Slashdot Mirror


Parasitic Computing

b0r0din writes: "CNN has this article about a way to force computers to solve complex computational problem using the checksum algorithm used by the TCP/IP protocol. For more technical details, see their website." You probably thought learning TCP/IP was useless. No! You can use it to make an extremely inefficient computer...

198 comments

  1. Cool. by Illuminatis · · Score: 0

    Nuff said.

    --
    You can't fight ideas with bullets - NSF Terrorist Leader, Level One of Deus Ex
  2. Lovely... by sacherjj · · Score: 1

    ...as if viruses and SPAM didn't take up enough bandwidth.

  3. Extremely inefficient computers by YIAAL · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have one of those -- it's running Windows ME.

    1. Re:Extremely inefficient computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think WinME makes your system inefficient? Just wait until WinXP comes out. XP is truely experimental.

    2. Re:Extremely inefficient computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been running Windows XP for the last couple of weeks. I't amazingly fast and stable. The interface is clean and intuitive. Can't wait to see what developers do with it. Truly an amazing OS, probably the best ever.

    3. Re:Extremely inefficient computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think WinME makes your system inefficient? Just wait until WinXP comes out. XP is truely experimental.

      Nah, you're getting it confused with those piece of Shit Linux OS's that don't work.

    4. Re:Extremely inefficient computers by ziplux · · Score: 1

      Goddamnit! Stop the windows bashing! First of all, don't run ME damnit! Win98 SE is so much more stable and fast. Second of all, stop bashing without reasons! Give me some proof for why you "hate M$!" Jesus, if you're gonna bash windows at least point out something that sucks without saying "Bi11 Gatez sux and M$ sux and I'm not buying any of theyre cr@p".

    5. Re:Extremely inefficient computers by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Dude...It was a joke.

    6. Re:Extremely inefficient computers by FreshFromTheCows · · Score: 1

      2 words for ya, De and Caff, De-Caff... And he does have a good point, windows does sucks, as well as Bill gates and thier prissy cheerleader Steve Balmer. Need more facts? Goto www.microsoft.com! :)

    7. Re:Extremely inefficient computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, here's some valid reasons for not using Windows ME (or its predecessors, such as 98/95):

      #1. Costs too much.
      #2. It is a 32-bit extension to a 16-bit GUI running on an 8-bit operating system. [Don't believe me? Grab a copy of Win 95 ver. A, shut down, then at the turn off your computer now screen type: mode co 80. Surprised? I wasn't]
      #3. Loads a huge web browser into memory when all I want to do is some word processing.
      #4. Poorly written applications can easily crash the entire system via segmentation faults.
      #5. #4 only happens because you are forced to run as root in Windows ME all the time.
      #6. Internet Connection Wizard pops up even when I have my network configured properly already.
      #7. Comes with an extremely poor CLI by default.
      #8. No remote management capabilities included.
      #9. Uses FAT as the file system.
      #10. Formatting a floppy disk locks up the system.

    8. Re:Extremely inefficient computers by Pxtl · · Score: 2

      Yeah? Well my copy of WinXP just lost both my CD-rom drives after I installed one of those "burn to cdrw as if it were a normal disk drive" programs. I had to use a system backup to get it back.

    9. Re:Extremely inefficient computers by c_g_hills · · Score: 1

      Windows 98 is a fucking joke for stability. Windows 2000 is far, far better.

  4. Don't they have anything better... by jack+deadmeat · · Score: 1

    to do with their time?

    Christ, hiring a few hundred thousand third-worlders and teaching them to use an abacus would be faster.

    Or course, the globalization protestors would never go for it... carry on then.

    1. Re:Don't they have anything better... by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 1
      Don't they have anything better to do with their time?

      Uh,... do you read slashdot???

      [Read any of the ascii art posts, or X is dying, or Portman/Grits, and tell me that there aren't plenty of other less worthwhile ways to consumes one's time...]

      And besides, like most research, this isn't for practical purposes (yet). It is for proof of theory. And someday something like this would be efficient enough to bother with...

      --

      ______
      Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

  5. Legality? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Such online piracy does not violate the security of hapless servers, using only areas specifically earmarked for public access, according to the researchers.

    But it could slow the machines down by engaging them in mindless conversation while they unwittingly work for their remote master, Barabasi said.


    Isn't this theft of resources? The researchers are literally stealing bandwidth and clock cycles. Maybe it's just me, but this seems very ethically wrong. I wonder if an IDS or firewall can be configured to protect against such leeching. Any lawyers or firewall experts in the house?

    1. Re:Legality? by Swaffs · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, if it isn't illegal yet, it soon will be. No one can steal from the big corporations of America and get away with it.

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

    2. Re:Legality? by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder if an IDS or firewall can be configured to protect against such leeching

      IANAFE (I am not a firewall expert), but the only way I could think of would be to always ignore the checksum so they always get a connection and thus it would screw up their results. Otherwise it's indistinguishable from normal traffic, it's just bad traffic. Maybe the firewall could start dropping packets after X number of bad checksum packets?

    3. Re:Legality? by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, if you open up a service on a machine, you open it up to the world. It is publicly available. The system they devised isn't doing anything other than using the bandwidth and clock cycles that you have opened up.

      Just like people dialing a wrong number are stealing your time and resources. But part of the deal in having a phone that other peopls can call you on is that OTHER PEOPLE CAN CALL YOU.

      --

      ______
      Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

    4. Re:Legality? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

      But that resource is made available for a specific use. I can't think of a suitable analogy, but clearly there's something wrong here. It may not be illegal (depends how much you can spend on a lawyer or how many laws you can afford to buy), but in my view it is definately unethical. It probably shouldn't be legislated, but it at least shouldn't be done out of respect.

    5. Re:Legality? by kilgore_47 · · Score: 1

      No one can steal from the big corporations of America and get away with it.

      Millions of p2p users are getting away with it right now....

      --
      ___
      The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
    6. Re:Legality? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're right (hope not), but wouldn't that in effect make TCP/IP cease to be a reliable protocol? Doesn't seem like a viable solution.

    7. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. The sender wastes more cycles by unloading the work on your machine than if they had just done the work themselves. Its completely theoretical - noone would actually use this to do any real work. chill tf out.

    8. Re:Legality? by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      Um ya... and it should be illegal for phone solicitors to call me, because that isn't the use I intend when I pay my phone bill every month...

    9. Re:Legality? by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But that resource is made available for a specific use.

      And that is what the study did.

      I think the wrong phone call analogy is correct. You open up a service and *have* to expect bad/malformed/incorrect data in addition to the good/expected/desired data. You can't get a phone service and say that you only want "desired calls" to come in. Have to take the good with the bad.

      Now, if someone had the *intent* of causing and interruption in service or to harass you by *intentionally* dialing your number (or making a call to a service on your machine) then that is another issue.

      All of this being said, I do think this is a little intrusive, and don't like the idea (other than it is cool that it possible), but I don't think there is much ground for any kind of legal complaint.
      Oh, yeah: IANAL.

      --

      ______
      Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

    10. Re:Legality? by El_Nofx · · Score: 1

      No, because you could set the threash of 3 or 4 from the same IP and that would do it. 99.99999% of traffic would get through fine. I looked once at some TCP statistics from a network printer at my college once and over the last 5 years it had only recieved 4 bad packets. This was just plain old cat 5. Granted they were only to that printer but it was used almost constantly. The checksum isn't computed unless the destination is correct so no broadcast packets would be counted but if i remember right the good packet count was around a million.

      --
      It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
    11. Re:Legality? by kilgore_47 · · Score: 1

      Just like people dialing a wrong number are stealing your time and resources. But part of the deal in having a phone that other peopls can call you on is that OTHER PEOPLE CAN CALL YOU.

      Poor analogy.
      If someone calls your number once or twice by accident then its OK. Several thousand times, on purpose, for their gain.... it becomes harrasment.

      The technique this article is talking about won't cause just 'a few' stray packets. It would have to send a LOT of bogus packets. I don't know the technical details, but if they spread it out evenly enough that each machine only had to deal with a very small number of seemly stray packets, they could probably get away with it. Especially if all their target/host machines were high-traffic servers to begin with.

      --
      ___
      The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
    12. Re:Legality? by Aexia · · Score: 1

      It's probably about as legal as telemarketing, which also wastes your time and resources.

      However, it's becoming harder to do legally in more and more states.

    13. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      karma whore....

    14. Re:Legality? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

      I DID read the article. The number of cycles wasted by the sender has absolutely NO effect on how many of my cycles they waste. It's more of an ethical issue than a practical one.

    15. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't know the technical details

      Maybe you should RTFA. This "vulnerability" wastes more cycles than it produces. Even if it wasn't, the phone analogy is altogether poor. There is no good analogy for this - why do you need an analogy? Anyone on the net can write arbitrary bits to your open ports. If you don't like that, close the ports or otherwise deal with the situation. Security through legislation is worse than through obscurity.

    16. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you insist on pursuing this in some fantasy idealist world where you have absolute control over what comes into your machine, here's what you do:

      inetd halt

    17. Re:Legality? by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 1
      Poor analogy. If someone calls your number once or twice by accident then its OK. Several thousand times, on purpose, for their gain.... it becomes harrasment.

      Actually, the analogy still holds. The issue at first is if *any* use of bandwidth or processor cycles is a misapporiation. I think, like a phone call, it is not.

      HOWEVER, and some point "any" crosses the line into "too much" at which point you *are* talking about harrasment.

      The pdf document states that there are 2^n packets that need to be sent out, for a n-varriable SAT problem. So that *could* add up to a lot.


      The paper does spell out that all the systems (page 4, paragraph 2)that participated did so *unknowingly*.

      --

      ______
      Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

    18. Re:Legality? by Alien54 · · Score: 2
      I wonder if an IDS or firewall can be configured to protect against such leeching

      or sabotage the results. Given these tidbits from the papers:

      As expected and by design, incorrect solu-tions do not generate responses from the web server.

      Our technique does not receive a positive acknowledgement that a solution is invalid because an invalid solution is dropped by TCP. Consequently, there is a possibility of false negatives, cases in which a correct solution is not returned

      ... because this technique exploits the TCP checksum, it circumvents the function the checksum provides. The TCP checksum catches errors that are not caught in the checks provided by the transport layer, such as errors in intermediate routers and the end points

      The actual number of TCP checksum failures depends on the communication path, message data, and other factors.

      Of course, it is very nice that they note:

      parasitic computing represents an advanced but ethically challenging alternative for cluster computing, as it uses resources without the consent of the computer's owner.

      Aren't there some things that would be better left untouched?

      - - -
      Radio Free Nation
      an indepedant news site based on Slash Code

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    19. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Millions of p2p users are getting away with it right now...

      We know where you live!

    20. Re:Legality? by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      One analogy: Using a McDonald's bathroom without buying any food.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    21. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Isn't this theft of resources?"

      no, because you can't steal what's publicly available for free.

      now, i'm not saying that people who connect systems to the net are intending to let anyone use their system to crack md5 blocks. but they are still making some sort of resource available to the public, even if it's just the service of returning an icmp echo reply - or doing some math.

    22. Re:Legality? by supersnail · · Score: 1

      Buying double glazing, timesharing an overpriced holidy apartment, or, even contributing to the Veterins Association wasn't what I had in mind when I installed my phone.

      But will those b*st*rd* ( and b*tch*s) stop calling me, or, even get of the line --- NO.

      Can I sue them for misuse of resources?

      --
      Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
    23. Re:Legality? by Pxtl · · Score: 2

      IANAL, but actually, if they continue to call you after you've clearly stated "don't call me", then that's harrassment. Even religious organisations have been sued for that.

  6. Heh heh... by Cutriss · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow! Could you imagine a Beowulf cluster choking on one of these?

    --
    "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
  7. Is this legal? by damiam · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is it legal to steal someone else's computing power without their knowledge or consent? I know I wouldn't want it happening to me.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    1. Re:Is this legal? by Blue+Neon+Head · · Score: 2

      Well, starting a TCP connection isn't illegal (although starting many, many of them is, of course.) But I wouldn't worry about it - like the researchers say, this would be useless for almost every distributed app imaginable.

