Jump to content
TorGuard
  • 1
Sign in to follow this  
19807409

Make this Analyzr test and check your ISP and your VPN and your proxy and your DNS

Rate this question

Question

19807409

Not bad at all for simply connecting but as you see, even connecting to torguard brings issues if your ISP is spying on you. This is very good example of something, where other tests show you that everyhing is ok but this test clearly shows you that your ISP is hijacking DNS.

 

You need to have Java installed on your pc to run these tests, it does not work in chrome, but on firefox it does even if using combination of proxifier and foxyproxy (because java tool does all the job, not the browser itself)

 

 

TEST NOW WITH ANALYZR

Good article in german explaining it a little bit and includes the test itself.

 

Send your tests to TorGuard support, they will help you very fast with any leaks, problems or even unintentionally missconfigured device like to open ports which you do not want at all opened. Here is one example (it provides a link which you can send to torguard support if your tests show any issues):

fHd52Yy.png

 

More test results (example):

 

 


Summary of Noteworthy Events +  â€“
Minor Aberrations â€“
Certain TCP protocols are blocked in outbound traffic 
Certain UDP protocols are blocked in outbound traffic 
Network packet buffering may be excessive 
Some sites were blocked using DNS 
Unable to fetch DNSSEC information from the roots 
Address-based Tests +  â€“
NAT detection (?): NAT Detected +
Local Network Interfaces (?): OK +
DNS-based host information (?): OK +
NAT support for Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) (?): Yes +
Reachability Tests +  â€“
TCP connectivity (?): Note â€“

Direct TCP access to remote FTP servers (port 21) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SSH servers (port 22) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SMTP servers (port 25) is allowed.
Direct TCP connections to remote DNS servers (port 53) succeed, but do not receive the expected content.
A DNS proxy or firewall generated a new request rather than passing the client's request unmodified.

Direct TCP access to remote HTTP servers (port 80) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote POP3 servers (port 110) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote RPC servers (port 135) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote NetBIOS servers (port 139) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote IMAP servers (port 143) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SNMP servers (port 161) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote HTTPS servers (port 443) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SMB servers (port 445) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SMTP/SSL servers (port 465) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote secure IMAP servers (port 585) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote authenticated SMTP servers (port 587) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote IMAP/SSL servers (port 993) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote POP/SSL servers (port 995) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote OpenVPN servers (port 1194) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote PPTP Control servers (port 1723) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote SIP servers (port 5060) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote BitTorrent servers (port 6881) is allowed.
Direct TCP access to remote TOR servers (port 9001) is allowed.

UDP connectivity (?): Note â€“

Basic UDP access is available.
The client was able to send fragmented UDP traffic.
The client was able to receive fragmented UDP traffic.

UDP access to remote DNS servers (port 53) appears to pass through a firewall or proxy. The client was unable to transmit a non-DNS traffic on this UDP port, but was able to transmit a legitimate DNS request, suggesting that a proxy, NAT, or firewall intercepted and blocked the deliberately invalid request.
A DNS proxy or firewall generated a new request rather than passing the client's request unmodified.

Direct UDP access to remote NTP servers (port 123) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote NetBIOS NS servers (port 137) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote NetBIOS DGM servers (port 138) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote IKE key exchange servers (port 500) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote OpenVPN servers (port 1194) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote Slammer servers (port 1434) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote L2 tunneling servers (port 1701) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote IPSec NAT servers (port 4500) is blocked.
Direct UDP access to remote RTP servers (port 5004) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote RTCP servers (port 5005) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote SIP servers (port 5060) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote VoIP servers (port 7078) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote VoIP servers (port 7082) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote SCTP servers (port 9899) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote Steam gaming servers (port 27005) is allowed.
Direct UDP access to remote Steam gaming servers (port 27015) is allowed.

Traceroute (?): OK +
Path MTU (?): OK +
Hidden Proxy Detection (?): OK +
Network Access Link Properties +  â€“
Network performance (?): Latency: 160 ms, Loss: 0.0% +
TCP connection setup latency (?): 170ms +
Background measurement of network health (?): no transient outages +
Network bandwidth (?): Upload 9.4 Mbit/s, Download 7.8 Mbit/s +
Network buffer measurements (?): Uplink 2300 ms, Downlink 800 ms â€“
We estimate your uplink as having 2300 ms of buffering. This is quite high, and you may experience substantial disruption to your network performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large uploads. With such a buffer, real-time applications such as games or audio chat can work quite poorly when conducting large uploads at the same time.
We estimate your downlink as having 800 ms of buffering. This level can in some situations prove somewhat high, and you may experience degraded performance when performing interactive tasks such as web-surfing while simultaneously conducting large downloads. Real-time applications, such as games or audio chat, may also work poorly when conducting large downloads at the same time.
HTTP Tests +  â€“
Address-based HTTP proxy detection (?): OK +
Content-based HTTP proxy detection (?): OK +
HTTP proxy detection via malformed requests (?): OK +
Filetype-based filtering (?): OK +
HTTP caching behavior (?): OK 
JavaScript-based tests (?): OK +
Sensitive proxy-introduced HTTP headers (?): OK +
DNS Tests +  â€“
Restricted domain DNS lookup (?): OK +
Unrestricted domain DNS lookup (?): OK +
DNS resolver address (?): OK +
DNS resolver properties (?): Lookup latency 200 ms +
Direct probing of DNS resolvers (?): +
DNS glue policy (?): OK +
DNS resolver port randomization (?): OK +
DNS lookups of popular domains (?): Warning â€“
3 popular names have a moderate anomaly: we are unable to find a reverse name associated with the IP address provided by your ISP's DNS server, although we expected to find a name. This is most likely due to a slow responding DNS server. If you rerun Netalyzr and see this condition remain, it could be due to a misconfiguration on the part of the domain owner, deliberate blocking using DNS, or your DNS server could be misconfigured or enabling a Man-in-the-Middle attack.
				Name
				IP Address
				Reverse Name/SOA

				mail.yahoo.com
				98.138.79.21
				X

				wireless.att.com
				135.209.168.22
				X

				www.yahoo.com
				98.139.180.149
				X
100 of 100 popular names were resolved successfully. Show all names.
2 popular names have a moderate anomaly. The returned IP address suggests that the name lookup was blocked using DNS. Instead of returing the proper IP address for the name, the IP address of your own system was returned instead, effectively blocking access to the site.
Show all names.
36 popular names have a mild anomaly. The ownership suggested by the reverse name lookup does not match our understanding of the original name. The most likely cause is the site's use of a Content Delivery Network. Show all names.
32 popular names have a mild anomaly: we are unable to find a reverse name associated with the IP address provided by your ISP's DNS server. This is most likely due to a slow responding DNS server or misconfiguration on the part of the domain owner. Show all names.
DNS external proxy (?): OK +
DNS results wildcarding (?): OK +
DNS-level redirection of specific sites (?): OK +
Direct probing of DNS roots (?): OK +
IPv6 Tests +  â€“
DNS support for IPv6 (?): OK +
IPv4, IPv6, and your web browser (?): OK +
IPv6 connectivity (?): No IPv6 support +
Network Security Protocols +  â€“
DNSSEC Support from the DNS Roots (?): Warning â€“
No DNS root server instance would provide DNSSEC information. Because of this, your system cannot validate signatures for DNS replies, meaning you can't benefit from DNSSEC's protections.
Host Properties +  â€“
System clock accuracy (?): OK +
Browser properties (?): OK +
Uploaded data (?): OK +

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by 19807409
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

There have been no answers to this question yet

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×