Cable vs. DSL

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by wntw, May 25, 2004.

  1. wntw

    Jim Berwick Guest

    TCP/IP is used no matter if you are using PPPoE or not. Regardless, if you
    can reach the internet, you are vulnerable to someone reaching you. The
    fact that cable is more like a LAN than DSL doesn't matter. You have a
    public IP, you have an unpatched computer with no firewall, you are going
    to get nailed. Cable, DSL, dialup, OC48, doesn't matter.
    Jim Berwick, Jul 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. I was walking down the street, minding my own business, when on Thu,
    Did I say it wasn't? However, to log onto a DSL connection, you use
    PPPOE, then it's translated to TCP/IP at the server. After all, TCP/IP
    is the protocol of the Internet.
    Didn't I just say that?
    Dr. Harvie Wahl-Banghor, Jul 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. wntw

    Rick Merrill Guest

    That was only true early on. Todays DOCSIS modems and headends do
    not permit that type of 'LANishness', at least in our part of New
    England (MA) AFAIK.
    Rick Merrill, Jul 30, 2004
  4. wntw

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, Rick Merrill mused:
    | By anyone who has been infected via ethernet "ports" (and not by
    | email nor web site). Use a router to be safe.

    In this regard, cable and xDSL are identical in terms of exposure to
    these types of attacks. There is nothing within the technology of xDSL that
    makes it any more secure than cable.

    | Very true. BUT, cable users are the targets of choice for those
    | looking to create "zombie" computers from which to launch their
    | own spam or DOS attacks. - RM

    Change that to "broadband users" and you may have something. The gem
    computer is one that has high bandwidth and is always connected. Cable and
    xDSL both fit that criteria equally.
    mhicaoidh, Jul 30, 2004
  5. wntw

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, JamesBenson mused:
    | Finally someone who knows what they are talking about.

    Don't bank on it. Cable modem is shared by the neighbourhood, yes.
    xDSL is shared at the phone company, yes. The entire internet is shared by
    everyone, yes. The only way any of that is a problem is if the ISP over
    subscribes. That can happen regardless of cable or DSL.

    I have had cable for years, and I have never experienced the "your
    throughput goes in the tank when all the kiddies are let out from school."
    It simply doesn't happen here. It may happen elsewhere, but to make a
    blanket statement that all cable users suffer from shared connections is a
    mhicaoidh, Jul 30, 2004
  6. wntw

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, JamesBenson mused:
    | As I said before "with cable it is considered less secure"

    The only people I have heard that from are from those trying to sell me
    xDSL service.

    | Read the following, I could of provided more but they will all say the
    | same thing

    I don't see anything at either of those links that even suggests that
    xDSL is more secure than cable. A comparison of their relative security
    merits is not even made. They discuss general broadband security ... but
    that isn't at issue here.

    Your first link states the following in its first paragraph: "...these
    media [cable and xDSL both] are also always on connections which means as
    long as your computer is on, it is a node on the internet and susceptible to

    Your second link states the following: "Relative to DSL and traditional
    dial-up users, cable modem users have a higher risk of exposure to packet
    sniffers since entire neighborhoods of cable modem users are effectively
    part of the same LAN. A packet sniffer installed on any cable modem user's
    computer in a neighborhood may be able to capture data transmitted by any
    other cable modem in the same neighborhood."

    However, that document has not been updated since December of 2001.
    What it doesn't Simply, it is an outdated security issue, and it has been
    addressed. The only way that your packets are more susceptible to being
    sniffed on cable over xDSL is if the cable provider specifically has their
    network configured to allow it. So, it is a configuration issue, not a
    technology issue. Factor in that DOCSIS modems are now standard for
    currently issued cable modems, and that prevents the exposure they talk
    about in the article.

    | Q: Ask you self again "By whom is cable considered less secure?"
    | A: By everyone who knows about networks


    | "The statement that cable is less secure than xDSL is a fabrication"
    | Fabricated by whom? me and all the experts

    By those selling xDSL service. You are perpetuating that myth, and I
    still don't see any (much less *all*) "experts" that support this claim with
    currently accurate information.

    | "From an end user standpoint, the requirements of antivirus and firewall
    | are the same for all users of the internet."
    | What's that to do with it?

    That statement was in regard to your having said the following: "[W]ith
    cable it is considered less secure, so users NEED to have decent
    antivirus/firewall software to stay safe[.]" By your sentence structure you
    are suggesting that cable users are in more need of firewalls and antivirus
    software than xDSL users.

    | "You risk the same exposure with xDSL, cable, and even dialup (though to
    | a varying degree)."
    | True to some degree but cable is more prone to attacks due to the layout
    | of the networks.

