Port 80 still blocked for @Home users?

I never did get done experimenting with dhs.org to see if the redirects
could include a port number. Since I'm giving them a full URL, I
suppose it could.

Bob Cober wrote:
>
> Port 80 was blocked for me too, and I no longer have a LAN City. :-(
>
> FYI - I am sure everyone already realizes this, but it is VERY easy to
> configure Apache, IIS, Tomcat, or any other web server to use some other
> port than 80. Then your web site could be accessed as www.mysite.com:8797
> (note: that is not a real address).
>
> Adding a port number to the url is so simple, it seems to me that blocking
> 80 really doesn't stop anyone from doing anything....
>
> Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David P. Schwartz <davids@desertigloo.com>
> To: <plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us>
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Port 80 still blocked for @Home users?
>
> > It's not the OS, per se, that's the problem here (well, unless CBOS _is_
> the OS). Somebody figured out how to create a virus that hacks
> > through the CBOS command set on the modem. Kinda like if they came up
> with a way to get your e-net card to hack through to corrupt an AMI
> > or Award BIOS. Doesn't matter which OS is running, see? The Cisco modems
> could very well be running an embedded version of Linux (probably
> > not, but ... possible), but the thing running on top, CBOS, would be what
> was compromised.
> >
> > -David
> >
> > George Toft wrote:
> >
> > > I have been following the series of complaints about the Cisco 67X
> > > series with regard to its vulnerabilities to Code Red et al. My
> > > question, born of ignorance about this beastie, is why can you not
> > > use a Linux-based router instead?