On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Mike Batchelor wrote:
> Your mistake was in assuming the cable company would provide security for
> ports < 1024. I would imagine that they only block those ports at the
> head-end router. Other cable customers do not traverse this router, so they
Head-end routers are neighborhood specific, I doubt they mostly work on
IP (at least the ones I've seen don't.)
More likely it's blocked at their boarder router to the Internet, making
the scope every customer on the cable network, not just a neighborhood
distribution point.
> aren't filtered. The cable internet provider uses the filters to prevent its
> customers from using the cable connection in place of a T1 or a co-location
> agreement to host their commercial web site. They could care less if their
> own cable subscribers attack your box. They just don't want to cut into their
> hosting revenues.
This isn't true of the providers I've spoken with, and I've talked to a
fair number. It's more that their filtering capability is at the boarder
router, internally they generally don't have as much capability and the
performance impact is greater there. Also, it's generally a bandwidth
issue, not a revenue issue.
Every provider I've spoken with immediately investigates *all* reports of
customers probing other customers. If you've got concrete examples of
those who could "care less", I'd like to know who and where.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
