[Ham-Computers] Why is DSL/Wideband more "hackable"?

[fkamp at comcast.net]

Philip Atchley wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just a quick question here, perhaps the answer is obvious, but not to me.
> 
> Why are the wideband services "easier" to penetrate than a simple
> dial-up?  The reason I ask is,  using the dial-up my virus scanner
> (AVAST) was was blocking constant "Port 135 DCOM Exploit attacks" until
> I "plugged the hole" (I was running the XP firewall).  Also Zone Alarm
> indicates pretty much of a steady stream of "probes", which of course it
> blocks.  All this over a Dial-up.
> 
> Now, the 20th I'm installing DSL.  I've been told I should definitely
> have a hardware router, which I don't have (I thought my 5 port hub was
> one, but it isn't).
> 
> Questions:
> 1.  WHY would my system be more vulnerable with DSL than it already
> was/is with dial-up?
> 2.  Is it simply because the higher speed allows more attacks or probes
> to my machine in a certain period of time, or is it more to do with the
> "always on" feature of the wideband that allows more "time" for exposure?
> 3.  Or is it just a natural weakness of the Wideband system itself?
> 


I think it is because the broadband connection is
on all the time.  That is, your connected all the
time regardless if you need it or not.  With
dialup you are only connected when you dialup the
ISP and need to be connected.

It is a lot easier for someone scanning for open
ports to find you if you are always connected.

I dont have DSL.  I use cable.  My cable modem has
a standby switch.  I put it in standby when I know
I wont need an outside data connection.

Regards,
Frank Kamp