Can your cab connect to the internet?

[scofthe7seas]

I am going to plug it directly into the cable modem, no router.

So, how did it go?

Scanning the drive with the corporate antivirus right now.

Though I have to concede that I couldn't find a copy of XP older than SP1 :/

[markronz]

I generally put a wireless card in my cabs, but I set it so that it does not automatically connect to wifi.  So it will only connect to wifi when I want it to.   For remote connection sessions where I modify or tweak my cab.   I don't have my PC up to date, and no AV running.   So far this has worked for me.  Not sure if merely having a network card installing, even though its not connected, is using up resources or not, but I suspect not very much.  This works pretty well for me so far.

[scofthe7seas]

So, the results are in. Honestly, I kind of wish they didn't turn out this way because I feel kind of dick -ish. There were no viruses on the hard drive. It was scanned with a current update of Mcafee corporate edition (in my tech room at work.) If anybody wants, I can try a different antivirus scan if you don't trust Mcafee (honestly, I don't think it's amazing.) I'll just get a 30 day trial of whatever.

Mind you, I'm not implying or ever have implied that it is impossible to get viruses this way. All I was saying was that in the time we live right now, after these attacks have happened in the past, ISPs and Microsoft have taken more responsibility to defend against them. I also firmly believe that IP sniffing viruses would quickly be snuffed out because they are easily detectable these days.
I have always kept my windows up to date (not the experiment PC), so this probably has a hand in why I haven't gotten viruses. But I have been online many times in the past with no anti-virus software and I've never had a problem.  My brother gets them despite the antivirus software I give him, but he's always poking around on the internet following google links.
In conclusion, if you put your PC on the internet, at least update it!

[Sjaak]

That is good to know. I guess ISP's are filtering the nasty ones out or maybe they just died out.

On occasion I have to connect directly to the internet (with virusscanner and windows firewall), but I feel a bit safer now.

[leapinlew]

So, the results are in. Honestly, I kind of wish they didn't turn out this way because I feel kind of dick -ish. There were no viruses on the hard drive.

The problem is you didn't leave it on long enough. 

Mind you, I'm not implying or ever have implied that it is impossible to get viruses this way.

Actually, you said

Well, it's not like the internet is just a cesspool, waiting to rampantly infest PCs upon connection. I mean, sure, if you use your cabinet to browse around you have a chance, but just connecting to the internet without doing anything isn't going to get you a virus.

I've gotten some viruses in my time, don't misunderstand, but it was from digging around on the internet looking at stuff I shouldn't be. I just don't think virus attacks are a huge problem for individuals.

I'm not saying it's impossble, just saying in my years I have never seen it. I wouldn't worry about it in the slightest.

The point I was making was that a Mame machine could be infected simply by being on a network with other machines. Your point was that the Mame machine couldn't be infected unless it was user initiated. The vulnerabilities in windows and applications is such that I do not want the added maintenance of connecting my arcade machines to the network.

In the end we agree, a Mame cabinet needs to be protected and updated the same as any other computer that would get on the internet. That means windows updates, application updates,  antivirus, antispyware, etc. I use Intel Atom boards and they don't have enough horsepower to pull off all that crap, not to mention that TinyXP won't pass a Microsoft WGA test. It's not worth it.

[scofthe7seas]

