Port 80 still blocked for @Home users?

[George Toft]

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?

Thanks for any insight.

George
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails."


Nigel Sollars wrote:
> 
> LOL  Which modem are u using?  We have the Cisco 678 rooter from Qwest and
> its the biggest piece of sh*t...Theyve had the red code virsus hit it...so
> we had to close off port 80...then a second version of red code hit, now
> they are saying there is another virus out there....Im like if you cant
> protect your product why buy a sh*t load of them and sell them to the
> public....
> 
> sorry about my little rant there...Im just a little pissed at the quality
> of the product, the support (lack of) they provide.
> 
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Digital Wokan wrote:
> 
> > I have to ask because @Home never blocked me for some reason.  Tonight,
> > I have a theory.  Do any of those people who can't use port 80 have the
> > old LanCity modems, or were you all switched to the newer models?
> > I lost service for a few hours today, and when the tech came out he
> > tried swapping out my LanCity for a new model.  Only thing is, they
> > can't switch me out because when they set up my account, they entered
> > some node or something incorrectly.  The old LanCity doesn't care, but
> > the new models do and won't sync up.  They can't change my info without
> > corrupting the account under their current system, so we put the LC back
> > on and after a few minutes, it sync'd up again.
> > I never realized just how programmable those new ones are.  I always
> > though if your service was "capped" at so many K/sec, it was because
> > @Home did it at the router.  Seems it's the modems doing the capping and
> > LC's are too old to do it.  (Yes!)
> > This does leave me wondering... Why would a manufacturer purposely sell
> > something crippled to consumers?  If I went out to buy a cable modem
> > (assume using the docsis standard), why would I want to buy something
> > that's been crippled?  I would think there'd be a great incentive for a
> > company to sell a cable modem that can't be capped.  Customers would
> > very likely prefer that in principle at the least.
> >
> > (Until then, they can have my LanCity when they pry it from my cold
> > hands... maybe I should go turn off the AC.)
> > ________________________________________________
> > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> >
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> >
> 
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> 
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss