Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?
- From: "phaeton" <blahbleh666@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:37:37 -0700
Dave Uhring wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:53:07 -0700, phaeton wrote:
I realize I'm the one breaking the rules and taking the risks, but I
would like to set up a small webserver at home. It will be very very
low bandwidth- mostly just to host small images like avatars and stuff
for a few forums I frequent. I will also like to have ftpd running on
it for the infrequent times of moving small files around (less than
2mb, in most cases) and also *maybe* sshd so I can use it to fiddle
with machines on my LAN. I understand the usual ports are blocked and
I know how to get around that.
Charter's network people are too stupid to block the "usual" ports.
[~]$ telnet mail.xxxxxxx.net 25
Trying 68.xx.xxx.5...
Connected to mail.xxxxxx.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mail.xxxxxx.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.3/8.12.11; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:12:57 -0500 (CDT)
^]
telnet> quit
heh.. I didn't even bother to check, I just assumed they were. Doesn't
matter though, I intend to forward everything off to obscure ports
anyways. That'll at least fool the first row of w0rmz, kr4x0rz and
$cR1p+ K1dd33z.
.
- References:
- How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?
- From: phaeton
- Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?
- From: Dave Uhring
- How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?
- Prev by Date: Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?
- Next by Date: Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?
- Previous by thread: Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?
- Next by thread: Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|