    2. Re:Is this legal? by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 1
      Well, starting a TCP connection isn't illegal

      Unless you're in Afghanistan... ;-)

      --
      -------
      Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
  8. Interesting concept by sllort · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...but hardly anything but a proof of concept.

    "Below, we present an implementation of a parasitic computer using the checksum function.
    In order for this to occur, one needs to design a special message that coerces a target server into
    performing the desired computation."


    What I can't find is any proof that computing this specially designed message is less computationally intensive than actually running the TCP checksum yourself. What is the actual scaling factor achieved? You must still design one of these special messages for every iteration of the NP complete problem you're trying to solve...

    Anyway, other than the TCP checksum, are there any other protocols out there that do something more computationally intense to the data before returning it?

    1. Re:Interesting concept by edrugtrader · · Score: 1

      yeah... telnet.

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    2. Re:Interesting concept by orangesquid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyway, other than the TCP checksum, are there any other protocols out there that do something more computationally intense to the data before returning it?

      An interesting idea is the hijacking of authorization sections of secure protocols, dispatching authentication requests based on a public/private key pair you are trying to hack, to thousands of servers and the one that returns a successful result must have been given the correct key pair.

      Of course, I'm fairly certain most widespread secure protocols can't be used like this, but one or two of the less common ones might have a loophole... but then again, if they're less common, resources would be scarce, and you're better off trying to crack things on your own.

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    3. Re:Interesting concept by ddstreet · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A brief read of the paper tells me that it's simply a brute force method of checksumming; they send all possible bit combinations in the checksum field (using the same actual message bits), and the server only responds to the correct checksum. They don't actually compute the checksum locally.

      While it does work, it's basically trading a (relatively) small amount of actual computation for a large amount of bandwidth. Actually sending those packets out in the first place may take more computation that the actual checksum would, so I'm not sure if this is entirely useful...

    4. Re:Interesting concept by frog51 · · Score: 2

      You'll find if you read the article that the authors specifically state that they know it is more computationally intensive to do this. It is purely a theoretical exercise in the true spirit of hackerdom -> who cares if it has a purpose, let's just see if we can do it:)

  9. Um Parasitic's are bad by thetechweenie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You can get a pill now that kills these things. I heard that they can grow in your stomach. They were like worms or something.

    --


    Um, this is my sig.
  10. Give me a break by dragons_flight · · Score: 1

    "online piracy", "parasitic computing", "unwittingly work for their remote master"

    You'd think they were talking about Code Red.

  11. Tried Gnome 1.4 and Nautilus lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this will get modded down into 'goatse.cx' land, but seriously, ME is approximately 10x faster than Gnome 1.4 and Nautilus. Nautilus is very pretty, but it's terribly slow on even a 1.4GHz/512MB DDR/UDMA100 Athlon.

    I'm sure you'll be modded up for "+1 Windowsbash."

  12. Inefficient compared to what? by tulare · · Score: 0, Troll

    I mean, of course this idea is an absolute trashing of the intent of TCP/IP and all, but inefficient? Anyone ever try to load and run a Java applet on a windoze machine? I can't imagine much worse...

    --
    political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
    1. Re:Inefficient compared to what? by drodver · · Score: 1

      Funny, my roomate loves the image viewing program I threw together in Java. It's so fast it increases his PPS (Porn Per Second). The only real delay is my own fault, when you open a folder with 1000+ files it takes a few seconds to sort them (I hate when 10.gif comes before 2.gif).

      Guess I shouldn't have used a bubble sort :-)

    2. Re:Inefficient compared to what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe because two should really be 02.......

    3. Re:Inefficient compared to what? by drodver · · Score: 1

      Bah, who has time to add the zero. Most of the images aren't worth the effort when I can change my viewer to suit my needs.

    4. Re:Inefficient compared to what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Most of the images aren't worth the effort when I can change my viewer to suit my needs.

      One handed operation?

  13. Inefficiancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sending a TCP/IP packet takes far more computing power than calculating the checksum yourself.

  14. Re:MOD PARENT UP!!!!!!! by Illuminatis · · Score: 1

    I know, they really are.

    --
    You can't fight ideas with bullets - NSF Terrorist Leader, Level One of Deus Ex
  15. Interesting... by camusflage · · Score: 2

    This does raise a lot of questions. I'd say it falls somewhere in the big grey area between unethical and illegal a lot closer towards the unethical, so long as there is no visible impact on the host system, but that's just me.

    I don't think we'll be having to worry about it becoming endemic anytime soon, as it appears the type of problem that can be solved is somewhat limited.

    --
    The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
    1. Re:Interesting... by edrugtrader · · Score: 1

      most NICs do the checksum using hardware, not the cpu... so it probably wouldn't be visable to the system at all.

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    2. Re:Interesting... by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

      True, BUT there's still the issue of bandwidth. It's not much, but it can add up. Besides, many hosts charge by the ammount of bandwidth used by a site. In such a case, the webmaster would be losing money as a result of the parasites. Granted it's a miniscule ammount, but perhaps enough to make it illegal. Whatever the case, it's still just wrong. (because I said so, that's why)

    3. Re:Interesting... by khoward1 · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert on checksumming or firewalls, but I am a graduate of Notre Dame and I can't imagine that the Powers That Be will be too happy about this. ND prides itself on being a pre-eminent *Catholic* university, and somehow I don't think they'll like an association with "parasitic" anything. And the emphasis on religion does extend into the sciences as well. Hell, my freshman year Honors Biology class professor had to teach creation theory alongside evolution, even though it was clear the man resented every minute of it. All it will take is a few morally outraged letters to the Observer and the project will be shut down. Just watch.

  16. Damn invasion by utdpenguin · · Score: 1

    This is EXACTLY why I disable checksumming on all my serevrs. I work for an R&D company, I sure as hell wouldnt want another R&D using our servers to solve their problems.

    Poepele used to think Iw sa paranoid, but now I have the proof.

    --
    In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
    1. Re:Damn invasion by Tsar+cr0bar · · Score: 1

      Dude, lay off the meth. You're hyper-paranoid and hitting the wrong keys.

    2. Re:Damn invasion by banadushi_ · · Score: 1

      How do you disable checksumming on a TCP packet, oh that's right you can't.
      If the checksum is not there or doesn't match the data, the packet is droped.

