Comments on: Cox at it again. http://nosebleed.info/cox-at-it-again/ For every inaction, there's an equal but opposite excuse. Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:47:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1-beta2 By: Paul http://nosebleed.info/cox-at-it-again/#comment-562 Paul Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:12:43 +0000 http://blog.nosebleed.info/2005/01/30/cox-at-it-again/#comment-562 Just spoke with cox tech support regarding ftp server access. It appears that they claim they are not blocking ports 21 & 22. However they are blocking outside access. ie:someone within the cox netowork can access an ftp server running in the cox network but it can not be accessed from the outside. Just spoke with cox tech support regarding ftp server access. It appears that they claim they are not blocking ports 21 & 22. However they are blocking outside access. ie:someone within the cox netowork can access an ftp server running in the cox network but it can not be accessed from the outside.

]]> By: Urthrun http://nosebleed.info/cox-at-it-again/#comment-285 Urthrun Fri, 06 May 2005 14:32:53 +0000 http://blog.nosebleed.info/2005/01/30/cox-at-it-again/#comment-285 Cox is blocking ftp ports, wiether they be 21, or 50050...I hate them, I want my ftp! Cox is blocking ftp ports, wiether they be 21, or 50050…I hate them, I want my ftp!

]]> By: nosebleed http://nosebleed.info/cox-at-it-again/#comment-11 nosebleed Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:36:42 +0000 http://blog.nosebleed.info/2005/01/30/cox-at-it-again/#comment-11 OK, BitTorrent seems to be working just fine under Windows... I am a dumbass. Drive through. OK, BitTorrent seems to be working just fine under Windows…

I am a dumbass. Drive through.

]]> By: Nilson http://nosebleed.info/cox-at-it-again/#comment-9 Nilson Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:29:25 +0000 http://blog.nosebleed.info/2005/01/30/cox-at-it-again/#comment-9 Well see, you're confused. Cox most likely /is/ blocking port 80, along with port 22 and 21. Those ports are used for incoming connections to servers. A client will connect to an http or ftp server on a random port above the range of the service ports. A typical socket for an http connection would be something like (local) :4127 (remote) :80 Well see, you’re confused. Cox most likely /is/ blocking port 80, along with port 22 and 21. Those ports are used for incoming connections to servers. A client will connect to an http or ftp server on a random port above the range of the service ports. A typical socket for an http connection would be something like

(local) :4127
(remote) :80

]]> By: Anders http://nosebleed.info/cox-at-it-again/#comment-7 Anders Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:49:30 +0000 http://blog.nosebleed.info/2005/01/30/cox-at-it-again/#comment-7 are they just blocking the typical BT ports?... can you just switch which ports you watch the tracker through and go about your buisness? I mean they obviously aren't blocking port 22, or 21 Anders are they just blocking the typical BT ports?… can you just switch which ports you watch the tracker through and go about your buisness?

I mean they obviously aren’t blocking port 22, or 21

Anders

]]> By: Tristor http://nosebleed.info/cox-at-it-again/#comment-6 Tristor Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:40:31 +0000 http://blog.nosebleed.info/2005/01/30/cox-at-it-again/#comment-6 I say you go to their corporate headquarters and give their CEO a swirlie in the company toilets, and then punch the CTO in the face. It has it's bonuses :D I say you go to their corporate headquarters and give their CEO a swirlie in the company toilets, and then punch the CTO in the face. It has it’s bonuses :D

]]>