    Not true. See above.

    | If there are any network administrators reading this then please put them
    | straight.

    I am trying to. ;-)
    mhicaoidh, Jul 30, 2004
  7. wntw

    Jersey Guest

    Pardon me but ... What?
    Cable users have a private IP? How odd then, that my IP gets posted for all
    the world to see with each message I send to Usenet.

    I mean. I'm a cable customer and all. Is my privacy being violated, or are
    you growing consistantly more and more incapable of properly constructing a

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not real big on spelling/grammar/punctuation lames,
    but you have to admit those last bits you posted make absolutely NO SENSE,
    as written.
    Jersey, Jul 30, 2004
  8. wntw

    JamesBenson Guest

    Woody, not quite doc, experience with both, DR who?

    "You have a public IP" who said that, Cable users have a private IP, fool,

    Due to how TCP/IP works, if you don't do anything to proactively stop

    Is it??? I dont think so,
    JamesBenson, Jul 30, 2004
  9. wntw

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, JamesBenson mused:
    | If your ISP is nthell you would know what i mean

    So, do we infer that your true motivation is your personal axe to grind
    with NTL? I believe NTL, like all other large cable providers, properly
    protects packets from being sniffed. A simple email to their support staff
    can confirm this. I have been unable to find any reports from anyone
    stating they have the ability to sniff normal traffic belonging to
    neighbouring cable modem users by using a standard consumer cable modem and
    sniffer software. For that matter, I have been unable to find a claim by
    anyone saying it has happened to them.

    | END

    Perhaps that is best.
    mhicaoidh, Jul 30, 2004
  10. wntw

    Jim Berwick Guest

    I'm a cable user and I have /never/ had a private IP address. At this
    point you are simply talking out of your ass. Shut up.
    Jim Berwick, Jul 30, 2004
  11. wntw

    Jersey Guest

    I think you need some sleep.
    Jersey, Jul 30, 2004
  12. wntw

    JamesBenson Guest

    If your ISP is nthell you would know what i mean


    JamesBenson, Jul 30, 2004
  13. wntw

    Jim Berwick Guest

    Yeah, as I said I work at an ISP, the company who we outsource our news to
    is not great (but heck, I get 1.5mBit/sec and no cap so who can complain)
    Jim Berwick, Jul 30, 2004
  14. wntw

    JB Guest

    You Idiot, cable yes, I use ntl and while your IP may get posted it is not
    your public IP, it is located within the ISP's network and given out by them
    via the use of DHCP which means it is private, have you seen the or something similar (you dont normally but others
    do), this is your address available to the public. fool carry on
    I posted this to the so called dr. read the previous post's fool

    Public IP addresses are used for the Internet, website's etc and cost more
    than one which can be given out for free by your ISP on their network for
    them to identify you, how would their be enough for everyone? your ISP may
    only have a few public IP's for them to be Identified as them (most descriptive)

    If you still dont believe me then or for
    some homework.
    JB, Jul 30, 2004
  15. wntw

    Jersey Guest


    I'm almost done with him as welll.

    I'm on vacation for the next week, so I won't be anywhere near one of these
    God-forsaken things!

    Have fun with the "other" Mr. B while I'm away, won't you?
    Jersey, Jul 30, 2004
  16. wntw

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, Jersey mused:
    | Do you know about sobriety? I don't think so.

    You give him too much credit ... he's not old enough to get booze.
    mhicaoidh, Jul 30, 2004
  17. wntw

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, JB mused:
    | ... I've supplied facts

    You've supplied opinion, conjecture, incongruous argument, and some bad
    breath. The only thing you have come close to regarding a fact was an
    outdated "security write-up" from 2001.
    mhicaoidh, Jul 30, 2004
  18. wntw

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, JB mused:
    | <Sniveling rodent's words snipped>

    I must assume that you are referring to your words, and therefore
    yourself as a rodent ... since the only dialog removed was yours. My text
    appears, in its entirety, quoted in your response. Tosser.

    || You've supplied opinion, conjecture, incongruous argument, and some bad
    || breath. The only thing you have come close to regarding a fact was an
    || outdated "security write-up" from 2001.

    | sounding the dumb ass siren

    Good. Hopefully someone close to you will hear it, understand it, and
    come and remove your dumb ass.
    mhicaoidh, Jul 30, 2004
  19. wntw

    JB Guest

    <Sniveling rodent's words snipped>

    You've supplied opinion, conjecture, incongruous argument, and some bad
    breath. The only thing you have come close to regarding a fact was an
    outdated "security write-up" from 2001.

    sounding the dumb ass siren
    JB, Jul 31, 2004
  20. wntw

    JB Guest

    No it does not not one line is missing twat
    JB, Jul 31, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.