Network Question

[Jeffrey A. McCright]

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.