[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxx, or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
- From: Martin Fick <mogulguy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:45:08 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1249951503; bh=FlXmVB5Yyn/ZbLPhswIG+yE/udIbHw3bnvolHjHQiOY=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=fWL04Pt9ajTLovkPd7s+/K4itPoBmX9y1SeIVKOWGvc63pX9LcjwDvdWPXqKJOPFXXcFaHyOnaQsB8bajkMm41+g+nxmhXPHvGAHCqmmuhC7KZbeWfIwpzor4ZGK7S0Ss+U4zr5EkV0E09QluCKqx9fuOzGGTO1M4TaL2xiDx5A=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jaLcJveO+Ic/HZHupU5jmk3Fa3lD/bm+DWrpNvaLNYGp3bxHmaVtzl2/d9khSkRccAOsrGKZ2xWhcPJ5F54c9Tr5n7MrXJ38bAOTbudIISiFxm/UQRatKH0XuOLQD6jLoVx0QH4H0L54Cba5Bo8gagwgZx0Mym5ZxnuRcpfSH/c=;
- In-reply-to: <959936.90974.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- On Mon, 8/10/09, Martin Fick <mogulguy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 8/10/09, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Next, the conversation took a turn
> > I was told that having *any* ports "open facing the
> > Internet" was a violation of Comcast's Acceptable Use
> > Policy (AUP) for residential accounts.
> Seems like another good argument in favor of
> implementing a mechanism for relays to work behind
> firewalls, you would not need to have any open ports.
> ... so let's not complain about the price of gas
> here. ;) (unless it is to propose ways to make
> tor use less gas...)
Which give me another idea. What if directory servers
were used to publish a "secret port knocking handshake"
for relays? This would allow relays to go unnoticed on
port scans. Obviously this would not be a technique to
hide tor relays, but only to hide open ports from ISPs.
As long as they do not specifically target tor relay
operators, this might be effective?