    3. Re:Damn invasion by inkey+string · · Score: 1

      reread his comment. now reread your comment. there....

    4. Re:Damn invasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By jove! I think you've hit the ingenouity of his plan square on: disable the IP protocol and you render any IP network completely secure!
      Fantastic!
      Let's see those damn competitors chew on that one for a while ; )

  17. Sun was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The network is the computer

  18. This looks possible, but why? by phoenix_orb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will make an EXTREMLY slow computer, and if anyone out there knows anything about routing (which I am sure you do :) The time it would take to recieve and compile all of the data would take longer and require more bandwith than would be viable on the economy of scale.

    Example --- need to send 4,000,000 packets out and recieve the TCP packet back.

    To do this with any speed, and also to not lose a fair majority of packets, you have to have a huge backhaul.. (T-3, OC3 or larger) TCP will not continue sending packet so you will loses them. Cost for large backhaul. $4800 month, (as by what my company chages..)

    4,800 x 12 $57,600

    So for one year of a huge pipe to the net you will be paying 57,600 (through my provider)

    This still will not fix latent packets that never get back to the user, or any other problems.. (such as someone on your network running bearshare and eating all of your bandwidth)

    Now lets look at the amount of money used for that large amount of bandwidth.

    $57,600 for the amount we could have spent on that line in one year we can build a beowulf cluster with 30 nodes (and that is being very liberal on the cost of the nodes)

    Now, looking at the article that I read, it seems as if the computing style using TCP/IP is very very ineffiecint.

    Personally, for the amount needed to make this work, on the scale of actually getting any real work done, I would much rather build a Athlon Beowulf cluster.

    This looks like in reality this could only be implimented in the real world as a new type of DOS attack.

    --
    Blah Blah Blah.
    1. Re:This looks possible, but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but wouldn't it be cool to make a version of decss that caused riaa.com to do all the dirty work?

    2. Re:This looks possible, but why? by p3d0 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Yeah, it's inefficient. That's not the point.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    3. Re:This looks possible, but why? by edrugtrader · · Score: 1

      i think you are exaggerating a bit...

      to send 4,000,000 packets that are 50 bits each is 200,000,000 bits ~ 25MB

      i can send that out in a few minutes on ADSL even.

      don't get me wrong, this is a retarded idea. it is NOT an exploit, it is NOT intelligent.

      odds are it is $5000 research grant that a couple college kids got for beer money. i got 2 of them to make a web site that could figure out the average of a set of numbers, so they aren't that hard to come by... and oh did i drink well that year.

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    4. Re:This looks possible, but why? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      No, but it *WOULD* be cool to have one that made mpaa.com do all the work...

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:This looks possible, but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck it. load balance it between the two.

    6. Re:This looks possible, but why? by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      damn good analysis!

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    7. Re:This looks possible, but why? by pacc · · Score: 1

      I didn't register for the article but
      the idea would be cool if you sent out
      all those packages but only recieved the
      correct answer back - voila, quantum computing!

      How would you make sure only the correct answer
      created a correct checksum, and when you get it
      how do you know what the question was? But the good part might be that the host only needs to spit out a bunch of numbers without doing any computations.

    8. Re:This looks possible, but why? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Calculating how inefficient such a computer would be is possible, but why? Especially using an inefficient carbon-based CPU. The time it would take to recieve and compile all of the data would take longer and require more bandwith than would be viable on that economy of scale.

    9. Re:This looks possible, but why? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Redundant? Who said this before I did? I can't find it.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  19. Re:MOD PARENT UP!!!!!!! by Illuminatis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    i luv u 2

    --
    You can't fight ideas with bullets - NSF Terrorist Leader, Level One of Deus Ex
  20. Force others to break the law? by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If the distributed computation happened to be a routine to circumvent content protection, would all those receiving these packets be in breach of the DMCA?

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
  21. With a few mods...... by jamesdood · · Score: 1

    Could figure out Pi to the umpteenth trillionth decimal place, A program that could run forever (or as long as TCP/IP was around anyway) stealing just a tiny fraction of CPU time from every computer it contacted.. Sort of like the guy who wrote the code at the bank to take 1/1000th of a cent out of each transaction, nobody would notice .... but it is still wrong...Just one more reason to be completely paranoid!!

    --
    *narf!*
    1. Re:With a few mods...... by Antipop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but when you screw up the program and miss the decimal place you're going to be stealing a lot more CPU than you thought you were... and I don't think torching all the computers is going to work this time... ;)

    2. Re:With a few mods...... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      ...wasnt that in Superman. Sure it was funny, but lets not confuse it with reality now, ok.

  22. Distributed seti@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx? by Emugamer · · Score: 1

    wouldn't that be fun?

    "Oh yeah? I have a multi homed gigabit 486!"

  23. That is quite neat by El_Nofx · · Score: 1

    It appears that people can still puplish their findings and not get sued for violation of some law, I wonder if the group who developed TCP/IP will sue these guys now because they "Violated" some law or something.

    --
    It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
  24. Possible application by jmv · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, I could turn CodeRed into a SETI@Home client!

    1. Re:Possible application by crisco · · Score: 2
      Yeah thats about what I thought, why hasn't someone turned all those code red rooted boxes into D.net clients? Seems like that could move someone into the lead fairly quickly, the minimum requirements for the susceptible OS make for good crypto cracking machines.

      But what do you do so that you get credit for it without getting blamed for the worm?

      --

      Bleh!

    2. Re:Possible application by rprycem · · Score: 1
      Actualy there is a virus out there that does this all be it very ineffeciantly. It looks for open shares on 9x systems named "C" and loads dnet on the system. I actualy removed this from a users system at work yesterday.

      http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.hll w.bymer.html


      I intercepted it before it ran so I didn't get a chance to check the stats. Thought about it later thought.


      Oh and feel free to check my DNet stats for rich@tekkie.org. I am about to hit my millionth RC5 block by the end of the month.

  25. possible DOS attack? by 2Bits · · Score: 1

    This particular technique will likely not become commonplace because the effort to make it work is far greater than the possible computational return.


    True, but it could be modified and used to launch a DOS attack on a specific server, couldn't it?

  26. Interview on All Things Considered by graybeard · · Score: 2, Informative

    Those in Central, Mountain & further timezones might be able to catch it later today, or listen to it tomorrow on the ATC web site.

  27. Wrong # != Stealing Resources by SteveM · · Score: 2

    Just like people dialing a wrong number are stealing your time and resources. But part of the deal in having a phone that other peopls can call you on is that OTHER PEOPLE CAN CALL YOU.

    But the people dialing the wrong number are doing it unintentionally. These folks are intentionally using my resources.

    It is one thing to waste my resources do to an honest mistake. It is another to intentionally do this. Those are called crank calls (or telemarketers).

    Steve M

    1. Re:Wrong # != Stealing Resources by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

      Those are called crank calls (or telemarketers).


      Prank calls and telemarketing are not illegal, unless it's harassing (calling multiple times).

      -- iCEBaLM

    2. Re:Wrong # != Stealing Resources by SteveM · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and your point would be?

      Steve M

  28. excellent question!! by ebyrob · · Score: 1

    Now that *would* be an efficient use of this technology...

  29. There must be more to this.. by bored · · Score: 1

    Its seems silly except maybe to point out that it can be done. Just about any modern computer can checksum data faster than it can read the data from main memory. By the time the nic has pulled the data from main memory the CPU could have already gotten an answer.

  30. doyyyy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Being annoying" isn't illegal, but if it was, the people whining that this is wasting their resources would all be in jail. On top of that the vulnerability is theoretical - they waste more resources sending the work to you than if they had done the work themselves. This is the analog of a telemarketer that pays $40 per call to try to get people to buy as $30 product (1 per customer). Take a fucking midol.

    1. Re:doyyyy by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

      Researchers at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana solved a complex math problem with the unauthorized help of computers in North America, Europe and Asia.

      Theoretically, you need to read the article

    2. Re:doyyyy by SteveM · · Score: 2

      Being an asshole isn't illegal. Nor did it prevent you from posting on /. But if it did the level of discource would rise significantly.

      Read the thread to try and figure out my point, which you completely missed.

      And while you're at it you may want to read the story. In which you'll find out that they really did this. Actual not theoretical.

      I must be having a bad day to be responding to clueless fucking morons.

      Steve M

    3. Re:doyyyy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      RTFD

      theoretical
      adj.

      1. Of, relating to, or based on theory.
      2. Restricted to theory; not practical: theoretical physics. 3. Given to theorizing; speculative.

    4. Re:doyyyy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if they waste your resources intentionally? That's not against the law. Forget phone calls, that analogy sucks ass. Its not even close to analogous. Tell me exactly what law you want passed so I know what you're proposing.

    5. Re:doyyyy by SteveM · · Score: 2

      OK.

      practical (prkt-kl) adj.

      1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals: gained practical experience of sailing as a deck hand.

      2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.

      3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work; practicing.

      4. Capable of being used or put into effect; useful: practical knowledge of Japanese. See Usage Note at practicable.

      5. Intended to serve a purpose without elaboration: practical low-heeled shoes.

      6. Concerned with the production or operation of something useful: Woodworking is a practical art.

      7. Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative. Being actually so in almost every respect; virtual: a practical disaster.

      While the usefulness of this hack is virtually nil, it has been put into practise. See definition 1 above.

      Steve M

    6. Re:doyyyy by SteveM · · Score: 2

      Who said anything about laws?

      I think it is a neat hack. I don't think any laws are needed as it seems there are no useful applications of the technique.

      But saying that that because I open a service on my machine means that I have to put up with that service being co-opted for uses outside the 'spirit' for which it is intended is bullshit.

      Steve M

    7. Re:doyyyy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 3 and 6. This hack will not manifest in practice.

    8. Re:doyyyy by SteveM · · Score: 2

      2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.

      Did you read the article? They did this. They manifested it in practice.

      3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work; practicing.

      Again, they were actually engaged in doing this.

      6. Concerned with the production or operation of something useful: Woodworking is a practical art.

      Again, read the story. They solved their problem using this technique.

      It has been put into practice. It is no longer just theorectical.

      I do agree that it is not useful, but neither are virii or DOS attacks. Two other non-theorectical resource theives.

      Steve M

    9. Re:doyyyy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.
      Did you read the article? They did this. They manifested it in practice.

      The definition implies a continuous process, i.e., you can build a computer out of tinker toys, but it doesn't have the "manifested itself in practice" quality because the techniques.is not used. same with the rest. The English language isn't logic - finding a single counterexample doesn't invalidate the connotation that it doesn't manifest in those practicing the work in the real world (here, distributed computing). Write whatever you want as a response; I'm logging off for the night and won't be responding to this thread again, and arguing over definitions by a hypertechnical dissection of semantics got old in junior high anyway.

    10. Re:doyyyy by SteveM · · Score: 2

      I'm logging off for the night and won't be responding to this thread again, and arguing over definitions by a hypertechnical dissection of semantics got old in junior high anyway.

      Yeah that's how intelligent adults (or AC's) cope with things they don't like. They take their ball and go home. Bye.

      My background is in physics. I studied it in college. Perhaps if you stayed in school after junior high ... but no matter.

      Finding one Higgs boson means it is no longer theorectical. Just one. No no one will believe you if you don't explain how you did it. But you don't have to be continuously producing them.

      And that is what they did here. They showed how to use this technique in practice. Thus it is no longer theorectical.

      The technique was manifested in practice. It wasn't put into production nor does it appear to be all that useful. But they define the technique and they inplemented it. Just as Newton defined calculus and then used it to solve problems. Calculus turned out to be useful for solving other problems as well.

      Here is another way to look at it. It is theoretically possible to use quantum computing techniques to solve a variety of problems. But in most cases it remains theorectical as the quantum computer has not been implemented.

      Or perhaps you are confusing the non-theorectical vunerability with the as of yet only theorectical malicious uses.

      Or perhaps I'm giving you too much credit. Since you seem unable to grasp the distinction between practical(real;concrete)/theorectical(unrealized; not yet seen in the universe) and practical(useful)/impractical(not useful).

