Phorm and Cookies

[Ian Batten]

On 21 Mar 2008, at 11:24, Dave Howe wrote:
> Ian Batten wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 08, at 1050, Dave Howe wrote:
>>> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>>>> Moreover, I have even seen it suggested that BT may be fiddling  
>>>> with the DNS so as to thwart those who try to block their  
>>>> machines from speaking to webwise (BT customers might be well  
>>>> advised to buy their DNS service from someone other than BT).
>>>
>>> .. assuming BT doesn't simply redirect packets to competing DNS  
>>> providers to their own as well...
>>>
>> Which would surely be Computer Misuse Act stuff?
>
> IIRC, they already do this for packets on port 25. 53 is "just  
> another number" :)


Actually, they don't appear to.  I happened to want to test a new  
mailserver at work, and I telnet'd to port 25 on it from home quite  
happily.    I've just checked the DNS by doing `dig  
@offsite.batten.eu.org ns .' from my home machine, while running  
tcpdump on a batten.eu.org machine located elsewhere, and

21:28:53.040400 host86-146-XXXX.range86-146.btcentralplus.com.58641 >  
XXXX.batten.eu.org.domain:  50146+ NS? . (17)
21:28:53.182720 XXXX.batten.eu.org.domain > host86-146- 
XXXX.range86-146.btcentralplus.com.58641:  50146- 13/0/14 NS M.ROOT- 
SERVERS.NET., (500) (DF)

So I don't believe my BT residential broadband connection is hijacking  
either port 25 or port 53.

ian