Nothing helps promote a free and open Internet more than micromanaging your users' download activity.
Not really sure how someone comes to the conclusion that nobody really *needs* ssh for anything. "Livingood, Jason" <jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> writes: > ISPs are generally expected to disclose any port blocking. A quick Google > search shows this is Frontier’s list: > http://www.frontierhelp.com/faq.cfm?qstid=277 > > On 3/25/15, 10:31 PM, "Aaron C. de Bruyn" > <aa...@heyaaron.com<mailto:aa...@heyaaron.com>> wrote: > > I've had a handful of clients contact me over the last week with > trouble using SCP (usually WinSCP) to manage their website content on > my servers. Either they get timeout messages from WinSCP or a message > saying they should switch to SFTP. > > After getting a few helpful users on the phone to run some quick > tests, we found port 22 was blocked. > > When my customers contacted Frontier, they were told that port 22 was > blocked because it is used to transfer illegal files. > > I called them, and got the same ridiculous excuse. > > Just a friendly heads-up to anyone from Frontier who might be > listening, I have a few additional ports you may wish to block: > > 80 - Allows users to use Google to search for illegal files > 443 - Allows users to use Google to search for illegal files in a secure > manner > 69 - Allows users to trivially transfer illegal files > 3389 - Allows users to connect to unlicensed Windows machines > 179 - Allows users to exchange routes to illegal file shares > 53 - Allows people to look up illegal names > > -A
