LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

Binary Computer Solutions - $6 128MB OpenVZ VPS in Chicago with 10Mbps Unmetered

Binary Computer Solutions Blaine from Binary Computer Solutions has emailed me a new offer for the LowEndBox readers. It’s called “Quad Core Unlimited” this time, and can be ordered through this sign up link. At $6/month it comes with

  • 128MB guaranteed/256MB burstable memory
  • 20GB storage
  • 10Mbps unmetered bandwidth
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM

Payment in either PayPal, Google Checkout or AlertPay. Coupon code lowendbox80 gives 80% off first month so the first invoice would be $1.20. Servers hosted with SingleHop in Chicago. The “Quad Core” here are Xeon E5520 which is not too bad, although I am not sure how many other guests are you sharing with. When you compare it with their previous offer ($4.95/month 512MB OpenVZ VPS, which is still available), it does not seem to be that great, unless you do get some CPU grunt.

Domain was registered in November 2008, and they still have DNS problem with non-redundant NS. ToS here for those who are looking for it.

Latest posts by LEA (see all)


  1. ab:

    Answer: In an attempt to address real security concerns, we have limited certain VPS packages to the following ports:

    20 – FTP Data transfer
    21 – FTP Control
    22 – SSH
    23 – Telnet
    25 – SMTP
    43 – WHOIS
    53 – DNS
    80 – HTTP
    110 – POP3
    115 – SFTP
    118 – SQL
    123 – NTP
    143 – IMAP
    156 – SQL
    389 – LDAP
    443 – HTTPS
    465 – SMTP SSL
    554 – RTSP
    636 – LDAP SSL
    989 – FTPS Data SSL
    990 – FTP Control SSL
    993 – IMAP SSL
    995 – POP3 SSL
    5900 – VNC
    5901 – VNC
    5902 – VNC
    5903 – VNC
    5904 – VNC
    5905 – VNC
    8080 – HTTP Alternative


    October 4, 2011 @ 12:38 pm | Reply
    • Gary:

      Surely running stuff like SSH on a non-standard sport is part of a good security strategy?

      Bollocks to going with a VPS provider that tells me what ports I can and can’t use.

      October 4, 2011 @ 6:01 pm | Reply
    • Kuro:

      So running telnet isn’t a security concern?


      October 4, 2011 @ 7:28 pm | Reply
      • Gary:

        Not if it’s secured properly. That’s the thing though, these guys are restricting by port, not protocol, it seems. It makes their “security concerns” even more laughable. Forcing people to use common ports is exactly the opposite of encouraging security. :/

        Sure, you could mix it up and run SSH on port 5900 for example, but mass portscans will still show up what’s running on those ports, since they’re commonly used ports that will be default in many portscans.

        I’d love to hear their explanation for restricting ports in this manner.

        October 4, 2011 @ 7:39 pm | Reply
        • Kuro:

          I was referring to telnet being unencrypted, including passwords sent over it.

          October 4, 2011 @ 7:41 pm | Reply
        • Gary:

          That can be fixed with a wrapper or a tunnel though, right?

          October 4, 2011 @ 8:34 pm | Reply
  2. dpflap:

    really pointless offer, especially with all the port restrictions

    October 4, 2011 @ 1:08 pm | Reply
  3. Lets give the clients 4 cores they can never use because of port restrictions? Bit of a weird decision.

    October 4, 2011 @ 2:28 pm | Reply
    • Why not? Perfect for a normal webserver and so.

      Also, probably some UDP ports are open?

      October 4, 2011 @ 4:18 pm | Reply
  4. To anyone who has concerns about port limitations, this is completely flexible. The port restrictions are applied to any and all VPS packages, but if you open a ticket, ports can be opened for you. I have updated the page to note that information.

    October 4, 2011 @ 3:02 pm | Reply
    • Gary:

      Yeah, but what’s the point in it? How does restricting what ports people can run things on increase anyone’s security? IMO it reduces security by forcing people to run things on low-numbered common ports for portscanning.

      Just wondering why you guys would do this.

      October 4, 2011 @ 11:40 pm | Reply
      • It’s a fake solution. It’s them holding up a list of port addresses, pointing to it as they wave it around and saying “Why yes, we believe in security for our clients.”

        Kind of like when the New York State Attorney General banned all those alt.* newsgroups to get rid of online child porn. But yet none of those newsgroups exists within the alt.* hierarchy. Look at all the media attention that they got as well as the pressure other states got to do the same.

        Even though it was totally worthless.

        October 5, 2011 @ 12:16 am | Reply
        • drmike, do you have a reasonable alternative?

          October 5, 2011 @ 12:22 am | Reply
        • Depends.

          What’s your physical setup?

          Do you control your rack space? Router? Switch(es)?

          What are you currently using for a firewall? Where within the routing does it exist?

