Comment Re:I'm in the middle. (Score 1) 790
This is never going to be a possibility. The amount of rules required on a firewall or router to allow/deny individual ports per-user has a direct effect on that hardware's CPU and memory usage.
Any ISP with a measurable user base could not afford the amount of hardware this would require.
I believe the ultimate solution would be to have two classes of service, unrestricted and "secure." This would allow an ISP to place customers on one of the two and ease administration greatly. Obviously, the ISP should advise customers of the unrestricted service of the dangers they might encounter.
ON A SEPARATE NOTE: My ISP only filters traffic coming in on port 25, most likely because of open-relays. I guess it isn't such a bad thing. But I believe any provider of internet services should be required to label their service as "Restricted Internet" if ANYTHING is filtered coming in or going out.
Any ISP with a measurable user base could not afford the amount of hardware this would require.
I believe the ultimate solution would be to have two classes of service, unrestricted and "secure." This would allow an ISP to place customers on one of the two and ease administration greatly. Obviously, the ISP should advise customers of the unrestricted service of the dangers they might encounter.
ON A SEPARATE NOTE: My ISP only filters traffic coming in on port 25, most likely because of open-relays. I guess it isn't such a bad thing. But I believe any provider of internet services should be required to label their service as "Restricted Internet" if ANYTHING is filtered coming in or going out.
