@home

[Jeff Hinrichs]

Personally I believe that blocking ports is complete b.s.
I signed up for Internet access not SPLINTER-NET.

-Jeff

"Those who trade Freedom for Security, deserve neither."
-- Benjamin Franklin



----- Original Message -----
From: "David Walker" <linux_user at grax.com>
To: <olug at bstc.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 10:34 PM
Subject: re: @home


> That still wouldn't protect us from each other.  I've been scanned by a
> user in my own neighborhood.
>
> I think blocking incoming ports at the cable modem itself would break
> the least amount of things and have the maximum effect.  I think certain
> cable modems are capable of this.
>
> In fact I am wondering if my having an old cable modem could be related
> to the fact that my port 80 is not blocked.  Does anyone know any more
> about this idea?
>
> On Wednesday 22 August 2001 21:37, you wrote:
> > On Wed, 2001-08-22 at 21:07, Chris Gotcu wrote:
> > > Why doesn't COX just add a firewall to the software they install on
> > > every win computer they set up? That's sure to limit the number of
> > > zombies considerably.
> >
> > Because it breaks stuff.  It would be easier (from a support standpoint,
> > at least) to "firewall" further upstream from us and just give us home
> > users NAT'ed RFC1918 IP numbers via DHCP.
> >
> > Either way, lots of stuff will still end up broken: at a minimum IRC,
> > multiplayer games on Windows, and some FTP implementations still don't
> > understand passive mode.