SSH Tunelling to bypass blocked ports

Hi. I'm living in a boarding school where they block the online "gaming" part of PSN. I can connect to a network and sign into PSN just fine. However, when I click "test internet connection" when it is determining my NAT type, it gives me error NW-31374-8 (NAT type failed). I am connecting to internet via a router which I set up by sharing the internet connection from my Mac (wifi into mac, Ethernet out of mac into router, router wifi out into PS4). I can do any online function other than game, E.g: watch netflix, watch youtube, add friends. Therefore, if I set up SSH tunelling would I be able to bypass these blocked ports or not? Cheers

Don't think you can. I've posted the question in other forums, and have seen other people's similar questions posted in other forums. "ssh -D {port number}" is supposed to let the client forward a proxy port, and the ssh daemon (on what would be the proxy machine) is supposed to support SOCKS 4 and SOCKS 5 proxy, which are both purportedly options in iChat. But it doesn't work. I hope somebody can call me a liar and tell me how they have successfully done it....

Similar Messages

Possible Blocked Port Halting MSN Messenger Connection?

Hi everyone,
I have been running MSN Messenger for months on my Macbook Pro without any problems. The other day at work it was connected as always and I got disconnected. When I tried to reconnect, I kept getting an odd message saying that my sign in details were wrong (they're not). Other people in the same room are still able to access MSN Messenger, just not me. The problem is that even at home now on my home network, I'm not able to connect to it there either. I still get the same error message. Around the same time I did download AIM to use also, so I'm wondering if this has caused a problem or if it's something else. I've looked around online and a lot of people seem to think it's a blocked port 1863. Does anyone have any ideas how to fix this so I can get MSN up and running again? Thanks in advance.
xx

Hi,
Is good to know that you were able to find the workaround. Actually I was on the lab testing this due that I noticed that you had 2671 bypassed requests. Definitely bypassing authenticated traffic is going to resolve the issue, but I also wanted to recommend you to try another solution.
Add these commands to the CE:
- http cache-authenticated all
- http cache-cookies
and remove the bypass auth-traffic command.
This would allow the CE to cache as much as possible of the transaction. I tested and it works just fine and the CE is seeing cache hits.
As a side note, I noticed that the messenger goes on port 80 so you don't have to worry about the port 1863.
Thanks & Regards,
Jose.

Web Server Blocks Port 80 - What am I to Do?

I have a WebSite that will load up locally, but not remotely. I think it's because the web server is blocking port 80. How do I get around this (port forwarding - how do you do it)?

There are a few ways to do this... This is what I do, personally... This is sketchy, but you can figure it out with some research and lots of googling!
1. Set the machine that will be the server to use a static internal network address. I use 192.168.2.100. This is the internal, non-routable IP address of the machine on your network. This is not the IP that your modem/router receives from your internet provider.
2. Open an external port on the router that is not blocked by your ISP. I use port 5100. Then configure the router to listen on external port 5100, and pass all "port 5100" traffic to 192.168.2.100 and port 80. By doing it this way, I avoid having to edit the apache configuration. Apache listens to port 80 by default. Apache does not realize that the traffic originally entered the network on port 5100.
3. If your external IP address is dynamic, you will want to start googling "dyndns". It is a free service that will let you "register" a domain name. In my case, my router notifies DynDns automatically whenever it gets a new IP from the provider. This way, I don't have to remember my IP address, which changes anyway... I just remember my domain name. I can use any network service, such as SSH, Apache, ftp, etc....
Good luck!

How can I use Back to my Mac when my ISP blocks port 1900?

I was just forced to switch ISPs (don't ask...) and it turns out that my new ISP (Astound) lied to me and actually does block port 1900, which means that Back to my Mac (on which I rely) does not work.
Has anyone seen this and found a viable workaround? Preferably one that is easy for my non-technical family to use also, but all suggestions are welcome.
Thank you!

