 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
 ·Embarq
| SBC Pretty soon SBC will have both the trial of ZoneAlarm Firewall on the CD and the option to choose an anti-virus program as an option for one of your free premium services. These are both entirely optional and if you don't like them you can just ignore they exist. Of course if one wants help with either they'd have to contact the respective company and not SBC.
--
"Knowhutimean, Vern?" - Ernest P. Worrell »www.maxolasersquad.com | |
|  | 
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| Re: SBC quote:
These are both entirely optional and if you don't like them you can just ignore they exist.
Then the average aohell customer not knowing what is, will ignore it, and will get stuff like msblaster. | |
| | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | Great. So, they roll in charges for PC stuff, even if you aren't using a PC. How nice of them.
-tom
--
You can be only -so- accurate with a sledgehammer. | |
| | | | | | | 
Jhon
join:2001-05-14
Northridge, CA
| Re: SBC said by Maxo  :
What charges are you reffering to? They are both free and are both optional.
You think SBC is going to do this out of charity? The 'charges' will be increased rates to the end users -- those with and without PCs -- those with and without existing firewalling solutions. I'd rather see them charge for an OPTIONAL service individually to people that NEED it rather than be REQUIRED to pay for it at any level. | |
| | | | | Dissman
join:2001-04-26
Youngstown, OH
| Re: SBC Well, umm..
It's one of your premium services available for subscribing to SBC Yahoo! DSL. It's only free in that sense, it's not a something for nothing. You get two free premium services from SBC Yahoo, and one of them can be a firewall, i dont see how that will impact the rest of the people with increased rates. | |
| | | | | | | | Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL
| Re: Common sense... Typical PC users (those who don't use firewalls, AV's, etc) are like the typical user who SHOULD NOT use firearms. If the typical PC user cannot be expected to take normal precautions to protect from worms, virii, etc, then they should not be using a PC.
When a youngster, my father trained me in the precautions of using a firearm before he even let me use one.
I am not saying there should be some sort of licensing to use a PC. I'm just saying users need to be more informed and knowledgeable before using a tool. There is no excuse really.
It's much like an auto manufacturer issuing a safety bulletin on your new vehicle and not taking it in for repair when you know it exists. As much as I dislike Microsoft, they cannot really be held accountable for this instance since a patch has been available for some time. | |
| 
Masque
join:2001-12-04
Auburn, MI | Maybe..... ......they need to chop of the fingers of the hackers.....not unlike chopping off the hand at the wrist of thieves in Turkey. | |
|
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| The isps need to block by default. The isps need to block certain ports by default. The avergae user doesn't know what a port is, and doesn't care that their computer is insecure.
And if you wanted to do something, or had a firewall yourself, you could call and have your isp remove the firewall.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-14 11:30:21] | |
| | 
XSF
join:2001-03-25
Toronto, ON | Re: The isps need to block by default. O/Ses, particularly MS, should have Antivirus software installed by default. | |
| | | NaturlBrnklr
join:2002-03-19
My Place :)
| Re: The isps need to block by default. said by XSF :
O/Ses, particularly MS, should have Antivirus software installed by default.
you do realize that this would very much make things a monopoly. It would be the IE fiasco all over again, however this time a company like McAfee or Norton, whoever would be left out in O/S incorporating virus scanning, have deeper pockets and would really feel the need to fight as they see their business dwindle. It is not Microsofts problem that users dont want to run/update virus scanners for whatever reason. In fact, this whole worm would never had begun had users ever bothered to update their copy of windows. The OS company can only put so much into the software before they start to squeeze out other companies that make the same software and are unhappy. I mean all the fuss over browsers - free software mind you- imagine what happens when software that costs money gets involved. | |
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
| I disagree. ISPs shouldn't block ports unless a particular virus/worm is affecting their network's viability. In these cases, it should be a temporary block that's removed after the storm.
If ISP's start blocking known worm/virus ports, where does it end? They'll be constantly chasing new virus. Plus, if they become involved in preventing a virus from spreading, they may be partially liable or responsible if they don't stop future attacks. | |
| | |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| Re: The isps need to block by default. I don't think the isp should be liable for virus attacks, but they could sheild n00bs. And if you use more than aim and e-mail, you could ask them to not block any ports.
quote:
If ISP's start blocking known worm/virus ports, where does it end? They'll be constantly chasing new virus.
