@home

[tetherow at nol.org]

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.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Tetherow                           tetherow at nol.org
Director of Development
NIC Labs (IDG)                         http://www.nicusa.com