So, I convinced my ISP to open port 1900 and they did, but it's still not working.
I get two messages that make no sense to me, but I hope indicated something that someone here can help me undertstand...
When I open the iCloud preference pane in System Preferences, It says just below the Back to my Mac setting "Configure Router for better performance" - My Airport Extreme is configured with Back to my Mac and it looks like my account shows a green indicator.
Second, next to the Back to my Mac setting in the iCloud preference pane, there is a button labeled "Details..." When I click that it tells me that "Back to my Mac is not working properly because the DNS server isnt' responding" and suggests I contact my ISP for a different DNS server.
All other internet services - including iCloud services - are working fine. I even tried changing my DNS servers to Google's public DNS servers and nothing changed.
Any suggestions are very much appreciated! Thank you!

Bypassing TCP port 25 restriction (i.e. worst ISP EVER; Mail is not allowed

Hi
The private company that runs my DOES NOT ALLOW Smtp connections on its "hi speed internet connection".
Meaning that Mail cannot function and I have to check via webmail.
I'm serious.
Their FAQ states:
Can I use email clients such as Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express to send and receive emails?
No, you will only be able to use web browser based email such as Hotmail or Gmail; this is due to limitations (on TCP port 25) which have been implemented to protect you against other computer users sending unsolicited bulk emails (SPAM) via your computer.
Does anyone know a way to get around this as I NEED the functionality of Mail.....
Also,
Are all British ISPs this ridiculous?
Dieing to find a solution to this....... Many Many Many Many Thanks
PS. I already paid extra ($250USD) to enable 'super' internet which doesnt throttle VOIP, STREAMING, gaming, P2P etc.
Luke

Beginning January 1, 2006 Port 587 has been standardized as the port to use for authenticated SMTP servers although most will still work with Port 25 as well. More and more ISPs are blocking port 25 as various jurisdictions are holding them responsible for spam and/or viruses originating on their network. With unauthenticated SMTP anyone can send using that server whether they have an account or not. So the ISPs block that port with the sole exception of their own SMTP server so they can scan the messages for spam and viruses. With an authenticated SMTP server where a valid account id and password are required to send messages the provider of the server assumes the responsibility for scanning all traffic through their server thus relieving the ISP of the liability.
Whether you think this is a big brother step or not, with estimates that spam on the internet is running as high as 70% of all email traffic, if it weren't for restrictions like this email would rapidly become an unusable tool. The only annoying thing I have found about this is how few ISP Tech Support people know about this. To often their solution is "you can only use another email provider through their webmail interface."

Blocking Port 192

The company that processes credit card transactions is insisting we block port 192. How is this done? I have hear similar issues from other companies.

I see from your other posts that you do have an Airport Extreme base station.
As I indicated, this is not something I know much about either. I'm not even sure that the AEBS is the problem, though it seems to be according to the post I listed. I guess you could temporarily connect your Mac directly to your broadband modem, to see if the claimed vulnerability is still there.
Assuming the AEBS is the problem, one thing you could try is to disable outside SNMP access - I found another post suggesting that [here|http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=602839]. I have an older AEBS, which uses Airport Admin Utility for configuration. It's help section includes
Protecting your AirPort network from denial-of-service attacks
Networks managed by Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) may be vulnerable to denial-of-service attacks. (SNMP is turned on by default in AirPort Admin Utility.) Similarly, if you allow your base station to be configured remotely over the wide area network (WAN) port, unauthorized users may be able to change network settings.
To help protect your network and base station:
Open AirPort Admin Utility, located in Applications/Utilities.
Select your base station and click Configure. Enter the base station password if necessary.
Click AirPort, and click Base Station Options. Make sure the Enable SNMP Access and the Enable Remote Configuration checkboxes are not selected.
If the Enable SNMP Access and Enable Remote Configuration checkboxes are deselected, you must configure the base station using only the local area network (LAN) or the AirPort wireless network.
The newer Airport Utility may do this differently.
Hopefully you can also get more help from others who are more knowledgeable about networks. As a last resort you could ask the security company to recommend a wireless router that they know will pass their test.

