Creating a stealth server?

[anandfan]

I have attbi/comcast cable internet. I want to run an extremely low-bandwidth server -- just for a few family members across the country. I do not need an always open server and do not wish to trigger Comcast server detector nor to invite in others doing port scans.

My idea is to use pings (or similar) to tell my home machine to open an http port for a few minutes so my family can connect. Other frills can be added to handle my dynamic IP, race conditions, etc. Here is the basic transaction sequence.

I will have made public the server IP, ports x1, x2. Port x2 will be closed initially.


My machine (server): Remote family machine (client):

wait for ping on port x1 -
- send ping to port Server:x1, start 30 second time delay
receive,ack ping -


open port x2 (start timeout timer) -
(waiting) - timer expires, send connect request to port x2
connection success connection success
- terminate connection


close port -
wait for ping of port x1.

Anything out there that does this? Seems like this might be easier to do in Linux than Win XP.

 

[Nothinman]

I have never seen a 'comcast server detector' and I've been on Comcast's network since they bought AT&T. @Home used to scan for NNTP proxies, but that was it.

 

[Soybomb]

Just run the webserver on an unusual port number if you're really worried.

 

[anandfan]

I have never seen a 'comcast server detector'

OK. I kind of had brain lock when I typed that. I was referring to port scanners. I was originally ATT Cable, and was told they ran port scanners on the usual server ports. Thanks for the report on Comcast NNTP scans.

You might be wondering what I'm up to. I just want to make my online photo album and a family discussion forum / calendar /phone/email addresses available. I will soon run out of space as hosted by my ISP plus it's easier to maintain everything locally. I don't expect a lot of use, maybe once or twice a week, and reliability is not a big deal. It's mainly just an excuse to try out some ideas.

😎

 

[Nothinman]

OK. I kind of had brain lock when I typed that. I was referring to port scanners. I was originally ATT Cable, and was told they ran port scanners on the usual server ports. Thanks for the report on Comcast NNTP scans.

The NNTP scans were @Home, I've never seen Comcast scan for anything. They probably told you that to scare you.

 

[JackMDS]

For $15 a year you can buy a TLD, for additional $4-8 a month you can have a full normal hosted server 24/7.

Your own email, bigchief@wowmail.com and you can give a nice free email service to your friends and family.

Best of all. you do not have to live with the fear of been discover by the ISP and the port scanners.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

I don't have Comcast cable, but I have never heard of a single cable ISP that is proactive about running servers. Some filter ports, but that seems to be about it. I've been running a few services on my home cable line for over a year with no consequences. Hell, I emailed a problem report to them from the mail server I run off of their cable line. I've yet to see any evidence that anyone cares, other than the people writing the TOS.

Oh, and how does running servers invite port scans? All it means is that people will see some open ports if/when they scan you, but who cares? Just configure your stuff correctly and keep it up to date. Password protect your website if you don't want other people looking at it.

 

[JackMDS]

They do not care about the server per se

However, most of them mind if the Upload traffic is out of control.

 

[Nothinman]

but I have never heard of a single cable ISP that is proactive about running servers.

@Home only started because at one point the amount of spam coming from open, user-run NNTP servers/proxies almost got them the usenet death penalty.

However, most of them mind if the Upload traffic is out of control.

Which is why it's capped, I personally figure if they want to give me 30K/s upstream I can keep it saturated 24/7 and they won't mind otherwise they need to adjust the caps.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I personally figure if they want to give me 30K/s upstream I can keep it saturated 24/7 and they won't mind otherwise they need to adjust the caps.

I agree. Actually though, I'd rather have an unlimited (or just higher, like 512kbps, I currently only get 128kbps up) upload speed, with a total transfer limit per month or week or whatever, assuming it would be reasonable. Serving up 500KB images to a couple people at once really sucks with 128k.

 

[Soybomb]

Which is why it's capped, I personally figure if they want to give me 30K/s upstream I can keep it saturated 24/7 and they won't mind otherwise they need to adjust the caps.

For a business class account or something where they allow servers then. Your broadband is cheap because of the traffic patterns they can count it. Running a server that saturates your upstream probably means its no longer profitable to have you as a customer. If there is a total throughput cap, I agree a no servers policy isn't right, but I don't think most ISPs are doing that, so until then I think its a fair policy.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Soybomb

Which is why it's capped, I personally figure if they want to give me 30K/s upstream I can keep it saturated 24/7 and they won't mind otherwise they need to adjust the caps.

For a business class account or something where they allow servers then. Your broadband is cheap because of the traffic patterns they can count it. Running a server that saturates your upstream probably means its no longer profitable to have you as a customer. If there is a total throughput cap, I agree a no servers policy isn't right, but I don't think most ISPs are doing that, so until then I think its a fair policy.

I understand what you mean, but the policy should be explicit. They say you can do X Y and Z, but you can't do A, B, and C. What that means is that I cannot run servers, however I am allotted 1.5mbit downstream and 128kbit upstream, with no limits on the amount of traffic, according to my terms of service. I should be able to saturate that, and they shouldn't have any problem with it. If they don't want me to do that, they should change their policy instead of having a vaguely implied rule about bandwidth usage.

 

[Soybomb]

I prefer it kept looser actually. Most ISPs don't care unless you become the problem. I'd rather have a no servers policy, and no throughput caps, and an ISP that doesn't enforce it....unless it becomes an issue with you. Its the one guy who will be sucking down a full T1 by himself out of hundreds that makes it matter sadly. I do think its possible to see more throughput caps come through in time because of it too.

 

[mboy]

OOL now caps their excessive upstream customers (lots of peer-to-peer sharers.

I agree with just making the server an unusually high port # and tell the small # of family memebers/friends to type that in after the ip addy.

 

[Confused]

Easiest thing is high port number, and don't worry 🙂


I too would like a higher upload speed, even if it did come with an expense of a weekly/monthly upload limit. I use my upstream vary rarely, but when I do, it's to show friends/relatives pictures or similar, and having the faster upload speeds would be advantageous for few minutes a day when I want to share something.

Hell, it would be better for uploading stuff to another web server, so that I only have to upload it once! 😉 I don't do that now (and run my own server) because I can't be bothered for it to transfer to the other server, so I just leave the stuff locally to me (2 secs to transfer a MB rather than 3 mins 😉) and let others wait


Confused