Ill just leave this guy on internal IP space On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:55 PM, jeff pastuck <[email protected]> wrote:
> The 320 CPE's have a known open DNS resolver issue (responding to DNS > queries from external hosts). I have seen some of the NAT enabled CPE's > choke on the external DNS requests and we then see 95% packet loss to them. > Most of our 320 CPE's operate in bridge mode. > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Joe Novak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Does 320 have 'remote configuration interface' in the NAT tab? I think >> this is equivalent to 'separate management interface'. I'm not very >> familiar with the 320 line... or maybe change it to a random nonstandard >> port just for said customer and then firewall the port at the tower/edge? >> >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Trey Scarborough <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I wouldn't recommend doing it there are not any known security issues >>> that I can speak of. I do know however that your performance on that CPE >>> will be go down significantly and I do know outside request can kill them. >>> I guess a sort of vulnerability. >>> >>> >>> On 5/9/2016 11:41 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: >>> >>>> All our 320s are in bridge mode. We have a fool customer who is >>>> irritating me though, I need to isolate him from our network so I want >>>> to put it in NAT mode, but I need to have him on a public IP so he can >>>> be identified in complaints. Are there any known vulnerabilities in the >>>> 320 CPE I should be aware of? the operator and admin account are >>>> disabled. Telnet and port 80 are enabled on the WAN. >>>> >>>> also, how functional is the DMZ, will there end up being complaints that >>>> some game doesnt work? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >>>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