Configuring socket policy for flex apps(with blocked port 843)?

We have built several flex-based ecommerce apps for a fortune 500 customer of ours, that for various reasons, we need to use sockets to a different domain and requires a socket policy file, but were having trouble configuring our flex apps for deployment in thier enviornment where they are blocking virtually everything except port 80 . The current documentation in in regards to socket policy files and crossdomain files in a non-standard configuration not using port 843 is not providing any useful help to us.
Here is the scenario:
Flex apps are served from domain www.a.com in to users browsers via http. The apps then make socket connections to domain www.b.com:80 where there are php scripts serving json data to the flex apps via port 80 using http(we use sockets because we need to set and read back http headers). The problem is the flex apps cannot make socket connections to the www.b.com domain without errors like below(unless we setup a socket policy server on port 843 of www.b.com, in which case everything works):
Warning: Timeout on xmlsocket://www.b.com:80 (at 3 seconds) while waiting for socket policy file. This should not cause any problems, but see http://www.adobe.com/go/strict_policy_files for an explanation.
Error: Request for resource at xmlsocket://www.b.com:80 by requestor from http://www.a.com/bin-debug/DownloadManagerFlex.swf is denied due to lack of policy file permissions.
Error: Request for resource at xmlsocket://www.b.com:80 by requestor from http://www.a.com.us/bin-debug/DownloadManagerFlex.swf is denied due to lack of policy file permissions.
Since we cannot use port 843 for the socket policy file server, we setup the socket policy server on a different ip in the same domain: spf.b.com:80 (using the sample perl code Adobe provides), and per the docs(cited below), use Security.loadPolicyFile("xmlsocket://spf.b.com:80") before we invoke "socket.connect", to supposedly tell the flash player to check there for the socket policy file. The problem, as you can see from the error log, is that the loadPolicyFile("xmlsocket://spf.b.com:80") is ignored.
No matter what we do or how we set things up, we cannot get the flash player to recognize the loadPolicyFile(), it always wants to go to the port were making the socket connection on. It is unclear how to properly configure the flex app, socket policy file and crossdomain file for the above scenario. The docs allude to being able to serve the socket policy file from a different port 80 in the same domain as the socket connection were trying to make, but were having no luck with that.
->Can anyone shed some light on how to make this work or what are we missing/doing wrong? Also, if we can get this to work, are we stuck with a 3 second delay because this(very large) customer is blocking port 843?
As an aside, the documentation for all this is a bit scattered, unclear and contrdictory:
One document says:(http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/fplayer9_security_07.html)
"This warning usually means one of two things: first, that you need to set up a
            socket policy file server on port 843, which is the first location that Flash
            Player checks by default; or second, that you need to provide more explicit
            guidance to Flash Player from ActionScript by calling loadPolicyFile to indicate the location
            of a socket policy file. When you call loadPolicyFile rather than allowing Flash Player to check
            locations by default, Flash Player will wait as long as necessary for a
            response from a socket policy file server, rather than timing out after 3
            seconds."
Another document says(http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/socket_policy_files.html):
"If an ActionScript Security.loadPolicyFile() command exists within               the SWF file, then the Flash Player runtime checks that location. Flash Player checks               the destination of the loadPolicyFile() only after it has checked the               master policy file on port 843 for permission to acknowledge other policy               files. If the developer has not specified a loadPolicyFile() command,               then Flash Player checks the destination port of the connection."

