Blake Hudson wrote on 2/26/2016 2:01 PM:

Livingood, Jason wrote on 2/26/2016 1:32 PM:
On 2/26/16, 11:44 AM, "Blake Hudson" <bl...@ispn.net <mailto:bl...@ispn.net>> wrote:

    Jason, how do you propose to block SSDP without also blocking
    legitimate traffic as well (since SSDP uses a port > 1024 and is
    used as part of the ephemeral port range on some devices) ?


As Roland suggested, very likely via UDP/1900. This will obviously be disclosed in advance to customers and tested thoroughly. I believe a few other ISPs have already taken this step.

    And is this practice /Open Internet/ friendly?


Port blocking is considered a form of reasonable network management provided it can be justified by security or operational stability reasons. Of course it must also be transparently disclosed and so on.

Jason
The difference in blocking any of the existing ports on your list and blocking UDP/1900 is that the ports on your list are all registered ports. Port 1900 is not registered - a host may use port 1900 when making an outbound connection to another host (lookup ephemeral port range for more info) regardless of whether either host is using or running an SSDP server. A block on port 1900 will result in blocking legitimate customer traffic if the customer's device happened to select port 1900 as parts of its ephemeral port range.

To my knowledge, a current Windows, Linux, Apple device will not use port 1900 as part of its ephemeral port range, but Wikipedia suggests XP and older Windows operating systems will and I know that many NAT routers will (which affects all clients behind that NAT router, regardless of their OS). I have no idea what popular mobile clients use for their ephemeral port ranges. I imagine the NAT routers will be most common actors using ports outside of the IANA suggested ephemeral port range. Do you suggest that it is "reasonable network management" that users behind a NAT router have their 876th (1900 - 1024) UDP connection attempt blocked?

--Blake
Correction, I should have stated that the ports < 1024 were well-known. 1900 is not a well-known port

Reply via email to