Re: ISPs are blocking port 445?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 October 2002 09:28 am, Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
> | Cox Cable did the same thing with port 80 soon after Code Red
> | struck. Yet another reason why I hate MSFT and lusers.
> |
> | At the same time, they decided to be really anal and block port
> | 25, too. Bah!
>
> From the COX support pages FAQ
>
> Question:
> What ports do you block?
>
> Answer:
>
> We block the following TCP/IP ports at the cable modem level:
> 136-139
> 80
> 111
> 119
> 445
> 27374
> 25
>
> I don't like it.
> HTH,
> Brooks
I am also a Cox@home customer in the far north of CA (Humboldt). I haven't
tested 80, but I don't want my server on it anyway.
The last dialup I had also blocked 80, 136-139, 21, 22, and 25. They did
this to protect the Micro$harp people :( Fortunately, ssh can listen to any
port specified so I didn't get too miffed about it. The problem as I see it
is that I am being protected and it feels kind of like imprisonment! Guess
this is the wave of the future. "Big brother loves you!". .
tatah
- --
Jaye Inabnit<ARS ke6sls>A Debian-Gnu/Linux user
If it's stupid, but works, it ain't stupid. I SHOUT JUST FOR FUN.
Free software, in a free world, for a free spirit. Please Support freedom!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE9p3qyZHBxKsta6kMRAhREAJwPMqU4S8k3zKrBFeKdttmvhU2iqwCgv+L9
sdWkmAtb1a2tMv8oF39hUSU=
=vcxw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: