Frontier: Blocking port 22 because of illegal files?
jeff.richmond at gmail.com
Thu Mar 26 14:28:57 UTC 2015
All, I have reached out to Aaron privately for details, but we do not block port 22 traffic unless it is in direct response to an attack or related item. Please let me know directly if you have any specific questions.
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 7:09 AM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> ISPs are generally expected to disclose any port blocking. A quick Google search shows this is Frontier’s list:
> On 3/25/15, 10:31 PM, "Aaron C. de Bruyn" <aaron at heyaaron.com<mailto:aaron at 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
More information about the NANOG