[olug] Cox blocking 80 and 81 now

[Jonathan Warren]

Well in some senses a browser could be considered a server.  I don't usually try to demonize Cox because overall I am very very happy with the amount of incoming bandwidth for the price.  In fact I ddin't have any of the transitioning problems I have read about in other areas.  I setup my apache server on my gateway and it started getting pinged right away by the IIS virus of the week.  My initial thoughs were oh no here we go again.  I am glad cox is blocking port 80.  I don't understand 81 except that everyone I knew who ran an illicit server moved it to 81.  Anyway they haven't blocked 22 and of course all of these services are very usable and slightly less obvious running on off ports anyway.  For as long as I have been with Cox that has been an upstream bottle neck.  I doubt seriously blocking port 80 has to do with web traffic and more to do with customer complaints about unprotected IIS boxes spaming them.  I was going to compain about the unpatched boxes anyway.  I just don't think they have the support staff to help the ignorant.  Throw in the idea that a significant part of there user base may be ignorant and it isn't feasable for cox to disconnect all of them ( think of the lost revenue ).  Some day I will pay a lot of money for a real isp but in the meantime my crippled cox.net account is pretty sweet.

-Jon W


On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 05:14:25PM +0000, Carl Lundstedt wrote:
> On Thursday 23 May 2002 04:59 pm, you wrote:
> > It seems outbound port 80 and 81 no long work.  Requests get sent to the
> > web server but it never gets a response.  Interesting choice of ports. 
> > Guess 81 was becoming too common for there liking?  Anyone know anything
> > about this?  I know they had them open for at least a week.  I also know I
> > was getting web browser hits from other cox customers.  Oh well.
> >
> > -Jon W
> Down here in Lincoln I'm using RoadRunner and their 'usage policy' explicitly 
> states that you can't run 'any server' including but not limited to ftp, 
> http, or game (quake, etc).  I'm not surprised that Cox is blocking those 
> ports.  Its too bad that people who use WAY too much bandwidth spoil it for 
> the rest of us (there is a huge difference between hosting a couple of 
> homepages and running a Q3 server, or a warez site).  I guess it might also 
> be a security thing since, let's face it, most people don't know how to 
> secure a server of any flavor.
> 
> Carl Lundstedt
> UNL
> 
> 
> -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> 
> For help contact olug-help at olug.org - run by ezmlm
> to unsubscribe, send mail to olug-unsubscribe at olug.org
> or `mail olug-unsubscribe at olug.org < /dev/null`
> (c)1998-2002 OLUG http://www.olug.org
> 
> -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

For help contact olug-help at olug.org - run by ezmlm
to unsubscribe, send mail to olug-unsubscribe at olug.org
or `mail olug-unsubscribe at olug.org < /dev/null`
(c)1998-2002 OLUG http://www.olug.org

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_