Comcast cutting off Spam "Zombie" PCs

Stuart · 16-03-2004, 09:49

The American ISP "Comcast" has started to warn people their PCs are distributing spam and cutting off those who ignore the warnings.

Look here for the article.

Mal · 16-03-2004, 10:11

The majority of spam to my yahoo account that have the netskyb come from a comcast address. Be good if it stops.

Stuart · 16-03-2004, 10:37

True. Maybe if more ISPs do this, then the amount of spam will be massively reduced.

Jon M · 16-03-2004, 10:46

ISP's should do the same thing for people that aren't running firewall/anti-virus software

Stuartbe · 16-03-2004, 10:50

Nope - all isp should not and dont need to do this....

Any mail server can easily be configured to use secure authentication or check the source domain and bounce the mail if they are spoofed. This wont stop people sending spam but it will ensure that they can be tracked !

Its about time that ISP's arrounf the world started doing this and blocking spoofed packets on there gateway to !!!

Stuart · 16-03-2004, 11:08

True, any mail server can be easiliy configured for this. But, I think the ISPs should do some monitoring of users (and if necessary, cut the users off). The main reason being that spammers are not the only people that can take advantage of unsecured/unpatched PCs or Macs. There is also the problem of Hackers.

Jerrek · 16-03-2004, 15:56

My ISP blocks port 25. Both incoming, and outgoing connections. You're only allowed to connect to the local mail server's port 25. Its a good thing.

**Paul** · 16-03-2004, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

My ISP blocks port 25. Both incoming, and outgoing connections. You're only allowed to connect to the local mail server's port 25. Its a good thing.

That's a very bad thing.

Jerrek · 16-03-2004, 18:30

Why?

Alan Waddington · 16-03-2004, 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Why?

It would force people running servers to route all their outgoing mail via their ISP. Considering how unreliable NTL email is, that would be a nusiance.

**Paul** · 16-03-2004, 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Why?

I run my own e-mail servers - why should I be forced to use my ISP's.

Jerrek · 16-03-2004, 20:29

They can make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. 99.999% of people don't run mail servers, and a lot of those that do are not secured.

I don't want someone's mail server to be used to send out billions of emails. It seems very reasonable to me.

Stuartbe · 16-03-2004, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

They can make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. 99.999% of people don't run mail servers, and a lot of those that do are not secured.

I don't want someone's mail server to be used to send out billions of emails. It seems very reasonable to me.

If they give you the option of running the server then there is no problem with that IMO.....

I dont think that ntl are able to do that ATM.... So any block applied would affect users on the whole network...

It would be a good idea to block all non standard service ports by default and then when the user opens his/her account they can specify the level of control they want. Most users just surf the web, play games and send emails via the ISP's mail server. The isp could then ensure that the user is aware of the security precoutions that he/she has to take....

Cant see this happening with NTL though

Alan Waddington · 16-03-2004, 22:42

Actually, you probably could block a large range of ports on the cable modem if you really wanted to. Having everyone with a custom configuration would be a fair amount of work to organise (i.e. automate).

Stuartbe · 16-03-2004, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Waddington

Actually, you probably could block a large range of ports on the cable modem if you really wanted to. Having everyone with a custom configuration would be a fair amount of work to organise (i.e. automate).

NTL will be able to do this with the new cable modems as they have inbuilt firewalls. A good idea IMO as long as the customer has the option of disabling it if he/she needs to...

I have no objection to all users have security set up by default !