You're post indicates that you're concerned about losing the ability to run an IP-masqueraded network on their service, not a VPN. According to their agreement, they already ban this:
"OR AS AN END-POINT ON A NON-COMCAST LOCAL AREA NETWORK OR WIDE AREA NETWORK"
the new regulation only refers to VPNs and VPN-related traffic, not IP masquerading. VPNs are not necessarily IP-masqueraded. A VPN is often used to connect geographically separated networks into a single, larger, network through the use of encrypted protocols and Internet bandwidth.
Huh? I though hotmail was based on Solaris (or SunOS?) servers. And doesn't Yahoo use Linux as well as *BSD?
He mentioned that some Linux security holes were found and people were hammering his box, but there are plenty of *BSD holes too. Just because Linux exploits didn't work on a *BSD box, doesn't mean that BSD is any more (or less) secure. Most NT/Solaris/Irix/AIX/HP-UX/etc. exploits won't work on *BSD boxes either:)
Slashdot Mirror
You're post indicates that you're concerned about losing the ability to run an IP-masqueraded network on their service, not a VPN. According to their agreement, they already ban this:
"OR AS AN END-POINT ON A NON-COMCAST LOCAL AREA NETWORK OR WIDE AREA NETWORK"
the new regulation only refers to VPNs and VPN-related traffic, not IP masquerading. VPNs are not necessarily IP-masqueraded. A VPN is often used to connect geographically separated networks into a single, larger, network through the use of encrypted protocols and Internet bandwidth.
Huh? I though hotmail was based on Solaris (or SunOS?) servers. And doesn't Yahoo use Linux as well as *BSD?
:)
He mentioned that some Linux security holes were found and people were hammering his box, but there are plenty of *BSD holes too. Just because Linux exploits didn't work on a *BSD box, doesn't mean that BSD is any more (or less) secure. Most NT/Solaris/Irix/AIX/HP-UX/etc. exploits won't work on *BSD boxes either