Network Question

[JD Runyan]

The printed materials I received from RR did suggest a firewall, and I
believe pointed you to McAffee and Symantec for solutions.

On Sat, Aug ,  at 10:07:33PM -0500, Jeffrey A. McCright wrote:
> I did some contract work for peoples telecom in La Cygne KS several months
> ago. At the time, Peoples was just opening up DSL service to the La
> Cygne/Parker/ Fontana areas of Kansas. My job was to install the Ethernet
> adapter and set up the IP and e-mail settings on the client's systems.
> Although People's didn't have a position on this, I was vigorously warning
> client's of the need for firewall software and the dangers of running an
> unprotected system on a broadband connection to the internet. It seems to me
> that Comcast (@Home) and Time-Warner (Roadrunner) should be doing the same.
> Not actually selling the firewall software, but at least making an active
> effort to warn about the inherent dangers of an unprotected broadband
> connection, and possibly suggesting specific firewall software.
> 
> Just my opinion...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jeff McCright
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jonathan Hutchins [mailto:hutchins at opus1.com]
> Sent:	Monday, August 06, 2001 3:27 PM
> To:	Bob Batson; Gene Dascher; kclug at kclug.org
> Subject:	Re: Network Question
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Batson" <rcb at kc.rr.com>
> 
> > Sounds as if Comcast at home is as responsive to this problem as is
> > TimeWarner/AOL/RoadRunner --- "ignore it long enough and it will go
> > away".
> 
> I really don't think I want RoadRunner or Comcast or @Home to be the ones
> who decide what traffic is passed on the local network.
> 
> Do you?
> 
> What are they really supposed to do about it anyway?
> 
> Sure, they could try to identify machines that weren't patched and block
> that port on that address, but that would create just about the same traffic
> as the Code Red problem does in the first place - at least until attack day.
> 
> This is and should be an end-user problem.  The ISP's provide connectivity,
> and if that connectivity includes port scans, so be it.
> 
> And really, can you see those people doing a subtle, non-intrusive,
> technically astute solution on something like this?  If they could do that,
> they could run a mail server.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>