      And once they implemented a tinkertoy computer it was manifested in practice. It just takes one. Don't confuse the usefulness of the machine (is it practical to solve problems with it) with the implementation. Once it is implemented it is no longer theorectical, it is a practical implementation of the theory of machine computation.

      Oh well, I guess I'll never know.

      Steve M

  31. Why not use ICMP echo instead? by adadun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ICMP echo packets (ping packets) also includes a checksum. By using the ICMP checksum instead of the TCP checksum, almost every computer connected to the Internet could be used for computation, not only web servers.

    1. Re:Why not use ICMP echo instead? by Spamhead · · Score: 1

      A lot of admins seem to block ICMP at the firewall when they actually shouldn't.

      Not that it matters, anyway...

      --
      Everybody Wang-Chung tonight!
  32. It is both legal and ethical - no questions here.. by hillct · · Score: 3
    Although this is a really neat implementation, I'd have ot say the authors of the paper on 'Parasitic Computing' were over-reaching when they said:
    Parasitic computing raises important questions about the ownership of the resources connected to the Internet and challenges current computing paradigms.
    Granted it's a neat implementation, and using communication protocols to evaluate mathematics is vary creative, but what questions does it really raise about resource ownership? Vary simply, No. They're using publicly agailable services for a new and creative (not illegal) purpose. It would only become both illegal and unethical is their use had the effect of a denial-of-service attack. The authors of the paper were trying to inflate the importance of their work by tying it into the many and varied discussions of intelectual (property) and physical resources on the net. It's a shame that they took this approach because their research stands alone without such pandering which serves only to diminish the appeal of their work.

    --CTH
    --

    --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
  33. Let the MPAA servers DeCSS for you by Quikah · · Score: 3, Funny

    You could write a DeCSS client to find a decryption key by sending the computations out to the MPAA's servers. :)

    --
    Q.
  34. An attempt at a non-flamable response by Pac · · Score: 2

    I have been running a Mandrake 8 KDE machine for a week now, up from Red Hat 7.1. PIII 800/128 MB RAM.

    It doesn't run, it flies very, very fast.

    I really think one of the main positive points of Linux is allowing one to configure a good system regarless of the underlying hardware. There are options. Lots of them. If one will not fit your needs or your machine, try another. For free. As in beer and freedom... :)

    1. Re:An attempt at a non-flamable response by Q-Hack! · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Mandrake is for nubees... There, a Flame.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    2. Re:An attempt at a non-flamable response by zoikes · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Who the hell moderated this one up? It's WAY off-topic!

      Get a clue, moderators!

    3. Re:An attempt at a non-flamable response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably has a +1 bonus. Learn how the system works b4 u flame ppl

  35. Now the RIAA will want to ban TCP/IP!!! by sconeu · · Score: 2

    But variations could be engineered to make online piracy much more efficient, he cautioned.

    Uh, oh, now the RIAA, MPAA, and any other ??AA organizations will want to ban TCP/IP!

    Does this mean the Internet is in violation of the DMCA?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  36. I Have DONE THIS! I Did it years ago(steal cycles) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I Have DONE THIS! I Did it years ago (steal cpu cycles remotely for local computational tasks in a distributed network manner without having account priveledges on any target systems)

    Many unitversities in the 1980s used the MERIT network and many still do.

    A feture of MERIT allows logging onto any other system from another system and during a login process a free command line feature allows use of the CALC calculator line command.

    This exotic command would only work for a while before they severed the line after about two minutes, unless you finally logged in validly so they could charge you the 9600 baud access fees.

    The calculator command was great. It allowed a truly dumb terminal to do simple math functions. Other 1980's terminals such as Liberty Freedom Ones and other terminals have built in desk calculators modes.

    You can use the calculator function to do multiplication and other operations without owning a system account. It even worked during modem connections and tou could tie up several connections by "hopping" during a login.

    I created tools to use the math functions of the MERIT network to perform computations FOR FREE.

    Merit is a private, non-profit corporation, governed by thirteen of Michigan's four-year publicly supported universities. In addition to the thirteen members there are 230 affiliates with a combined total of 425 dedicated network attachments from 398 separate locations. Merit affiliates include: 85 Colleges and universities,25 Community colleges ,117 K-12 schools or school districts , 22 Local, state, and federal government agencies ,16 Healthcare organizations , 111 Libraries , 21 Other non-profit organizations ,28 Businesses . Most were Amdahl mainframes (IBM clones).

    Stealing free cpu cycles of innocent target machines as a parasite to perform complex computational tasks of a larger state machine, using network protocols is fun, especially if distributed across multiple systems and limitless.

    I proudly did it first in the early 1980s.

    (I have a life though and achieved many other more useful things by the way)

    F.E.

  37. Like an old joke... by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

    Three priests are talking to each other how they split the money they get during the service between themselves and the part for the church.

    The first priest says: I draw a line in the middle of the table and throw all the money on the table. Everything left of the line is for me, everything right of the line is for the church.

    The second priest says: I draw a circle in the middle of the table. Everything which lands in the circle is for me, everything which lands outside is for the church.

    The third priest says: I throw all the money in the air. Everything god grabs is for the church, the everything which lands on the floor is for me.


    This project works the same: they send a request to a million webservers, everything which doesn't time out is good for them :-)

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
  38. Ideas, please! by megaduck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of the posts here have been of two schools:

    1. It's impractical.
    2. It's unethical.

    Both valid points, but I think that it's foolish to dismiss this out of hand. First of all, it's a pretty slick hack. Very inventive, if nothing else. Secondly, it brings up some very interesting questions. Can this ever be made practical? What would it take? Would it be ethical to make it work? Can this be used to augment a DOS attack, or something similar? If so, how do we defend against it?

    Maybe I'm talking out of my ass here. I don't know TCP/IP very well. However, I know that others of you out there really know your stuff. I'd like to hear from you.

    --
    This .sig for rent.
    1. Re:Ideas, please! by S.+Allen · · Score: 1

      1. impractical --

      yes, unavoidable so long as it takes more computational horsepower to generate, send, collect packets and compensate for errors (vast/huge) than it is to generate a TCP checksum (trivial).

