. So even it blocks outgoing connections.
|
|
|
|
Seb Wizard
Joined: 14 Aug 2004 Posts: 1269
|
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:19 am |
That software is probably also listening on a local port. For example, Internet Explorer is not ticked for me in Windows Firewall, and Avant Browser was ticked, but I unticked it before my last post and could still browse the web. CMUD and zMUD are not in the list of allowed programs since they don't listen on any ports. The idea of this blocking is to block trojans listening for connections, but it doesn't prevent worms attacking other computers from your computer. Have a look in your Windows Firewall, Exceptions...
|
|
|
|
Zugg MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000 Posts: 23379 Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:03 pm |
Hmm, you are right. I've got zMUD in my list of exceptions, but not CMUD and CMUD works fine (not sure why zMUD is in my list). But I've also got things like Macromedia's Fireworks in the list, which is just a graphics editor program. I think it checks for whether a new update is available, which is why I unblocked it. Maybe it's doing something fishy that I am not aware of. The other stuff in the list, like my FTP program and Trillian IM client make sense since they have possible incoming ports. But there are several other programs that check for new versions that are in the list that make me suspicious.
But the Firewall exceptions window certainly makes it pretty clear that these are only incoming connections that are being blocked. |
|
|
|
The Raven Magician
Joined: 13 Oct 2000 Posts: 463
|
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:31 pm |
The Windows Firewall (pre-Vista) does not block outbound connections, only inbound. When it pops up a dialog asking you 'should I allow this program', it actually ALLOWS that program until you say no, rather than blocking it until you say yes. Personally, I'm of the opinion that inbound protection is enough, and outbound protection causes more hassles than it prevents. (speaking as someone who has worked in technical support for 12 years)
|
|
|
|
Seb Wizard
Joined: 14 Aug 2004 Posts: 1269
|
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:53 pm |
The Raven wrote: |
When it pops up a dialog asking you 'should I allow this program', it actually ALLOWS that program until you say no, rather than blocking it until you say yes. |
Yes, I mentioned this briefly in passing earlier in the thread. It's something I noticed from my own usage, and it really gives a bad impression of Windows Firewall IMHO. Basically if my computer has been slightly infected with a trojan such that it had been downloaded and was set to install itself at a later date (such as when my computer has been idle for a couple of hours - easy to do with Task Scheduler) then it could start listening for connections and although a dialog would be thrown up by Windows Firewall, I wouldn't be around to see it, the trojan wouldn't be blocked, and an unwanted person could take control of my computer! Having said that, similar effects could be achieved by the trojan initiating the outbound connection, although it's less convenient for the attacker and easier to track down the attacker (less anonymous).
Sorry, I'm getting a bit off topic now... </rant>. |
|
|
|
|
|