David Walker linux_user at grax.com
Wed Aug 22 17:55:26 UTC 2001

Before one is allowed to drive a vehicle on our roads they must prove
that they have the ability and know the rules.  If they cannot prove
that they are limited to vehicles that not capable of exceeding 35 mph.

I don't believe in requiring end users to acquire a license before
operating an internet connected computer but they need to be more
responsible than they are now.  Most end users barely understand that
their computer is just waiting for someone to scan it and take it over
and they probably won't notice when it does get taken over.

I believe the 'no server' policy is due to cost.  Since cable modems are
a shared bandwidth service they need to install more equipment each time
bandwidth usage in a neighborhood gets too high.  If everyone is running
servers their bandwidth gets used faster which means less profit for
them and higher costs for cable modem users.

Most end users wouldn't even notice the blocking of these ports.

On Wednesday 22 August 2001 12:09, you wrote:
> On 22 Aug, David Walker wrote:
> > I support a policy of this kind in @home.  I'd like to see incoming
> > ports 25 (smtp), 80 (http), 110 (pop), 137, 138, 139 (smb/windows
> > networking) and possibly 21 (ftp) blocked.  It is very inconvenient in
> > many cases but there are all kinds of folks out there with their Windows
> > machines sitting there just waiting to become zombie machines for the
> > next script kiddie that comes along and wants to flood out this thing or
> > that. (not to mention a few redhat machines in that category)
> Yeah and I think their cars should have regulators on them that do
> not allow them to exceed 35MPH because so many of them speed through
> residential areas and the risk to pedestrains (especially children) is
> so high.  Sure it is inconvienant but think of the children and pets.
> </sarcasm>
> If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong as @Home (or cable for
> that matter) is not available at my house, their no server policy is not
> for security reasons, the don't want residential customers hosting
> service because they also offer a business level service.
> >>From my firewall logs I have lists of many machines that are just
> >
> > waiting to become zombies.
> >
> > I'm not sure how technically feasible it is but I would like to see some
> > sort of detection scheme to shut off end users if their machine is being
> > using in a DOS attack.
> >
> > A basic security orientation (booklet or something) for new cable
> > modem/dsl users would be great to see also.

More information about the OLUG mailing list