I found the reason why the Flex application was ignoring the socket policy (crossdomain.XML). I have a policy server that listens to port 843 and submits the policy to the Flex client. My policy was getting ignored by the Flex application and I was getting the sandbox security error you were getting. The solution to this problem isto write a null byte right after the policy server sends the policy. I'm using Apache Mina that is wrtten is Java and the null byte is written as follows:
public void sessionCreated (IoSession session)
        throws Exception
        session.write(_policy); -- > policy string
        session.write("\u0000"); --> null byte
         //session.close(true); ---> No need to close the session because it is closed by the Flex client after it receives the null byte.
Now my Flex application can read and accept the policy from port 843 and I'm not getting more security violations.
Thanks for your reply,
Alberto

Block port on Value Exception

Hi,
Whenever there is a Value or Import exception,port is not blocked but now customer wants to block the port in case of Value Exception as there can be scenario where a record is updated in the source system but due to some issue it failed under value exception. A different user updates the same record in source system and it pass through MDM correctly. Now some one will check the value exception and process the record manually which will overwrite the changes .
Kindly suggest if there is some method to block port in case of value and import exception.
Thanks and Regards,
Neethu Joy

Hi Neethu
As rightly explained blocking the port for Value and Import exceptions is not possible.
Now coming to the initial requirement- *there can be scenario where a record is updated in the source system but due to some issue it failed under value exception. A different user updates the same record in source system and it pass through MDM correctly. Now some one will check the value exception and process the record manually which will overwrite the changes .
Why should this happen- For the lookup values how are you refreshing MDM from the source system? If this is not automated the above makes a scenario for automatically refreshing the lookup values from the source system to MDM.
Also if the User1 is wrongly editing a record in source system MDM by design is not allowing to import that record. User2 edits(corrects) the record in source system again which is reflected in MDM correctly. Here if the client needs to see the changes made at record level (by user1/all incorrect updates) then the change tracking or logs should be seen/developed in the source system itself- since MDM has been designed to filter correct records flow only.
Hope this helps-Ravi

VOIP has stopped working -- FIOS Internet -- Verizon blocking ports?

Background:
I have two VOIP device, one is from VOIP.com (HT-286) and the other is my Blackberry 8220 wifi-enabled phone.
Until December, I had Cox Internet for the last two years -- ZERO problems with the above devices. I made and received phone calls just fine.
FIOS internet installed early december. Both devices worked fine on install. I made and recevieved VOIP phone calls with both the VOIP.com device (Home phone) and my wifi Blackberry.
I've taken my VOIP box over to the neighbor's to test it -- works fine. I plug into their router and have no problems. My wifi Blackberry works just fine when I go to to the bookstore or coffee shop (Free wifi).
Internet (as defined by using PC web browser) and TV work fine. We have VOIP service with VOIP.com.
Problem:
About two weeks ago, I noticed that I would occasionally get phone calls on the blackberry and there would be no one there. I didn't think anything of it until my wife finally asked me why she couldn't make outgoing calls on the house phone.
I tested it, and this is what I found:
BOTH PHONES:
Phone rings. "Dead" call. However, the caller can hear ME but I cannot hear them
I make outgoing call on VOIP/house phone: I get dial tone, and dial as normal, but once I've dialed, SILENCE. No ring, nothing. The called phone will ring but I will not hear it, nor hear the other party answering. I can call my wife's cel phone (Tmobile) or work phone and it rings. She can hear me, but I cannot hear her.
I make outgoing calls on wifi Blackberry: Enter number and press send as normal, but SILENCE. Same symptoms as above.
As I said, I've taken both devices to other networks and they work fine. NOTHING was changed on the router in the time frame EXCEPT the name of the SSID, which I changed the very first day --both devices were working for several weeks after.
I have powered off and restarted the router a dozen times and I just did a "hard" reset to return it to the factory settings :: my voip service still is not working properly.
WHAT I HAVE DONE:
I called Verizon FIOS Internet support. They say since I can watch TV and access the web, that nothing is wrong.
I called VOIP.com and they say they see the device coming into their network, but they cannot see if Verizon is blocking ports 5060-5070.
Blackberry support flat-out says that Verizon is blocking ports.
Can someone help?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

plautus wrote:
Background:
I have two VOIP device, one is from VOIP.com (HT-286) and the other is my Blackberry 8220 wifi-enabled phone.
Until December, I had Cox Internet for the last two years -- ZERO problems with the above devices. I made and received phone calls just fine.
FIOS internet installed early december. Both devices worked fine on install. I made and recevieved VOIP phone calls with both the VOIP.com device (Home phone) and my wifi Blackberry.
I've taken my VOIP box over to the neighbor's to test it -- works fine. I plug into their router and have no problems. My wifi Blackberry works just fine when I go to to the bookstore or coffee shop (Free wifi).
Internet (as defined by using PC web browser) and TV work fine. We have VOIP service with VOIP.com.
Problem:
About two weeks ago, I noticed that I would occasionally get phone calls on the blackberry and there would be no one there. I didn't think anything of it until my wife finally asked me why she couldn't make outgoing calls on the house phone.
I tested it, and this is what I found:
BOTH PHONES:
Phone rings. "Dead" call. However, the caller can hear ME but I cannot hear them
I make outgoing call on VOIP/house phone: I get dial tone, and dial as normal, but once I've dialed, SILENCE. No ring, nothing. The called phone will ring but I will not hear it, nor hear the other party answering. I can call my wife's cel phone (Tmobile) or work phone and it rings. She can hear me, but I cannot hear her.
I make outgoing calls on wifi Blackberry: Enter number and press send as normal, but SILENCE. Same symptoms as above.
As I said, I've taken both devices to other networks and they work fine. NOTHING was changed on the router in the time frame EXCEPT the name of the SSID, which I changed the very first day --both devices were working for several weeks after.
I have powered off and restarted the router a dozen times and I just did a "hard" reset to return it to the factory settings :: my voip service still is not working properly.
WHAT I HAVE DONE:
I called Verizon FIOS Internet support. They say since I can watch TV and access the web, that nothing is wrong.
I called VOIP.com and they say they see the device coming into their network, but they cannot see if Verizon is blocking ports 5060-5070.
Blackberry support flat-out says that Verizon is blocking ports.
Can someone help?
VZ isn't blocking those ports. they only have restrictions on port 25, and in some areas port 80. all other ports are open.
I would reach back out to voip.com and see if you can escelate it with them. you can also go to portforward.com and see if they have any walkthrough guides for your particular device. if you have a friend with fios you can try switching routers to see if that is the culprit, but there is nothing in your description that suggests to me that it would be a router issue. Also look into QOS if your VOIP people can give you any information on that, it may also be an avenue you would want to explore if you have VOIP transpiring over there.

Verizon blocks ports?

I have DSL & Actiontec GT704-WG. I opened a port to host online game, but when I use a port scanner found here: http://www.canyouseeme.org/
It tells me my port is closed even though I forwarded everything correctly. Does verizon block any ports besides 80? I only use windows firewall so i know its not a firewall problem. Anyone with same router can help me?
Thanks
heres a snapshot of my router
http://i45.tinypic.com/105edd5.jpg

Verizon itself doesn't block ports at the head end besides port 25 for smtp outgoing email. they basically don't let spammers bounce messages off their smtp servers to send emails.   Port 80 is questionably blocked by region - I have seen a lot of users in the forums that have port 80 unblocked. and then sporadically a user forum member will say its blocked but most people say its unblocked now. VZ made that decision middle of last year.
The router that verizon provides has a firewall and like all firewalls it blocks a BUNCH of stuff. that's what firewalls do. it's kinda their gig.
If you port forward, try to use portforward.com for a good guide.
Basically this is stuff you probably know, but I'll recap just in case.
Set your pc to have it's own IP address   - you'll configure that on your PC nic settings under tcpip v4
then go into the router, and open the proper ports. I don't know what ports your game wants, but make sure the source port is set to any, and do not specify a number in that section.
make sure its pointed to the IP you gave your PC, and apply the changes and try again.
if that doesn't work there may be one or two users here that will pop up that may have additional info, but you can also reach out on the portforward.com forums and see if you can get some answers there,   DSL Tech support won't help with any port forward configurations. they consider it advanced and out of their boundaries.