That's because there only blocking known viri under ur idea. | |
| | | | |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| Re: The isps need to block by default. quote:
Firewalling individual users based on what they want becomes a problem administratively. No one wants to see 10,000 lines in there firewall configuration.
That is a problem. I guess the other option is to have oems install personal firewalls and virus scanners on their computers. Whatever the solution is, it has to be something that the average user doesn't know exists, but that a more advanced users can easily disable. | |
| | | Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL
| said by keyboard5684 :
At some point people need to take responsibility for their selves and there actions (or inactions).
That is the truth.
said by keyboard5684 :
Automatic updates are an awesome future that makes it so simple to use.
Given the number of times Microsofts patches have, ummm, well hosed my system, automatic updates are not really the way to go. | |
| | | | | | | | | Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Re: The isps need to block by default. I prefer to know what the updates are before hand. | |
| | | | | | 
skater29687
join:2003-06-30
Mesa, AZ
|  Re: The isps need to block by default.
--
Custom 1000 mhz. AMD Athalon with 512 mb. Ram. weird geforce 2 video card ram fluctuates from 16-64 mb. 30 gb. hard drive. 8x dvd-rom/cd-rw drive. 56x Cd-Rom wireless linksys nic. 17 in. monitor. and to top it off a soundblaster live sound card! | |
| 
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| What is this? said by Article:
Capitalism wouldn't thrive without a large market of uninformed (or sometimes just lazy) users to market to.
Why must irrelevant opinions get interjected into articles? I have yet to figure out how it adds anything relevant to the article or the discussion as a whole.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: What is this? Yeah, should read "Anti-Virus companies" now that I think about it.  | |
| | | | 
fadadfa
@bellsouth.net
| are they simple? yes the majority of computer users are simple, i know this fool who bought a whole new computer because she got a virus, she wanted my help and she said "well i have pc-cillan" and i told her it wasnt good and she needed something better, she said she didnt have the money if she wasnt sure it would work, and wouldnt let me run an online scan "because it could of been set up by a 12 year old". she blamed me (i was staying over for a few days, thats something else) for the virus(es) because i had "been to google, it had something to do with the google ads thats what i traced it down to". then it had something to do with a game i downloaded from downloads.com, a very popular one. and the symptoms of the virus were present already.
so she bought another $600 computer, and still didnt buy any antivirus protection for it, sigh.
i dont know, on one hand if they dont offer protection they might loose customers who wont reformat, but if they do it costs more for everyone. so expect to see more firewalls/antivirus from isps soon. | |
| | 
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| Re: are they simple? It was something the ISPs were playing around with a few years ago to offer paid premium services like A-V, Firewall install and configuration, LAN install and configuration, and similar things. At the time everybody poo-pooed the idea. Seems like the iron might be hot... time to strike!
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE! | |
| 
rtoday
join:2000-11-05
California
| Another View "... even adding on additional features for a slightly bumped up monthly fee."
Nonsense. IMHO, the service provider has the obligation to provide at least some level of protection. It's great sport to call the general user "uninformed" or "lazy." The reality is that the majority seem to be "underinformed" by their OS and/or ISP vendor in whom the general public has a right to place their faith.
Those who claim that people who aren't technologically sophisticated shouldn't buy computers are missing the point. The personal computer has become an appliance! It needs as much engineering and manufacturing effort put into consumer protection as other appliances we've come to trust.
Now, I'm not a big government advocate. However, consider that waves of fraud, abuse, and deficient or dangerous products have caused agencies such as CPA to intervene. Standards, laws, and even penalties are applied to other manufactured goods when they fail to perform or are injurious to the public. Why not to manufactured goods such as software and to services such as ISP's? Tort is not restricted to physical injury alone.
Imagine this ... "Recall ordered of MS Windows version 291.5" or "Acme ISP fined $1 million for fraud and deceptive business practices."
[text was edited by author 2003-08-14 12:17:24] | |
| | 
AthlGrond
Collectivism Breeds Envy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| Re: Another View said by rtoday :
Nonsense. IMHO, the service provider has the obligation to provide at least some level of protection. It's great sport to call the general user "uninformed" or "lazy." The reality is that the majority seem to be "underinformed" by their OS and/or ISP vendor in whom the general public has a right to place their faith.
Great idea.