      2. unethetical --

      yes, so long as your using someone elses resources without their knowledge or implied consent. if you put up a web server and someone is legitimately accessing your content (perusing/reading articles for example), that's implied consent. if someone decides to use your web server to perform load testing without informing you, that's an unauthorized use/abuse under the law. try this with NYT or Yahoo sometime and see how fast you end up in court.

      no, it cannot be made practical in anything like it's present form. it's not really even clever or slick compared to other (illegal) parasitic uses of computers and network infrastructures. unless we solve the first two points, who go on?

      there, we haven't dismissed it out of hand.

    2. Re:Ideas, please! by megaduck · · Score: 2

      Fair enough. However, I already ceded the point that it's both impractical and unethical. That's not what I'm interested in. What really interests me is the security implications of something like this. Are there good defenses against this unauthorized use of your resources? If you turn off checksumming, does that leave you vulnerable to another form of attack?

      We've already decided that this is useless for real computation. What are the other ramifications?

      --
      This .sig for rent.
    3. Re:Ideas, please! by Ray+Yang · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert, but is this necessarily any more bothersome than normal communications? I mean, it looks like they're just engaging in a standard communication.

      To slow down a computer, they'd have to make many many communications at once, and I don't see how that's different from your vanilla DoS attack (except for the fringe computational benefits).

      Ray

    4. Re:Ideas, please! by megaduck · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, then why are people complaining about having their CPU time stolen? I get the impression that this slows down your machine a bit.

      --
      This .sig for rent.
  39. Interesting question... (response OT) by cr0sh · · Score: 2

    Akin to:

    If I steal something from you, and you never, ever notice that thing is gone (ie, out of your posession), have I really stolen from you, from your viewpoint?

    I mean, if you don't know, you don't know, right?

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    1. Re:Interesting question... (response OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the answer is very obviously "yes", otherwise I'd be morally free to drug you and steal your brain.

    2. Re:Interesting question... (response OT) by Pxtl · · Score: 2

      Yeah, well what if I'm on a deadline and your waste of my processor cycles causes it to be late because my software compiles too slowly? Or cause I can't transmit it to my boss since your eating my bandwidth? I might not know your doing it, I might not know anything's even wrong other then that things are going slow. But you're doing me harm, without my consent, for your own profit. There is a victim, and the person is not being victimized for a greater good with the consent of the government. Usually, things that fit that description are illegal.

  40. Ender's Game by TroyFoley · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember Jane from the later books in this series, and the philotic connections?

    --
    After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
    1. Re:Ender's Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only "Ender's Game" was good. The rest were crap.
      Therefore, I don't believe in philotic connections.

    2. Re:Ender's Game by CosmicDreams · · Score: 1

      Yea, I was thinking about that too.

      Now all we need to do is create a program with creativity and wait for a particular giften kid.

      --
      Go Gusties
  41. Chinese Lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is reminiscent of the Chinese Lottery method for cryptanalysis. Give a billion people a free tv/radio/whatever, then start broadcasting random numbers over the airwaves that are used to crack some problem. As soon as a tv solves the problem it breaks.

    The person who calls in to get their TV repaired has the TV with the answer.

    1. Re:Chinese Lottery by netsharc · · Score: 1

      In practice...

      You'd have to have pretty redundant hard-to-break TVs.. maybe the TV that solves it can display a special number that it displays for its owner to call when it has solved the problem. Of course, will the owner call? :)

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
  42. That's entirely reasonable.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought KDE was a bit sluggish on the same system the couple of times I tried it, IIRC, at least compared to 98, but Gnome/Nautilus is barely usable on one of the fastest newest computers out there. That's inexcusable to me.

    Maybe I'll give KDE another shot. I seem to recall the scroll wheel not working at all - and I'm not talking about that funny little patch just for Netscape 4.x. Does it work in KDE, for file browsing and/or net browsing? Also, do you know of any thumbnailing picture browsers for KDE?

  43. NPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NPR had a much better interview with the parties involved from ND. It aired during All Thing Considered earlier today.

  44. Interesting but not useful by matrix0040 · · Score: 1

    i can't see how making the packet is less computationally intensive than computing the checksum. In the 2-SAT case, they're anyway generating all the 2^n cases, so the complexity is still exponential.
    And another factor is of reliability. What if a packet times out. Not all the packets you send are responded to ... so if that one in a million packets which represents the actual solution times out then all your effort goes down the drain.

  45. could this be an answer to micro payments? by .havoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    User agreement: I'll let you access the information on my site at no direct cost to you IF you'll allow me access to your computer (not to exceed specified limitations) in return.

    Click here to agree.

    1. Re:could this be an answer to micro payments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An interesting idea. It would have to cost less (in bandwidth terms) than banner ads or whatever it replaces though. And, naturally, the fuckwit companies would want to have the 'parasitic computing' and the banner ads...

  46. piracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Such online piracy does not violate the security of hapless servers, using only areas specifically earmarked for public access, according to the researchers.

    Eh, there's that word again, pretty handy word isn't it?

    Piracy: anything you do that someone else doesn't want you to do.

  47. Contradiction by D.+Mann · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "We are not worried about copycats taking our program," Barabasi said.

    But variations could be engineered to make online piracy much more efficient, he cautioned.


    If it will make piracy more efficient, I'm pretty sure the pirates would be very interested in finding out more about it.

    Hell, in my experience, most pirates would use a modem that belched huge clouds of carbon monoxide and was powered by grinding up kittens in a big hopper if it got them an extra 10k/s on their downloads.
    1. Re:Contradiction by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      Hell, in my experience, most pirates would use a modem that belched huge clouds of carbon monoxide and was powered by grinding up kittens in a big hopper if it got them an extra 10k/s on their downloads.


      yes, and sadly, kittens only provide about an extra 7k/s - you really have to use puppies or lambs to get the 15-20k/s that the augmented modem professes......

  48. Re:It is both legal and ethical - no questions her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it be said that, using this technique, there are plenty of free MIPS at your disposal? If so, then game on for the corporate raiders seizing the moment for this unused CPU cycle (and since they would have been used anyways, not illegal).

  49. Oh swell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares??? 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of computer users, that's who!!!