BT HH 2.0 - Blocking Ports / Firewall

Is there a way to block all ports except http / smtp? or are there other firewall settings that can be accessed apart from the 3 choices in the configuration.
Thanks - Gary

gpmcclean wrote:
Thanks for the reply Tommy and the welcome.
My goal is to block all possible P2P ports as my daughters are eating away at my 40GB allowance far to quickly.
I have a Netgear DGN2000 which I used with Plus.net before I moved to BT Infinity back in Oct.
Cheers - Gary
Then you need to block all the port venues that their P2P Applications are capable of using perhaps even legitmatate ports that you use for you own needs?
A far better solution is to be firm but fair when dealing with their Internet access, it requires more discussion & time but it is usually a far better long term option with less friction.
On a slight diversion, blocking ports may only a short term solution anyway, is your router properly IPV6 aware. (very few are )
Take al look at these links.
IANA, ARIN, and the IPv4 run-out
The .net domain joins the DNSSEC fold
The exaustion IPV4 addresses & the expected signing of the .com domain to DNSSEC early next year should make 2011 an interesting one.
"I have this awful feeling someone is watching every move I make (one of my pet hates is router location tagging)." Marvin (A paranoid Android)

Binghamton University Blocks Port 5060

I dropped my daughter at her new college and discovered that we are unable to make an iChat video connection between her MacBook and my Powerbook. Specifically I am getting a message that the other person did not accept the incoming call and it times out. This happens no matter which side originates the call.
I have had no trouble using iChat from home before this so I checked the Apple forums and learned that this problem is typically a result of a blocked port (5060). I contacted my daughter's school's IT department and asked them if they were blocking 5060. They said they do block 5060 and that it was not likely they would NOT block it based on my request. I sent in a formal request anyway but have not heard back.
I was able to video chat using SightSpeed and plan on testing Skype this evening.
If this is the problem then it is a kind of big problem because it means that none of the students on the State University of New York networks can use Apple iChat. There are a lot of students on many campuses all over the state.
Before I begin lobbying the Governor of New York to change this poilcy, anyone know of a workaround for making iChat video connections when an ISP is blocking 5060?

As you have probably read port 5060 is one of the ports "reserved" for SIP, the protocol that all VoIP devices and Apps use.
It is one of a range (5060-5063) that can be used.
VoIP apps and devices allow your standard Line line connection to use the Internet to make phone calls.
Now as there are 4 port to use iChat and other apps are supposed to move up to the next free one and try that.
Many large corporations and campuses are now using VoIP phone services because it is cheaper.
Now some ISPs are also trying to recoup money by blocking these ports when they offer a VoIP service.
Partly as a result of the competition these make to their standard phone services but also to stop people using equipment such as the Vonage type adapters.
However it does seem if they are challenged (rather than confronted) about changing their service and blocking an application they offer without proper warning they often change the users service back again.
At the ISP level there is also the fact that it is an International Standard and they can not be seen to be blocking it.
As whether a University is blocking it to save confusion with their phone service, or because they want to protect bandwidth, or feel it would make their phone service too un-secure would remain to be seen.
Of course what they probably mean is that they are blocking all SIP ports.
This would prevent student using SIP/VoIP phones and certain parts of Skype and other apps as well as iChat.
The Bandwidth issue would easily be dismissed as anyone (or group) can download anything in a web browser and easily swamp any service if they so tried.
I have seen a case where a student pointed out they were a paying customer and that the service for their room included "Internet Access" and had not pointed out these restrictions. They were given their own IP address to circumvent any issues.
So in summary.
iChat has three other ports to use.
These are probably blocked as well.
Unblocking or challenging the block would need to look at the size of the potential user base with problems (iChat and other apps or devices) and the reasons the University states for doing so. If, and it is a big IF, iChat is the only thing that is blocked there is always discrimination to look into.
8:45 PM Friday; August 24, 2007

Blocked port 80?