Ahh, but the test was always slated for one day. Most seemed to agree that the infections would happen within hours. If I could, I would leave it on longer, and I have some solid confidence that it would be ok. Maybe it would have gotten something, but I don't think so. I'm just not willing to lose my household internet connection for longer.
Don't forget that I don't have my cab on the internet specifically because I don't want the nagging about updates and whatnot. I'd rather not use that extra speed on such things myself.
I'm not sure what you were pointing out by quoting me? In both I said it isn't impossible. It could happen by IP sniffing worms / viruses. I just think that the likelyhood of that happening these days is very slim/none. Since 2005 I have seen many people with no AV software using internet connections with no issues. Many of them for financial reasons. Some just stubborn I didn't use one for a very long time simply because I didn't have enough RAM to justify the footprint the AV software of the time took up.
I believe Windows updates should be done regardless, because of security holes that Microsoft finds within their own software that they remedy. Not necessarily that these are/have been abused, but that they could be. With a modern OS (like Windows 7) I don't think this is a concern even without the updates. I also believe that the majority of those IP sniffing viruses have been snuffed out, much like Smallpox. They really have nowhere to go for the most part, because who doesn't update/use a router with at least some firewall built in?
I think we can agree to disagree. If I ever do see an infection related to unilicit internet activity, I'll have my ketchup ready to eat the hat I don't wear.
Also, don't forget that even with the BEST A/V software, someone, somewhere has to get boned in order for the virus definitions to be updated.

[leapinlew]

Ahh, but the test was always slated for one day. Most seemed to agree that the infections would happen within hours.

That was a joke. Earlier in the thread you said if you didn't get a virus I would say you didn't leave it on long enough.

I'm not sure what you were pointing out by quoting me? In both I said it isn't impossible.

just connecting to the internet without doing anything isn't going to get you a virus.

To me looks like your saying it isn't possible.

If I ever do see an infection related to unilicit internet activity, I'll have my ketchup ready to eat the hat I don't wear.

Ok. Well, it sounds like you managed to miss all of the worms which spread around with no user activity, which is pretty amazing seeing as how I was actively cleaning up the mess from these worms.

I suppose we can agree to disagree, although I'm not sure what we are disagreeing on. Unless what your saying is, you can't get a virus just by connecting your computer up to a network. Then we can disagree.

[BadMouth]

At any rate, thanks for doing the test.  It's been interesting.

Thanks to kalars123 too for testing Carnevil.

 

[scofthe7seas]

I think we will disagree on the probability of getting a virus that way being minimal enough to not worry about it. It's not impossible though.

[SuprSprint]

I would definitely disagree about it being minimal.  I manage corporate firewalls, and I see the attempted (automated) attacks numbering thousands per hour. And typical infection times for unprotected systems range from minutes to hours, depending on circumstances.  As such, I suspect that there are some factors that haven't been accounted for in your test such as;

Did you disable Windows firewall explicitly?  It is on by default in XP.

Were you assigned an unroutable address or a public IP?  If you were assigned an unroutable address (10.x.x.x, 192.x.x.x, 172.x.x.x), you are behind a NAT device, whether you know it or not. If you were given a public IP, send it to me via PM and run a remote scan.

Did you get an address that has not been in use for weeks/months? If so, your address has likely been dropped from local scans as unreachable. Give it a few days for the first IP block scan to discover you are alive and watch your attack rate soar.  Note: The question is rhetorical, you can't determine when your IP address was last assigned.

Your machine may not have gotten infected, but a single data point is hardly a case study.  If you want proof, just grab the logs from any firewall or IPS that faces the net 24x7.  The attack rate is ridiculous on the public net. I


All that said, my boxes are connected. But I sit behind a good NAT firewall and run software firewalls on all my internal PC's (except MAME) to prevent cross-spread.

[leapinlew]

I would definitely disagree about it being minimal. 

I would too, but there is really no point in beating this dead horse. What we are actually arguing about is peoples different experiences. I, along with many others here, have experienced or worked through different worm attacks which occur without any user action. scofthe7seas has not. All I was doing was correcting him when he said "Well, it's not like the internet is just a cesspool, waiting to rampantly infest PCs upon connection." as that is obviously false. What happened next was him conducting a non-scientific case study for his own benefit. No harm/no foul.

Since I have lots of people on my internal network, my arcade machines risk of exposure increases significantly.

[vagabound]

I would definitely disagree about it being minimal.  I manage corporate firewalls, and I see the attempted (automated) attacks numbering thousands per hour. And typical infection times for unprotected systems range from minutes to hours, depending on circumstances. 

