1996-10-01 - Re: Tools for Rendering Censorship Firewalls Ineffective

Header Data

From: SPG <tank@xs4all.nl>
To: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Message Hash: aebfc1fd9fe6327ea57953dc7ce2e158588b9f8bd714a9f90aadc2d05fac1e1d
Message ID: <3250FB83.1CFF3B8D@xs4all.nl>
Reply To: <199610010544.WAA11355@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-01 11:05:44 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:05:44 +0800

Raw message

From: SPG <tank@xs4all.nl>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:05:44 +0800
To: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Tools for Rendering Censorship Firewalls Ineffective
In-Reply-To: <199610010544.WAA11355@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <3250FB83.1CFF3B8D@xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bill Stewart wrote:

> That's trivial - most web server software is happy to use ports
> other than 80 if you tell it to, and it's not uncommon to see
> web servers running on ports 8000 or 8080, especially if they're
> run by regular users rather than root (which you need for port 80
> on many Unix systems.)  Does anybody know if the German ISPs were
> blocking XS4ALL's IP address just on port 80, on all ports, or on all but 25?

First they only blocked the IP-number of the web-server. After a while
they blocked 2 complete C-networks because xs4all changed the IP-number
of the webserver every half an hour.

At this moment they don't block anymore after we removed the radikal 154
temporary from xs4all. After they stopped blocking xs4all we've put the
issue back online of course :) We are now aiting what they will do next.
Either stop this censorship or block all +60 mirrors.

henk (SPG)





Thread