[Am-info] Windows XP and CodeRed/Nimda

[Simon Cooke]

From: "Sujal Shah" <sujal@sujal.net>
> On Sun, 2001-10-28 at 17:35, Simon Cooke wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > Department to establish a Commercial Dedicated Account.
********Customers
> > who operate servers or attempt to force static addressing are in
violation
> > of this Acceptable Usage Policy. Disregard for these warnings may result
in
> > termination of the customer's account.********* Customers using the
Zenith
> [SNIP]
> >
> > ****'s are mine. Now, Mr. Dodel. Would you agree that running a server
on
> > your service is in fact a violation of that service?
>
> Simon, why do you have to be belligerent?  Especially when you don't
> make sense.  If I have a Windows PC and I leave file sharing on
> (configured and secured), am I operating a server?

Typically no, because that file sharing will not expand beyond your local
network. @Home, for example, doesn't expose filesharing (ie. netbios
packets/ IPX packets) past the cable modem itself; they're filtered out.

> In SMB parlance, the machine offering a share is a server...
>
> If he's not operating an "information service" and not attempting to
> force a static address, nor surpassing his traffic limits, I don't
> understand why you're making this point.

Mr. Dodel wrote:
"I can no longer access my web server"

Running a webserver on his system while using a cable modem for his access
is explicitly forbidden according to the terms and conditions of his access.


> Are you saying he doesn't have a right to access his own PC?

Running a webserver to do it? Damn straight -- according to the rules set
down by his provider. If he wants to do that, he should sign up for DSL. Or
a commercial account.

> In
> addition, doesn't he have the right to be annoyed that this access was
> turned off/blocked because of irresponsible users (which is all he said,
> IIRC... nothing about windows, but "windoze losers" or something
> similar).
>
> Calm down.

*shrugs* I'm calm. But I respond typically in the manner that I'm spoken to.
As for Mr. Dodel, he's blaming windoze users. Well, that's all fair and
good -- in fact, he's welcome to blame them. The thing is, he's blaming them
when he's not supposed to be running a server on his cable service in the
first place.

I would imagine that part of the reason they shut it down is because until
Code Red, they had no reason to block ports - it was more hassle than it was
worth, unless a user complained about their lack of bandwidth because
someone was running their site on their network segment. So they shut off
port 80 on all of their users' IP addresses.

The thing is, those ports should never have been open in the first place.
Blaming other people because he can no longer exploit a loophole in his
cable modem service is just like someone bitching because their were getting
better than basic cable tv because when the lineman came out to hook it up,
he didn't have any limiters on hand (and as they're paid by the job, not by
the hour, it's too much hassle to go back to base and get some more).

Simon