That is just silly. We pay ISPs for access not for filtering. Recently a worm got out that used the same ports as bittorrent trackers so several ISPs began blocking ports. This caused havok on the BT networks and people had to move their trackers. BT, FTP... all these protocols would be hurt by this, as would people who use per port NATing. I agree that the ISPs would just see this as a money making venture. I pay for all the ports on the connection, not just web and mail. The base article makes a lot of sense with the concept of not enabling services not needed but expanding it this way makes no sense. In the end I would just tell the ISP that I want bidirectional access to all ports anyway.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/241/26273#26273