Re: [Full-Disclosure] Should ISPs be blocking open ports for their customers?

[Stephen Perciballi <stephen.perciballi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Seems like a pretty stringent AUP.  That would be annoying if you were
trying to use an IRC server over your WAN for company communications or
the like.

________________________________________________________________
Stephen Perciballi              phone: 1-416-216-5141
Internet Security Specialist    cell : 1-416-877-1808
MCI                             pager: sperciba-pager@xxxxxxxxxx
www.mci.com/ca                  24/7 : 1-888-886-3865

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, morning_wood wrote:

> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Should ISPs be blocking open ports for their
> customers?
>
>
> >
> > It's not really common practice for transit type providers to do this.
> > The networks are typically engineered to forward packets and not filter
> > them.  Hopefully the providers have dedicated staff to handle abuse.  In
> > that case issues should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
>
> in my local area comcast is blocking 135 and 445, further I have advised 
> comcast
> of thinknaw, just dont give it out
>  of blocking inbound 6667 as i feel this would reduce many of the mechanisims
> using [sd]bot type agents attacking against ircd.
> since running a IRC server is in contrast to thier ToS.
>
> DMCA observances:
> quote from comcast tv commercial  "download your favorite music, and movie
> trailers online"  - - note the use of the phrase "trailers" to note the
> destinction between them ( legal ) and full movies ( illegal ), but nothing
> about said music ( of which you can get "trailers" of commercial releases (
> legal )) as opposed to commercial releases ( illegal ).
>
>
> Donnie Werner
> http://e2-labs.com
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html