Can you please copy/paste a few lines of what are you talking about so we can see how do you know it was attempted attack and not something else?

Did you disable Windows firewall explicitly?  It is on by default in XP.

Firewall was supposed to be enabled. Basically the claim is firewall would be sufficient, if necessary at all, so the test was proper and it showed the fear is imaginary, or perhaps induced on purpose. The argument is that there is no danger if the computer is only connected to the internet and is not used actively, *because* simple firewall would make it impossible for another computer to even make a connection if there is no appropriate software on the local machine ready to listen, and in order to get a virus you would need to browse internet, download stuff, click links and buttons, or run some kind of server, or some "remote connection listener" software that is actually open to accept random incoming connection.

Your machine may not have gotten infected, but a single data point is hardly a case study.  If you want proof, just grab the logs from any firewall or IPS that faces the net 24x7.  The attack rate is ridiculous on the public net.

I run WinXP on this machine I surf the internet with and I don't run any anti-virus software or anything else except regular XP firewall for almost a year now, I don't even do any updates, and I have normal IP number, so my computer should be full of viruses and everything. It's just that don't see them, so please let me know where can I find this "firewall log" and what exactly should I be looking for in order to see the proof you are talking about?

[vagabound]

I would definitely disagree about it being minimal. 

I would too, but there is really no point in beating this dead horse. What we are actually arguing about is peoples different experiences. I, along with many others here, have experienced or worked through different worm attacks which occur without any user action. scofthe7seas has not. All I was doing was correcting him when he said "Well, it's not like the internet is just a cesspool, waiting to rampantly infest PCs upon connection." as that is obviously false. What happened next was him conducting a non-scientific case study for his own benefit. No harm/no foul.

Since I have lots of people on my internal network, my arcade machines risk of exposure increases significantly.

It seems to me you were proved wrong by scofthe7seas and actual real-world test.

Indeed the internet is not just a cesspool waiting to rampantly infest PCs upon connection. Computers can not talk between each other just like that, there has to be a software on a local machine explicitly instructed to open ports and actually LISTEN and APPROVE incoming connection REQUESTS.

The fact you personally get a lot of viruses is perhaps only evidence you are doing something wrong.

[severdhed]

the real question here is, who has their mame cabinet setup so it gets their external public IP address?.....nobody.  That makes no sense. Most ISPs allow you to only pull a single IP address from them, so the only way that would work is if you have your mame cabinet pc wired directly to your modem, and it being your only PC.  the chances of that are small.  Anyone with a dedicated mame PC would also have at least one other PC that they use for internet browsing, and therefore be sitting behind a NAT router/firewall.  The question was "can your cab connect to the internet?" which implies a dedicated mame PC...and since nobody in their right mind would have their only PC in a mame cabinet, we should be able to assume that anyone with a mame cabinet is behind a router.

[leapinlew]

I would definitely disagree about it being minimal. 

I would too, but there is really no point in beating this dead horse. What we are actually arguing about is peoples different experiences. I, along with many others here, have experienced or worked through different worm attacks which occur without any user action. scofthe7seas has not. All I was doing was correcting him when he said "Well, it's not like the internet is just a cesspool, waiting to rampantly infest PCs upon connection." as that is obviously false. What happened next was him conducting a non-scientific case study for his own benefit. No harm/no foul.

Since I have lots of people on my internal network, my arcade machines risk of exposure increases significantly.

It seems to me you were proved wrong by scofthe7seas and actual real-world test.

Indeed the internet is not just a cesspool waiting to rampantly infest PCs upon connection. Computers can not talk between each other just like that, there has to be a software on a local machine explicitly instructed to open ports and actually LISTEN and APPROVE incoming connection REQUESTS.

The fact you personally get a lot of viruses is perhaps only evidence you are doing something wrong.

Welcome Troll! 

Like I'm supposed to believe any of your lies Mr. 2 posts.

[vagabound]

Welcome Troll! 

Like I'm supposed to believe any of your lies Mr. 2 posts.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt...

No, do not believe, see for yourself.


Monstrous ogre, perhaps you expect us to believe in your FUD? In that case you should open your virus vault or scan history, take a screenshot and post it here so we can see those numerous viruses knocking on your door every hour, all those that were caught trying to get you in the last week, or the whole year. Then we will also be able to see how many of those are not viruses at all, how many you downloaded yourself, how many got there through some automated process or background service, and how many got there without any help from you or your system software what-so-ever.

Can you do that, please?



By the way, and believe it or not, in my experience trying to make a system more secure, having automated updates enabled and stuff, can actually get the system infected easier and sooner than if you do nothing about it, not to mention ordinary conflicts and system crashes due to upgrades and automatic downloads that have nothing to do with viruses and still can completely break your system to do point you have to make a clean install.

It's not really that viruses are dangerous, it's more about Microsoft making lousy software. It's also not about enabling stuff and having additional software to keep you updated and secure, it's about disabling and removing all this crazy software and background services that uses internet connection on their own, keep open ports for no good reason and without consulting user about it, those are the real infections on your system.

[leapinlew]

Welcome Troll! 

Like I'm supposed to believe any of your lies Mr. 2 posts.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt...

No, do not believe, see for yourself.


Monstrous ogre, perhaps you expect us to believe in your FUD? In that case you should open your virus vault or scan history, take a screenshot and post it here so we can see those numerous viruses knocking on your door every hour, all those that were caught trying to get you in the last week, or the whole year. Then we will also be able to see how many of those are not viruses at all, how many you downloaded yourself, how many got there through some automated process or background service, and how many got there without any help from you or your system software what-so-ever.

Can you do that, please?



By the way, and believe it or not, in my experience trying to make a system more secure, having automated updates enabled and stuff, can actually get the system infected easier and sooner than if you do nothing about it, not to mention ordinary conflicts and system crashes due to upgrades and automatic downloads that have nothing to do with viruses and still can completely break your system to do point you have to make a clean install.

It's not really that viruses are dangerous, it's more about Microsoft making lousy software. It's also not about enabling stuff and having additional software to keep you updated and secure, it's about disabling and removing all this crazy software and background services that uses internet connection on their own, keep open ports for no good reason and without consulting user about it, those are the real infections on your system.

 

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

zeke?

[Sjaak]

Driverman is back...

[SuprSprint]

It seems to me you were proved wrong by scofthe7seas and actual real-world test.

Indeed the internet is not just a cesspool waiting to rampantly infest PCs upon connection. Computers can not talk between each other just like that, there has to be a software on a local machine explicitly instructed to open ports and actually LISTEN and APPROVE incoming connection REQUESTS.

Sorry, but you are just wrong. If you understood the topic in greater depth, you would know why. But I'm not going to waste time lecturing someone who has no desire to learn.

[CCM]

Mine has wired internet access.  I actually have a desk setup beside the cab that has a second monitor, and a keyboard and mouse.  This way anyone can sit comfortably and still use it as a normal PC.   It has been setup this way from day one, about 9 years in all.   

[michelevit]

I've built a large upright 2 person fighter style cabinet. Its networked and also able to go online.
I use it to stream Pandora and other online media sites like hulu and youtube. Most motherboards
have ethernet already onboard or you can purchase a wife fi pci card for less than 20 bucks.

Having it networked also allows me to back up all my digital pictures and other files onto its large hard drive.
I've seen too many hard drives fail, so I'm fanatical on redundancy of all my digital content.

[vagabound]

It seems to me you were proved wrong by scofthe7seas and actual real-world test.

Indeed the internet is not just a cesspool waiting to rampantly infest PCs upon connection. Computers can not talk between each other just like that, there has to be a software on a local machine explicitly instructed to open ports and actually LISTEN and APPROVE incoming connection REQUESTS.

