Very Computer

by **l..** » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:09:03

of C.R. ... They didn't just block 80. You can choose some random
arbitrary port like 7380; 1717; 8080... whatever. Doesn't work. So
it isn't just port-based filtering. At first I thought they were
filtering all incoming syn packets--nope that can't be it--I ssh'd in.
So I'm guessing they have some filters that can peer into the packet
and look for signs of the http protocol, e.g. "GET" or "POST"? Anyone
know the truth of the situation?

by **Chris Friese** » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:23:52

> of C.R. ... They didn't just block 80. You can choose some random
> arbitrary port like 7380; 1717; 8080... whatever. Doesn't work. So
> it isn't just port-based filtering. At first I thought they were
> filtering all incoming syn packets--nope that can't be it--I ssh'd in.
> So I'm guessing they have some filters that can peer into the packet
> and look for signs of the http protocol, e.g. "GET" or "POST"? Anyone
> know the truth of the situation?

Call them up and ask them?

by **Zachary Echli** » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:59:18

You might want to try posting to athome.users-unix. They seem to know
what's up with this sort of thing.

Zachary Echlin

> of C.R. ... They didn't just block 80. You can choose some random
> arbitrary port like 7380; 1717; 8080... whatever. Doesn't work. So
> it isn't just port-based filtering. At first I thought they were
> filtering all incoming syn packets--nope that can't be it--I ssh'd in.
> So I'm guessing they have some filters that can peer into the packet
> and look for signs of the http protocol, e.g. "GET" or "POST"? Anyone
> know the truth of the situation?

by **Wayne Thro** » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:32:34

:: I'm guessing they have some filters that can peer into the packet and
:: look for signs of the http protocol, e.g. "GET" or "POST"? Anyone
:: know the truth of the situation?

: You might want to try posting to athome.users-unix.
: They seem to know what's up with this sort of thing.

OK. So I'll try it

error: athome.users-unix:411 No such group

Oh well. So it goes.

"He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"

by **Rod Smit** » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:20:03

> :: I'm guessing they have some filters that can peer into the packet
> and :: look for signs of the http protocol, e.g. "GET" or "POST"?
> Anyone :: know the truth of the situation?

> to athome.users-unix. : They seem to know what's up with this sort of
> thing.

> OK. So I'll try it

> error: athome.users-unix:411 No such group

> Oh well. So it goes.

Judging by your post's headers, you seem to be posting from a NewsGuy

--

http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux & multi-OS configuration

by **l..** » Sat, 01 Sep 2001 09:41:50

Thanks for the lead on that athome news group--I'll ask there from now
on. I figured there would be a good number of people in my situation
on a linux.networking group.

As for the filtering, I am mistaken. I changed all but one thing when
I switched--the firewall rule. Silly me.

As for "just calling them" uh-uh. They don't technically allow
serving off residential lines. That they allowed it this long likely
meant it was a silent perk to those in the know. It just got to be
too much of a liability with CR. The lawyers and accountants wouldn't
ever have allowed it.

Very Computer

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering