Jon thechunk at home.com
Thu Aug 23 07:29:18 UTC 2001

I guess I understand the "no server" policy.  However they came to a happy medium. They put an upstream bottleneck.  Things have gone very well for me over the last two years.  No problems.  Even now I am using ssh to connect from work to my sshd server running at my home.  Should this be banned as well?  Personally I have to beleive the users of the network should be responsible for there machines.  A friend fo mine was informed by Cox of shady activity from his computer and given a time line to fix it.  I can't say they can easily monitor there networks that well but I think that is an appropriate response.  I don't mind them blocking port 80.  I mind it being available for so long and being blocked with no notice.  Of course they reserve the right and I just payed for the cable modem hardware.  I am not switching services soon and can send links to family/friends with port 81 in it instead of 80 and all works well.  I just wish they would let people know they are doing this.  They weren't shy about informing us of the rate hikes.  In a way I hope Cox dumps at home and does there own data connections.  I am scared that with the possible death of @home I may lose my cable modem.  Too bad bandwidth advances so slowly.

-Jon W.

On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 12:55:26PM -0500, David Walker wrote:
> 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