Sorry, but you are just wrong. If you understood the topic in greater depth, you would know why. But I'm not going to waste time lecturing someone who has no desire to learn.

Please, what possessed you to flame me in spite of my already warm friendliness, are you drunk? I actually do have intense desire to learn, in case there is somehow still something I don't know yet, but I'm sure everyone here would also be excited to enjoy if you would be kind to share your lecture with us, so please, go ahead and teach me, I am listening.

[Sjaak]

Please, what possessed you to flame me in spite of my already warm friendliness, are you drunk? I actually do have intense desire to learn, in case there is somehow still something I don't know yet, but I'm sure everyone here would also be excited to enjoy if you would be kind to share your lecture with us, so please, go ahead and teach me, I am listening.

Everyone ignore this troll, he was banned a week ago (used to go by the name torino) and he will be banned again soon.

[vagabound]

Everyone ignore this troll, he was banned a week ago (used to go by the name torino) and he will be banned again soon.

Thanks for your solicitude, but I don't want to ignore, if Mr. Bender DooLittle has something to say I am ready to listen, I don't care what is his real name or what happened before, you go ahead and close your eyes, sit on your ears if you wish. What's your concern anyway, what exactly are you worried about, mother?

[SuprSprint]

Everyone ignore this troll, he was banned a week ago (used to go by the name torino) and he will be banned again soon.

It appears you are addressing me. If so, I'm not sure where you got your info, but it is wrong.  I have never been known by any handle other than my current one, and I have never been banned.

Please, what possessed you to flame me in spite of my already warm friendliness, are you drunk?

I didn't flame you, I merely stated that I feel that further efforts to educate you would be a waste of my time. As for why;  Your supporting argument indicates only a basic understanding of IP sockets and Windows, yet you did not hesitate to proclaim that you *know* it is impossible.  In my experience, that is the hallmark of someone isn't receptive to learning.

If you wish to learn,  I would advise you to go research various worms and the exploits/vectors they use to infect a system. Don't just read for 5 min and declare yourself an expert, truly research.  Even try some of these attacks for yourself manually.  Next, research what Windows exposes by default and what is required to harden Windows to DoD standards for a net connected computer. Then, learn what you cannot disable to and still access the machine over a network.  Finally, dig into uPNP and how much control apps (incl malware) have over the windows firewall.

Once you have done all that, you will truly understand why no serious IT person would put a host with only windows FW in a net facing position.

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

Everyone ignore this troll, he was banned a week ago (used to go by the name torino) and he will be banned again soon.

It appears you are addressing me. If so, I'm not sure where you got your info, but it is wrong.  I have never been known by any handle other than my current one, and I have never been banned.

vagabound is torino, also known as 'driver-man', 'abaraba' or zelkjo 'zeke' aksentijevic. He's some kind of professional troll online. Searching for his name pulls up plenty of pages of people complaining about his ridiculous claims and activities.

He usually gets banned from here about once every month and a half.

[BadMouth]

In my experience, that is the hallmark of someone isn't receptive to learning.

Or a troll. 

[SuprSprint]

Ahhhh... Thanks!

[leapinlew]

Next, research what Windows exposes by default and what is required to harden Windows to DoD standards for a net connected computer.

You work on government systems?

[Sjaak]

@pldoolittle Sorry about the confusion, I meant that vagabound is a troll...

[lastrega]

[bkenobi]

I may have to change my vote from can connect to F M$!

I've been having a problem with both my cabs since we moved last October.  I assumed it was related to disassembling one and some kind of connection on the other.  Well, I fixed the issue on the main system which turned out to be an issue with a borked M$ firewall service.  After killing and restarting it, all connectivity issues were resolved. 

As for the other, well...thanks to M$, I was forced to take an update which pushed the WGA software.  Since I was unable to get a reliable connection with the network I had set up, that machine has been sitting stagnant.  I finally took the time to hammer away at fixing it and now it's working.  The problem was that M$ wouldn't let me log on without WGA validation, but without logging on, I couldn't fix my network settings.   

Although having access is nice, not having to worry about network settings forking your cab up (especially when people are coming over) is nicer.  I may be dropping my wireless connection and only fixing things remotely if this issue occurs again!

[Gray_Area]

I like to have my machines connected - for possible maintenance, for possible transfer of files (especially score snaps). I use MSE on all of them, which seems to be working well. I also have drives partitioned, and file sharing set only for 'files' partitions, and in the case of my main machine, 'view only'.

[DashRendar]

Well, it's not like the internet is just a cesspool, waiting to rampantly infest PCs upon connection. I mean, sure, if you use your cabinet to browse around you have a chance, but just connecting to the internet without doing anything isn't going to get you a virus.

Just connecting to the internet without doing anything can definitely get you a virus.  Ever hear of the Blaster or Sasser worms?

To answer the original question, on my cab I have an external wireless adapter I plug in to download updates etc, but normally leave that off.  I have antivirus which runs when I'm connected, but I disable it otherwise to avoid the performance hit.  And this is behind a firewalled router to protect my system from worms.

 

[bkenobi]

I was about to call BS on that last statement about a cab being vulnerable just by connecting to a router since NAT should keep you safe, but then I read this (a very interesting read, actually):

http://www.grc.com/nat/nat.htm

In essence, if you just connect your cab to a router with a NAT (all routers have this), you will be safe PROVIDED that it is the only system behind that router.  If you connect any other machine that is used to access the internet, it is possible to infect the cab.  If the other machine contracts a virus/worm/etc that uses RDC or file sharing to spread, the NAT will no longer protect your cab.  Also, if you have a WAP on the router that is not locked down, someone could potentially connect to it and intentionally/inadvertently infect at least one system behind the NAT.  At that point, all machines behind the NAT are vulnerable.

In any case, the real answer is that you need to understand networking to know whether you are making yourself vulnerable or not.  If you don't understand how to build a network correctly and you are concerned about data loss, keep your cab off the internet.

[SuprSprint]

You are not safe even as the only device if the cabinet connects out to the net.

If you have not turned uPNP support off at the router (which many/most do not do), applications like torrent, IM, skype, etc can poke open holes inbound through your FW.

Even if you deny all inbound explicitly, active content can infect your computer just by using a browser or email client.

[bkenobi]

Yes, but I think what we were discussing was connecting a cab to the net without having any interaction at all (no surfing, no IM, no torrent, etc) and still contracting nasties.  A router will not allow an inbound connection through unless it expects it (an outbound connection initiated the inbound) or a port(s) is opened (port forwarding, DMZ, etc).  So, if you just have your cabinet connected without any applications trying to make outside contact and you are behind a router with a NAT and no other computer that interacts with the net is inside the NAT, you should be OK.

That's a lot to ask IMO, so it's probably better to either use protection or not connect at all.

[Gray_Area]

You are not safe even as the only device if the cabinet connects out to the net.

If you have not turned uPNP support off at the router (which many/most do not do), applications like torrent, IM, skype, etc can poke open holes inbound through your FW.

By definition, those services need 'holes' to work through. Such is the risk of them. You certainly aren't playing games on MAMEHUB if it can't get in.

[leapinlew]

The question was whether or not a machine can be infected simply by connecting to the internet with a live IP address (not a NAT'd) address after Scofthe7seas said:

Well, it's not like the internet is just a cesspool, waiting to rampantly infest PCs upon connection. I mean, sure, if you use your cabinet to browse around you have a chance, but just connecting to the internet without doing anything isn't going to get you a virus.

Scofthe7seas conducted a small test and was unable to contract a virus.

It really didn't have anything to do with NAT,  firewalls, virus scanners, etc. His thought was that a user could only get a virus if the user initiated an action. Which I think most of us know to be false.

If the question is "Can my cab connect to the internet" the answer is yes. If the question is "Does my cab connect to the internet" my answer is a hell no.