          I have to admit that I’m in the “Let the endusers deal with it” like most of the folks here appear to be. I can understand why you as a provider would do such but I would think most endusers would be beating their heads against their keyboards running up against this.

          +1 though for announcing that you do this instead of hiding it. I’ll give you that.

          October 5, 2011 @ 12:35 am | Reply
        • Well as I’ve already stated, we are sort of hands tied on the firewall situation – because we face a real security issue that could result in the entire operation getting canned over some people choosing to ignore TOS and violate laws. Unless we can find a more proactive means to eliminating torrent activity, again, hands tied.

          In regards to firewall policies, each server has a proprietary software firewall on the host – and each container has a blanket policy which can be modified on container by container basis.

          October 5, 2011 @ 12:43 am | Reply
        • If you would like some help, some specifics would be helpful. “proprietary software firewall” isn’t much help and is nothing to go on.

          To be honest with you though, if your datacenter is threatening you with cancellation, sounds more like you’ve been blowing off complaints in the past. I know I get the occasional DMCA with my clients but my datacenter (well the uplinks) usually don’t think much of it because they know I’ll deal with the issue asap. (And half the time, it’s fake or BS anyway.) It sounds to me that your datacenter doesn’t feel the same way as mine does.

          You need to show them that you;re willing to deal with the issue.

          Having said that, I will point out that you’ve admitting that you’re having problems with your datacenter and you may have your service with them canceled at any time. If I was looking for a provider, I know I wouldn’t host with you because who knows when you’re going to get cut off and my sites will disappear. Well that and I have to admit I’m frustrated about you’re not giving specifics when I asked for them.

          October 5, 2011 @ 12:58 am | Reply
      • The purpose is to apply standards to port usage, and to restrict the activities of network abusers (e.g. torrent clients intent on making our life hell with DMCA) We have been warned several times by our server provider that our server security needs to be increased (less torrents, more website hosting) or we’d be at real risk of losing our hardware. We really don’t want to lose our hardware, because then our clients would lose their service, and that’s not a position we’d like to be in. The security concerns are not focused on individual VPS security, but network integrity.

        Again, to address any concerns about restrictive firewall rules – we have absolutely no issue in opening ports, or even removing a firewall from clients that request it, if good cause warrants doing so. We are not trying to be overly restrictive – but we need to address the well being of all of our clients.

        If you have suggestions, we are always willing to listen to the community, and come up with ways to better our service for our clients and potential clients.

        ~ Blaine

        October 5, 2011 @ 12:20 am | Reply
        • You can run a torrent through port 80 though. This is why I feel that this is a fake solution. (That’s fake as in “not a real solution” by the way.)

          There’s a thread covering some suggestions here:


          Heck, I’d just be looking at a top once in a while as well as bandwidth usage. I’m assuming that torrents are covered by your ToS/AUP. Boot them if and when you find them.

          October 5, 2011 @ 12:41 am | Reply
        • I think we are going to take the approach of removing the firewall in place, and just do process monitoring / killing instead with strict TOS enforcement.

          Thank you for your suggestions, and I hope this helps our quality of service for all our clients.

          October 5, 2011 @ 1:06 am | Reply
        • Matthew Rosenblatt:


          The way we did it was we wrote custom scripts that polled for commonly abused applications on the host node and had that automatically contact the client via email requesting removal of the data. If not removed within 24 (or 48 or 72, depending on the severity) hours, the VPS was suspended.

          Most upstream providers are very flexible with virtualization providers. If your datacenter has even hinted at disconnection, that’s when you know it’s time to move. Once they start hinting that, it becomes only a matter of time before something as simple as a SPAM complaint lands you disconnected.

          October 7, 2011 @ 10:01 pm | Reply
  5. gsrdgrdghd:

    >Any and all ports limited can be addressed if you open a ticket to the support department.
    Still strange that they seem to only ave “security concerns” on their cheap plans :O

    October 4, 2011 @ 5:56 pm | Reply
  6. Just signed up :)

    root@mae1:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 16.9965 s, 63.2 MB/s
    root@mae1:~# wget cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2011-10-04 17:04:01--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net...
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net||:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `100mb.test'
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 1.16M/s   in 84s
    2011-10-04 17:05:25 (1.19 MB/s) - `100mb.test' saved [104857600/104857600]

    Not bad :)

    October 4, 2011 @ 6:04 pm | Reply

Leave a Reply

Some notes on commenting on LowEndBox:

  • Do not use LowEndBox for support issues. Go to your hosting provider and issue a ticket there. Coming here saying "my VPS is down, what do I do?!" will only have your comments removed.
  • Akismet is used for spam detection. Some comments may be held temporarily for manual approval.
  • Use <pre>...</pre> to quote the output from your terminal/console, or consider using a pastebin service.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *