How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs?

I have Charter Cablemodem access. Like most any broadband provider
they mention 'no webservers, no ftp servers, no gameservers" etc. Just
*how* closely do they watch this?

I realize I'm the one breaking the rules and taking the risks, but I
would like to set up a small webserver at home. It will be very very
low bandwidth- mostly just to host small images like avatars and stuff
for a few forums I frequent. I will also like to have ftpd running on
it for the infrequent times of moving small files around (less than
2mb, in most cases) and also *maybe* sshd so I can use it to fiddle
with machines on my LAN. I understand the usual ports are blocked and
I know how to get around that.

I know that Charter provides about 20mb of webspace for this, but
what's the fun in that? :-)

I know it's against the rules, but has anyone ever done this
themselves? Ever get 'busted', or heard of someone getting busted, and
if so, what happened?

I have a feeling that as long as I'm not using it to sell child pr0n,
spam everyone's email accounts with "enlarge your scrotum", and/or
otherwise don't rock the boat too hard or do anything blatantly stupid
they either won't notice or won't care as much.


But I could be wrong?

Thanks for any insight.

-phaeton

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:53:07 -0700, phaeton wrote:

> I realize I'm the one breaking the rules and taking the risks, but I
> would like to set up a small webserver at home. It will be very very
> low bandwidth- mostly just to host small images like avatars and stuff
> for a few forums I frequent. I will also like to have ftpd running on
> it for the infrequent times of moving small files around (less than
> 2mb, in most cases) and also *maybe* sshd so I can use it to fiddle
> with machines on my LAN. I understand the usual ports are blocked and
> I know how to get around that.

Charter's network people are too stupid to block the "usual" ports.

[~]$ telnet mail.xxxxxxx.net 25
Trying 68.xx.xxx.5...
Connected to mail.xxxxxx.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mail.xxxxxx.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.3/8.12.11; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:12:57 -0500 (CDT)
^]
telnet> quit

Dave Uhring wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:53:07 -0700, phaeton wrote:
>
> > I realize I'm the one breaking the rules and taking the risks, but I
> > would like to set up a small webserver at home. It will be very very
> > low bandwidth- mostly just to host small images like avatars and stuff
> > for a few forums I frequent. I will also like to have ftpd running on
> > it for the infrequent times of moving small files around (less than
> > 2mb, in most cases) and also *maybe* sshd so I can use it to fiddle
> > with machines on my LAN. I understand the usual ports are blocked and
> > I know how to get around that.
>
> Charter's network people are too stupid to block the "usual" ports.
>
> [~]$ telnet mail.xxxxxxx.net 25
> Trying 68.xx.xxx.5...
> Connected to mail.xxxxxx.net.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 mail.xxxxxx.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.3/8.12.11; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:12:57 -0500 (CDT)
> ^]
> telnet> quit

heh.. I didn't even bother to check, I just assumed they were. Doesn't
matter though, I intend to forward everything off to obscure ports
anyways. That'll at least fool the first row of w0rmz, kr4x0rz and
$cR1p+ K1dd33z.

On 2006-08-29, phaeton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I have Charter Cablemodem access. Like most any broadband provider
> they mention 'no webservers, no ftp servers, no gameservers" etc. Just
> *how* closely do they watch this?

It probably varies based on the provider. You might consider finding a
newsgroup that's more targeted to cable-modem providers, where you're
more likely to find users in this scenario.

> I have a feeling that as long as I'm not using it to sell child pr0n,
> spam everyone's email accounts with "enlarge your scrotum", and/or
> otherwise don't rock the boat too hard or do anything blatantly stupid
> they either won't notice or won't care as much.

One of the big reasons for these restrictions is that you might not know
you're selling child pr0n, spamming email, or otherwise abusing the
network till it's too late, if you get cracked or 0wn3d. They might
believe that you don't intend to do those things, but if you get cracked
your computer might be doing them without your knowledge. If you can't
run any listening daemons at all, it reduces their risk of malicious
traffic coming from their net. (And you might not even need to be
cracked e.g. if you put up a CGI for sending email that's not well-written,
in such a way that it can be used for spamming.)

Of course, with all those Windows clients, your small-time apache server
is probably a negligible security risk. I want to see a brave ISP
say something like "no webservers, no ftp servers, no gameservers, no
Windows clients".... ;-)

I have no experience, but the likeliest outcome if you're caught before
your machine does anything malicious would be account termination. I
don't know what might happen if you're caught because your machine was
doing something malicious (presumably without your knowledge, but you're
still accountable). I'm sure this varies wildly based on your country's
and/or state/province's laws.

--keith

--
kkeller-(E-Mail Removed)
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

phaeton wrote:

> I have Charter Cablemodem access. Like most any broadband provider
> they mention 'no webservers, no ftp servers, no gameservers" etc. Just
> *how* closely do they watch this?

Why would you buy a service that offers terms that aren't what you
want?

If Charter offers a higher class of service that doesn't have these
restrictions, you're basically stealing.

DS

"David Schwartz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com

>> I have Charter Cablemodem access. Like most any broadband provider
>> they mention 'no webservers, no ftp servers, no gameservers" etc.
>> Just *how* closely do they watch this?
>
> Why would you buy a service that offers terms that aren't what you
> want?
>
> If Charter offers a higher class of service that doesn't have these
> restrictions, you're basically stealing.

That's rather a stretch of logic. More accurate to say that the OP would
simply be violating the TOS (Terms Of Service) and would find that service
discontinued at some point when the ISP's port scans or packet sniffers
detect such traffic {to|from} the subscriber, as will eventually happen
sooner or later.

ynotssor wrote:

> > If Charter offers a higher class of service that doesn't have these
> > restrictions, you're basically stealing.

> That's rather a stretch of logic. More accurate to say that the OP would
> simply be violating the TOS (Terms Of Service) and would find that service
> discontinued at some point when the ISP's port scans or packet sniffers
> detect such traffic {to|from} the subscriber, as will eventually happen
> sooner or later.

That is not a stretch at all. If you take something you didn't pay for,
you are stealing. If Charter charges an extra $9/month to run servers
and you run servers without paying them, you are stealing those
$9/month from them.

DS

"David Schwartz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com

>> That's rather a stretch of logic. More accurate to say that the OP
>> would simply be violating the TOS (Terms Of Service) and would find
>> that service discontinued at some point when the ISP's port scans or
>> packet sniffers detect such traffic {to|from} the subscriber, as
>> will eventually happen sooner or later.
>
> That is not a stretch at all. If you take something you didn't pay
> for, you are stealing. If Charter charges an extra $9/month to run servers
> and you run servers without paying them, you are stealing those
> $9/month from them.

Shoplift a $9 item from a store and it's stealing, with legal consequences
that include a criminal record. Tell me someone got a criminal citation for
operating a server without paying the commercial premium charged by their
ISP. You can't. Many people have had their service terminated for doing so
in violation of their TOS, however.

On 2006-08-31, ynotssor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Shoplift a $9 item from a store and it's stealing, with legal consequences
> that include a criminal record. Tell me someone got a criminal citation for
> operating a server without paying the commercial premium charged by their
> ISP. You can't.

Just because an entity doesn't bring criminal charges doesn't mean it's
not theft. Shoplifting a $9 item from a store only has legal consequences
if the store reports you to the police; an ISP terminating your account
is akin to the store telling you not to come back. It's still theft,
even if there are no legal consequences.

To draw out the analogy further, if you return to the store even
after you were told to stay out, they might press charges; similarly,
if you sign up for another account with that same ISP (say, with
a different or fake name), and they caught you running a server again,
they might press charges. (It's probably a bit harder to return to
your ISP which terminated you than to return to the store, though.)

--keith

--
kkeller-(E-Mail Removed)
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

On 29 Aug 2006 11:53:07 -0700, phaeton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
| I have Charter Cablemodem access. Like most any broadband provider
| they mention 'no webservers, no ftp servers, no gameservers" etc. Just
| *how* closely do they watch this?
|
| I realize I'm the one breaking the rules and taking the risks, but I
| would like to set up a small webserver at home. It will be very very
| low bandwidth- mostly just to host small images like avatars and stuff
| for a few forums I frequent. I will also like to have ftpd running on
| it for the infrequent times of moving small files around (less than
| 2mb, in most cases) and also *maybe* sshd so I can use it to fiddle
| with machines on my LAN. I understand the usual ports are blocked and
| I know how to get around that.


If you are going to run sshd, then forget the FTP server and just use
scp/sftp instead. Much easier to setup firewall rules for, and the
traffic is encrypted, so your login password doesn't go over the net in
clear text.

There are free Windows clients as well, if that is a consideration,
I have found that WinSCP3 is quite good.


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro