I never did get done experimenting with dhs.org to see if the redirects could include a port number. Since I'm giving them a full URL, I suppose it could. Bob Cober wrote: > > Port 80 was blocked for me too, and I no longer have a LAN City. :-( > > FYI - I am sure everyone already realizes this, but it is VERY easy to > configure Apache, IIS, Tomcat, or any other web server to use some other > port than 80. Then your web site could be accessed as www.mysite.com:8797 > (note: that is not a real address). > > Adding a port number to the url is so simple, it seems to me that blocking > 80 really doesn't stop anyone from doing anything.... > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David P. Schwartz > To: > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:41 AM > Subject: Re: Port 80 still blocked for @Home users? > > > It's not the OS, per se, that's the problem here (well, unless CBOS _is_ > the OS). Somebody figured out how to create a virus that hacks > > through the CBOS command set on the modem. Kinda like if they came up > with a way to get your e-net card to hack through to corrupt an AMI > > or Award BIOS. Doesn't matter which OS is running, see? The Cisco modems > could very well be running an embedded version of Linux (probably > > not, but ... possible), but the thing running on top, CBOS, would be what > was compromised. > > > > -David > > > > George Toft wrote: > > > > > I have been following the series of complaints about the Cisco 67X > > > series with regard to its vulnerabilities to Code Red et al. My > > > question, born of ignorance about this beastie, is why can you not > > > use a Linux-based router instead?