However if most users were better informed by their OS or provider they would complain about the OS or provider as being hard to work with, or more likely would ignore the information. (Which appears to be the case with home users of windows XP which by default nags them to get updates...) | |
| | sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA | So does this mean that Anheuser-Busch should be held accountable for X percent of all alcohol related auto accidents? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | 
DenverDialup
join:2003-06-06
Littleton, CO
clubs:
| Re: Another View No, it is the same idea. The point is that a company can sell you the product and can be held responsible for the product itself, but not how you use the product. Anheuser-Busch can be held responsible if their beer contains poisons which cause sickness or death, but they can't be blamed if you get drunk, try to drive cross-country, and die. In the same way, an ISP should not be held responsible if their users don't take the time to learn how to protect themselves correctly with firewalls and anti-virus software.
--
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." -- Rich Cook | |
| | | | | | 
trisomy
Premium
join:2002-05-23
Houston, TX
·Comcast
| Re: Another View said by DenverDialup :
No, it is the same idea.
Please re-read my post from the context of my response rather than your own rhetoric.
The analogy of A-B and it's contribution to 'death by drinking and driving' is proximate...albeit indirectly perhaps but nevertheless proximate. A-B manufactures a substance which if used improperly can contribute to drunkenness and drunkenness in turn can lead to 'alcohol related accidents'.
Internet Service Provision leading to computer infections however is not proximate. Computers are not infected by improper utilization of the Internet and improper use of the Internet does not result in infection nor is there any expectation that the 'reasonable man' (the basis of tort) could have foreseen that their provision of a product within the standards of a community would/could have caused injury (the basis of liability).
Hence sherpaboy's analogy does not coincide with rtoday's statement about liability (or tort specifically) nor Boycott's concordant remark. Hence my statement 'Actually not the same logic' and the analogy which I suspect more apropos! | |
| | | | | sherpaboy
join:2001-07-06
Seattle, WA | OK, if I was on my way to the bar when the gas station attendant sold me the fuel, was he liable? | |
| | | | | |
trisomy
Premium
join:2002-05-23
Houston, TX
·Comcast
| Re: Another View said by sherpaboy :
OK, if I was on my way to the bar when the gas station attendant sold me the fuel, was he liable?
For what? | |
| |
trisomy
Premium
join:2002-05-23
Houston, TX
·Comcast
| IMHO we should place responsibility on the drivers traversing the information superhighway rather than toll gate providers replete with the requirement of age, tests of visual acuity and familiarity with the principles of their intended activity. Absent such I would suggest that ISP's be granted the Charter from State Insurance Agency's which enables them to sell personal (or more appropriately personal computer) liability insurance or we could simply continue along in our vicious game of "Dodge'M". In any case because people have been allowed to buy toasters shouldn't obligate Wonder Bread et. al. to guarantee that it's (the toast) the 'right color'!
Lastly, I am writing from the Lone Star State but have thrown my sombrero (or Stetson) in the ring for Govenor of California...if you agree with my opinion please support me during the upcoming election. Thank you! | |
| | | stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA |  Re: Another View
Go Aahnold!!!! | |
| | NaturlBrnklr
join:2002-03-19
My Place :)
| [QUOTE=rtoday
Nonsense. IMHO, the service provider has the obligation to provide at least some level of protection. It's great sport to call the general user "uninformed" or "lazy." The reality is that the majority seem to be "underinformed" by their OS and/or ISP vendor in whom the general public has a right to place their faith.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-14 12:17:24
[/QUOTE]
So if I burned my hand on an oven because i didnt know it was hot it is the makers responsibility for making it heat up? If you bothered to ever read the TOS you would notice the ISP just gives you a connection to the internet. What you do with it is up to you. If you want to just havea cable modem sit with nothing connected to it, so be it. If you just wanted it for your XBOX, fine. YOUR PC is YOUR responsibility. The only responsibilty of the ISP is to assure that your line is functioning. People need to stop blaming other people for their stupidity/laziness. | |
| | | | |
rtoday
join:2000-11-05
California
| Re: Another View Oh my goodness. I had no intention to spark such discussion!
But Jhon has mentioned something to which I feel obligated to respond: No, Sears probably has no responsibility if one drills holes in one's head. However, there have been regulatory boundaries placed on the electrical safety of power tools. NOOO, I do not advocate federal or state legislative intrusion in the business of computer software/hardware manufacturing and use. But, as some industries have learned, regulatory intrusion occurs when the incumbent providers fail to belly up to the bar when the public interest is jeopardized. | |
| | | |
trisomy
Premium
join:2002-05-23
Houston, TX
·Comcast
| Re: Another View said by rtoday :
Oh my goodness. I had no intention to spark such discussion!
