Frontier: Blocking port 22 because of illegal files?

Daniel Corbe corbe at
Thu Mar 26 14:32:31 UTC 2015

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_Livingood at> writes:

> 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<mailto:aaron at>> 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

More information about the NANOG mailing list