Oops, typo. What I meant to say was I scanned about twenty-five thousand hosts for Heartbleed.
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Max Bond <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I've been using CenturyLink for ADSL in the US for five or six years > (coincidentally this is my last day with them, so I probably won't be able > to do much testing), and I have never had a problem using Tor; as soon as I > saw this thread, I fired up Tor Browser and accessed a few websites. I > didn't use pluggable transports and everything went smoothly. > > I can confirm that restarting the router changes the IP address, and that > they have some level of remote management (I've noticed them installing > firmware updates to my router.) > > I've never heard of this "protection program" but I doubt its the cause. > I've never known it to be zealous, let alone overzealous; I scanned about > twenty-five thousand, multiple times, to gather statistics. I never heard a > peep out of > them. I imagine that they'd watch for large volumes of obvious attack > traffic before they targeted Tor, from a malware perspective. > > All that being said, perhaps this is a regional difference. > > Hope that helps, > Max > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Ben Tasker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it >> doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients are >> neither. >> >> As it has been known for some infections to establish a connection back to >> their C&C via Tor, it's not inconceivable an ISP (or more likely, >> who-ever's providing their kit) might apply a policy which could >> (deliberately or otherwise) wind up blocking Tor. Whether Tor is malware >> has no real bearing, what matters is whether it's traffic is perceived as >> such by the ISP >> >> I missed the part about the torrent client, though it sounds like the >> behaviour was slightly different. In either case though, the OP's >> description makes it sound like the external connection dropped in it's >> entirety - for any kind of filtering/blocking that's massive overkill. If >> you were being restricted to a walled garden, outside connectivity might >> appear unavailable unless you were going to a whitelisted IP. >> >> On my (UK) ISP, a reboot of the router pretty much guarantees a new IP, >> though I have also been with providers where that wasn't the case. >> >> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Yuri <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On 02/01/2015 15:24, Ben Tasker wrote: >> > >> >> Looking at their info page - >> >> >> http://www.centurylink.com/Pages/AboutUs/Legal/InternetServiceManagement/ >> >> - >> >> it seems Century Link run what they call a Protection Program. >> >> >> >> If they detect (what they consider to be) potentially malicious >> traffic, >> >> the connection gets put in a walled garden to notify the end user. >> >> >> > >> > This policy document talks about botnet and virus infections, so it >> > doesn't seem relevant to OP's friend, because tor and torrent clients >> are >> > neither. >> > >> > As others have said, rebooting the router would likely have acquired a >> new >> >> IP, so effectively cancelling a block. >> >> >> > >> > Not familiar with CenturyLink, but with Comcast digital cable only >> > rebooting with changed client MAC address would cause an IP change. >> > Otherwise IP is very persistent. >> > >> > >> > Yuri >> > >> > -- >> > tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] >> > To unsubscribe or change other settings go to >> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Ben Tasker >> https://www.bentasker.co.uk >> -- >> tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] >> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk >> > > -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