This comment appears insincere given your comment below.
said by rtoday :
Nonsense. quote:
I am not suggesting your recant is not sincere but clearly your locution appears to require some, for lack of a better term, slight adjustment. However...
[QUOTE= rtoday ]But Jhon has mentioned something to which I feel obligated to respond:
...now, now...do you take us all to be daft or perhaps you are attempting to lull us into simply accepting YHO but understating your intent by restating your point!
[QUOTE= rtoday ]No, Sears probably has no responsibility if one drills holes in one's head. However, there have been regulatory boundaries placed on the electrical safety of power tools. NOOO, I do not advocate federal or state legislative intrusion in the business of computer software/hardware manufacturing and use. But, as some industries have learned, regulatory intrusion occurs when the incumbent providers fail to belly up to the bar when the public interest is jeopardized.
You resort now to some a priori defense of your position...I think not. Regulatory intrusion spans a history in America from the United States Constitution to the Alien and Sedition Act to the House Un-American Committee...not all of it directed to the 'public good'.
These two statements...
said by rtoday :
NOOO, I do not advocate federal or state legislative intrusion in the business of computer software/hardware manufacturing and use. But, as some industries have learned, regulatory intrusion occurs when the incumbent providers fail to belly up to the bar when the public interest is jeopardized.
are clearly juxtaposed. If you are making a 'closeted request' for help please just ask! However I do not believe that Government Intrusion into the Internet will be the result of ports being either open or closed on behalf of users or do I for one believe that anything beyond a tutorial on proper security oft repeated will solve the problem we have recently experienced.
| |
| | | | |
rtoday
join:2000-11-05
California
| Re: Another View Gosh, you Texans are tough! 
Flopping on the floor in a fervent sweat ... I yield!
I could not find an appropriate precedent. No "closeted" intent here. Just expressing what I believe to be a humble mom&pop user's opinion.
"Juxtaposed?" I think not. Merely a statement of my feeling, followed by a statement of fact.
This is not court, but rather an open forum for expressing one's opinion (whether or not supported). Have a great day!
[text was edited by author 2003-08-15 14:37:03] | |
| | | | | | | Asshat35
join:2002-11-14
Fitchburg, MA
| Help, Help, I'm being repressed. It's a tough issue. As a power user I don't want my ISP restricting my ports/access in/out to the world. I do think that they COULD help the "mom & pop" users by offering an enhanced security mode. Wherein the ISP would lock down everything coming in (no diff than typical firewall). Mom and Pop are NOT gamers, file traders, etc... It leaves us alone to fend for ourselves and implement personal security and keeps those less knowledgeable out of trouble.
My problem with that thought is that once you give someone (isp in this case) an entry point towards restricting content (port blocking) they might start doing it for everyone w/o notice and possibly w/o anyway to opt out of that.
Just some random thoughts. | |
| | 
hhawkman
Premium
join:2001-02-08
Port Hueneme, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Help, Help, I'm being repressed. said by Asshat35 :
It's a tough issue. As a power user I don't want my ISP restricting my ports/access in/out to the world. -snip-
My problem with that thought is that once you give someone (isp in this case) an entry point towards restricting content (port blocking) they might start doing it for everyone w/o notice and possibly w/o anyway to opt out of that.
I agree to a point, but where does responsabilty start and end? This worm is the perfect example of the ISP's knowing about a problem that would probably affect 99% of their users, yet in most cases, sitting on that information. The advisory came out 3-4 weeks ago to the ISP's. How many ISP's forwarded that warning to their customers as early as 2 weeks ago?, 1 week ago?, Yesterday?
Most ISP's that may have instituted blocking the port did so because their users were getting infected. This is "closing the barn door after the horse escapes".
You can whine and moan about people not being able to access the internet without some sort of intellegence test. and say "it's their own fault". Maybe it is to a point, but maybe if the ISP's gave some advance warning to them (not everyone who owns a computer follows technical discussions), then maybe this worm flood would have been over before it started. Or at least been easily controllable.
If ISP's that do blocking, blocked incoming port 135 early last week, no one would have noticed (unless you are running an Exchange Server, which is against most TOS's), and the worm wouldn't have spread into their networks. | |
| 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
| ISPs should help users who pay extra for it. Lets break this down.
1. Users are asking for help when it comes to security.
2. Users obviously cannot keep up with the patches or updates on their computers.
3. Users are willing to pay extra for more security and keeping their computers up to date.
Those are the facts. Now, I have NO problem with any company that wants to step in to provide those services. It just makes sense the ISP be that company. However, I would be content if another company did that. The point is, give the users what they want.
As for pricing, there should be three price points.
1. Pay monthly fee for extra security and make it affordable. Maybe $5-$10 a month.
2. Pay one time only fee for those who don't subscribe to option 1 but want to fix one issue. Maybe $25-$35 per incident.
3. Obviously, this should be the opt-out option, with a statement saying the ISP can cut you off if you are infected with a Nimda like virus or other exploit. I would love to see this option to prevent people who think they can secure their systems, but obviously cannot. If they are infected, their connection should be cut until their computers are free of infection and security holes are patched. Why have this in the first place? There are STILL computers infected by the Nimda virus on the Comcast network. The patches have been out for how long? If it has been over 6 months and the problem is still out there, some people would be content to just let the virus run rampant on their computers. Putting in a "disconnect" clause prevents that buffoonary from happening.
For those of us who want to do it ourselves, then all power to us. Keep us at the level of service that we have right now. Don't restrict ports on our connections.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
panth1
The Coyote
join:2000-12-11
Boca Raton, FL
| Just cut them off... I rather see isp's cut users off who are infected with a virus/worm and contributing to the propagation of this virus/worm.
Send everyone an email/post on their website, that there is a worm/virus causing problems and if you don't patch/fix your computer, that has been infected, by X date, you will be cut off.
These companies have plenty of customers and know that people will continue to sign up especially cable and DSL that have limited competition.
If you don't like it, there is always AOL. Ohh wait I have Road Runner. :P
--
ISPs: Road Runner/Powerlink
Current Status: Powerlink
| |
| | 
Phoenix__1
join:2003-07-17
Holyoke, MA
| Re: Paid Protection Personally, I think the blame is 50 / 50. The ISP, does play some in the matters of how easy or hard it is, for others to move through their networks, while the "user", also plays a part in how secure they make their computer.
Personally, I've got all the windows updates installed, 1 software firewall, 2 anti-virus programs, 3 torjan removers, 6 anit-spyware & anti-adware programs, and finally 1 anti-spam program. As well as I've tweaked my system to the point, where you can't even ping me & all my ports are closed and unneeded / unsecure services, have been turn off.
Yet, through all this & more, I was still hacked into, for 2 months. Was it the isp? As much as a part of me, would be quick to say YES, I am more then sure there are others here, who would say otherwise.
My cure, was simply to change my ip, with did take me all 2 months to do & I have yet, to be hacked again. | |
| | | NewGen
join:2003-02-16
Azle, TX | Re: Paid Protection did you tick someone off of something??! | |
| | | |
Phoenix__1
join:2003-07-17
Holyoke, MA | Re: Paid Protection don't know anyone online... this is the first forum, i've ever used to chat with anyone. | |
| 
Da22in
Buck Fush
join:2002-06-10
Charlotte, NC
clubs:
| Already there... My ISP, Comporium, has had spam filtering and email worm/virus protection in place for around a year now. They added it at no additional cost to the customer. I believe it's working great. I've yet to see anything sinister showing up in email (I also have my own protection in place) and the spam went from 15-20 junk emails a day to 1 or 2 a week that may slip through.
Blocking ports? Absolutely not, I think that's taking things a bit too far. I want access to all 65535 of them. Even monitoring certain ports is questionable...next they'll be "sniffing" packets; though I'm quite certain the US government has already taken the initiative on that one.
China polices their Internet...this is NOT China.
--
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - George Bernard Shaw | |
|
Theo25
@attbi.com | Get a router Just use a router and quit worrying about. Done deal... | |
| 
mr_slick
join:2003-05-22
Lynnwood, WA
| PAID Protection???? :( I would not be willing to pay more, but if they (ISPs) want to post some software free of charge it would be nice and I might use it. However I would like to do the installing and config, likewise, I would rather them refrain from blocking ports/packets.