hello, i dont know is im in right topic.
we have astaro SG 110/120
we have 2 servers
1.AD/DNS/DHCP win serv 2003
2.MSQL/files/programs serv 2003
the main problem is that on 1 server is blocked port 80.
cmd>ping google.com <this working fine there is connection
but when i want to connect by browser to google.com by IE there is no answer
i cant log in to astaro too by 192.168.1.1:4444
i cant upgrade antivirsu virusbase becouse as support guy told me this connection is on 80 port.
mby its not a 80 port only cos i cant even get to router by :4444 port

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:07:57 +0000, endriucontec wrote:
hello, i dont know is im in right topic.
we have astaro SG 110/120
we have 2 servers
1.AD/DNS/DHCP win serv 2003
2.MSQL/files/programs serv 2003
the main problem is that on 1 server is blocked port 80.
cmd>ping google.com <this working fine there is connection
but when i want to connect by browser to google.com by IE there is no answer
i cant log in to astaro too by 192.168.1.1:4444
i cant upgrade antivirsu virusbase becouse as support guy told me this connection is on 80 port.
mby its not a 80 port only cos i cant even get to router by :4444 port
This is not a Windows Server issue, it is an issue with your firewall
configuration. You'll need to contact Astaro for support.
Paul Adare - FIM CM MVP
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr.
Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers
come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of
ideas
that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage

Need Help Blocking Port 53

I hava an Actiontec MI424WR Gen2 wireless router. I also have a family member who is addicted to video games. To stop gaming acces I programmed my router to route all traffic thru OpenDNS server. In OpenDNS I selected blocking of Games. After this failed, OpenDNS said the only solution is to force ALL my network traffic thru OpenDNS servers by blocking port 53. But I am not a geek and need steo by step instructions. Please help.

You can use the parental controls in the Actiontec router to block all internet access for a particular computer (or groups of computers) on a schedule. This may be easier than mucking around with OpenDNS. You could even unplug the router if you don't mind loosing access for everyone in your household.
However, If your game playing family member has more tech skills then you, you may be fighting a loosing battle. If one of your neighbors has an open WiFi network or is willing to help your family member, you'll loose all technical controls.
If the game player is a youth, you may be better off with more traditional methods such as locating the gaming computer in a common area so it is subject to supervision at all times.
Good Luck.
If a forum member gives an answer you like, give them the Kudos they deserve. If a member gives you the answer to your question, mark the answer as Accepted Solution so others can see the solution to the problem.

Mail Server when Comcast blocks port 25

I want to host a mail server, and am able to get mail to send, but am unable to receive mail. I tried sending an email from my gmail, and it gets delayed because it can't connect to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:25. I then found out that Comcast blocks port 25. Is there a way to change what port the server app uses so it can receive mail?

This is a common question; you're not the first person to have considered resetting the SMTP TCP port.
As Strontium90 indicates, you can most certainly set up your own global mail infrastructure on a variant port (possibly even by using DNS SRV records to find the port de jour), but by the time that's all coded and debugged and generally accepted and standardized and in widespread use around the planet, Comcast and the other ISPs will probably just detect and block the new port or the new service on their residential service tiers. Which means you'll need to add TLS encryption and potentially random ports, and down the proverbial rabbit hole we go.
But seriously, the usual and preferred and best approach is a business class service, as that has port access and you can get correct DNS. Without correct forward and reverse DNS translations, many other SMTP mail servers will detect a dynamic IP service as a spam engine, and drop outbound mail as it arrives. Some mail servers will detect this and will also drop inbound mail, as well.
As an alternative to a business-class service, you can set up a mail relay through your ISP, or potentially a relay via a commercial mail relay service — if either of these approaches is permitted by your ISP terms of service. There are various folks that offer these mail hop services by subscription, but then all your mail is routed through that service and that may or may not be desirable.
Hosting your own virtual private server or dedicated host just for mail can be pretty cheap these days, if you're willing to run your mail server in a data center. That avoids all entanglements with your ISP. (But again, if you're willing to host your mail elsewhere.)

SSH Tunelling to bypass blocked ports

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for