If they do anything they should educate-- put up some detailed (security for dummys) instructions. | |
| | stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA
| Here's MY take on this whole affaire My take is this: it's not the responsibility of a given ISP to coddle to their customers, since they presume that their customers protect themselves as a enduser. I, for one, don't want my ISP blocking ports, providing firewalls, spamware protectors, ad blockers, et al. If I wanted that sort of garbage, then I would subscribe to AOL/MSN, since thats what these ISP's are gearing themselves to. And thats not a bad thing, since alot of people that are new to broadband have no idea what it's about, hence they ask about "firewalls, "virus proctection", "anti-spam", et al.
And it's up to us folks that frequent these hallowed halls to enlighten our less than internet savvy friends to get a firewall/virus protection app. if they don't have one, as well as why they NEED these apps.
As far as those "XP" updates goes-turned mine off after getting Service Pack 1-have enough bloatware, thankyou..Just get a decient firewall(I use Zonealarm-free version-port135 was hit big time on 08/11, and it did the job all by it's lonesome whilst I cruised the "seedier" side of the net-if ya know what I mean-now that I think of it, wonder if the porn servers were the problem..hm....)
Dosen't mean I don't check into Microsft Updates occasionally to see whats available....
Oh, by the way...Go "Ahnold!!"
Brownout in 2001, Grey out in 2003. | |
| Carr
join:2003-06-20
Gardendale, AL
| Be very careful..... I believe the responsibility for protection resides with the user....not with the ISP. I run behind a firewall, a router and check for patches daily (dual boot XPPro and Mandrake 9.x). I also live part of the year in Mexico(where I am now) where firewall activity is a lot higher than I have ever seen in the US. In my opinion if we start delegating responsibility for system protection to the ISP's there could be far reaching consequences **oh NO you cant visit THAT SITE/download THAT software/yadayadayada its DANGEROUS we are only trying to protect you its for your own good** no thanks. There are always going to be people who want to be protected from themselves--sigh-- Just my 2 cents and prbly not worth that LOL. | |
| | | pmattson
join:2002-07-29
Saint Petersburg, FL
| Absolutely
They have told me Point blank...They have closed the ports...they will not tell me how long they will be closed...and they refuse to help me out by facilitating a pptp connection between my offices....
Their reaction was sorry bout your luck...and you can reprogram 127 PC's to a different port to authenticate our log-in and Exchange...
They also told me they would not give me any extra IP's to band aid the problem until they decide to open the restricted ports, they decided to close...
Well according to the AIGA.ORG they are lawfully not allowed to do that.
As an ISP they have to allow Fire walling by there client and allow continuous use of "Well Known Ports"...The ports RR shut down are "Well Known Ports".
In a 3 day battle to get RR to help my small 18 employee company back online and back into business...The only assistance I could get from RR was several referred Numbers to lost extension, that lead back to the same common Tech-Support I receive at my home.( non-Static residential service). It's my belief that RR has no business as a "Business Class" ISP to truncate any ports from at least the "Well Known" 0-1023 certified ports that should never be compromised by a "Business Class" ISP.
The closing of these ports caused havoc, company wide. Both Exchange mail as well as normal file access was blocked from these actions. Even though RR claimed they had not closed any proprietary ports, through extensive research from our own IT staff, we were able to find the closed portals. All of the selected ports are all the necessary ports for our two suites to authenticate a log-in procedure, leaving our production staff, without the ability of a complete log-in.
With out this the design staff can not log into the mass storage device that houses all off there active design material. This in essence has shut us down completely.
After countless log-ins to tech-support at RR, I have totally discussed my self with this whole situation. After the bad news of another nasty virus running rabid and the initial thought we were not prepared for this, we realized that our last three weeks of updating and Norton Anti-virus updates, we were confident Tuesday that we had faired real well with this latest attack.
Then came the lies...After 2 days of actually calling and getting through to tech support, @ RR and them basically making us feel as this was a totally “internal” problem, we decided to start a port sniffing device to see if there were possibly closed ports on our IP's. We were having limited difficulties logging into our domain. (This was because we were local).
As soon as we went to outer logins we defiantly found there was a large problem logging into our system from outside our office.
Reason being, RR had closed ports on our IP's that enabled our ability to authenticate our company for remote logging.
Thus not allowing anybody, outside of the #603 Suite the ability to log in, check mail or get to files in progress.
Road Runner is certainly not “Business Class” material! | |
| | | |
|
|
Paid Protection
Common sense...
·
·