  50. Re:I Have DONE THIS! I Did it years ago(steal cycl by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

    Was this actually more efficient than just doing the calculations on your own system? If you were on a dumb terminal, i might understand the benefit, but you say you wrote a program to hop from one connection to another -- wasn't all this overhead more computationally intensive (even just for your own system) than doing the math yourself?

  51. I have one too!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's running Linux!! Hahaha! I am so funny!!

    1. Re:I have one too!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh yes the down fall of humanity. People.

  52. Parasitic Computing is an example of A.I. by eyefish · · Score: 1

    Parasitic Computing is a great example of what will happen once machines (or the Internet itself) become intelligent and self-aware. They could use the Internet in ways we could barely guess or understand in order to do data computations, data transportation, or data storage (the only 3 things any living creature needs).

  53. A better way? Make the client do the work... by mr_zorg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To really be useful, you need a longer time to do a more complicated calculation. So:

    1) Create a compeling website that will get people to stick around for a while (free pr0n would probably work).
    2) Put all your pages into frames with a hidden, 0 pixel frame.
    3) Create dynamic pages (JSP/ASP/whatever) that will pipe down JavaScript to the hidden frame with the algorythm that needs to be run.
    4) Let the calculation run while the user browses your site, then POST the results back to the server when it's done.

    This would all be relatively transparent to the user... Of course, if they're all paranoid /. types, they'd probably have JavaScript turned off.

  54. Scroll Wheel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The scroll wheel works fine under X (and in KDE) ... you just have to make sure your ZAxis lines are set in your XF86Config, and (from my experience) that your mouse type is set as IMPS/2.

    gqview is what I like to use for "thumbnailing picture" browsing. electronic eyes (ee) works too. There are a bazillion of those types of proggies out there now.

    I don't use KDE though ... Enlightenment gives me all the "prettiness" I need with nowhere near the footprint of KDE/Gnome.

    Dlugar

  55. Why not enable this on purpose? by GrEp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why not make this a feature? Write an extremely simple virtual machine that would perform calculations as asked. Way smaller than java. Simple enough that you could write a proof that it couldn't try to play outside its sandbox.

    You could give it a small chunk of memory to use, run it at a VERY low priority, and use SSH like transmission where the packets are automaticaly compressed and only a list of certain IPs would be accepted. All you would have to do is download the IPs of the distributed projects you wanted to work on and the virtual machine would accept packets from them. No specific clients to download for each project, and you would get distributed computing easily on all your machines.

    Any projects like this? It would be great to have an always on and client secure distributed computing platform.

    --

    bash-2.04$
    bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
  56. Darn IP addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought this was IP address related. Ah well, such is life. What I want, is not to be tied down to some stupid IP address, which is what I am. This pretty much sucks big time! For instance, I need a public open_hh key, that want's my stupid IP address to work. Why the heck not get a button to do this in real life, instead of this half life. What the heck is a button? I think dallas semi has some buttons, but that isn't the true key. I want me, to be me, and _uck the people that think they can be whoever they want to be. This whole thing of IP this, IP that really sucks. Remove the IP slave, and you get a real person.

    Hmmm, what the heck?

  57. DDOS? by Jarvo · · Score: 1

    Finally a 'good' use for a distributed denial of service attack!

  58. If you do it, do it right. by Apuleius · · Score: 3, Funny

    For full effect, use avian transport for the
    TCP/IP packets. And write an interface to this
    so that you can use it for SetiAtHome.

  59. Albert-Laszlo Barabasi by gordon_schumway · · Score: 1
    This Barabasi guy's an ass. All he does is sensationalist pop-physics crap. Look at his website. The organization of handclapping (featured at ABCNews and FoxNews), sandcastles, and internet topology and attack work (discussed at Slashdot here). This guy just jumps between pop-science subjects and eats up press coverage of his crap.


    Can we stop talking about him now?

    --

    Ha! I kill me!

  60. Re:I Have DONE THIS! (my followup) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I disagree. I used an apple II.

    Admittedly the 6502 chip is not that shabby even at 1 Mhz. Steve Wozniak wrote some math routines for floating point and also the Sweet16 math libraries. But serial modem IO was probably provably less expesive than 64 bit floating point precision math. The year was 1982. The IBM PC had not even shipped yet, and even when it did it was only 64K RAM and cassette.

    There was a minor round trip delay, and I bet local floating point math might be sligthly faster than using my method, even with hopping between 4 systems round robin because of the delays, but what about parallelism?

    But even if you are correct and a 1 Mhz Apple ][ using a 8 bit cpu (same as nintendo years later), was capable of beating the amdahl multimillion dollar mainframe due to initial latency on the time slice, The apple could be free to compute in parallel, thus your assumption is wrong that it was wortheless to do.

    Plus there are some very subtle characteristics worht considering...

    You have to rememember that every hard linefeed, ESPECIALLY during login time, runs for a spit second at ultra high priority. Its a design defect on several systems. Both for timeslice and for priority. It is a shortlived timeslice but is meant to aid in showing "responsiveness" of the system under heavy loads. The theory is that each user is waiting for a cursor action to acknowledge their return.

    It is part of the evil "Coffee Mug" Exploit I discoverred. It would be "infamous" but i never shared it.

    For example, If you rest a coffee mug on the return key of a terminal not logged in, and the terminal is conventionally hooked up to a large minicomputer, even those with completely separate subsystem boxes for all serial IO and packet IO.... YOU WILL DRAG THE SYSTEM TO A CRAWL if the terminal is set to high speed auto keyrepeat.

    A 13 thousand dollar Tektronix 2d Cad terminal hooked to a 19,200 baud serial line would emit hundreds of carriage returns per second, if preset to.

    The system normally syncs on a single or double carraige return to test a table to determine what baud to interpret in autobaud modes of a connecting modem, but this is not why its so slow. These were fixed baud lines. The cpu of the mainframe was slowed because it was trying to give hundreds of high priority time slices to the terminal. One for each return key byte. And because the terminal was not even a logged in user yet, it was running totally as a parasitic system level process with no history to govern its agregate timeslice priority.

    I never disclosed this defect in Primes Primos, and though i was one of only a few private citizens with Prime's Primos source code to every tool and routine in the system, I myself never bothered patching the defect. I did have fun testing other OS's.

    the parasitic "Coffe Mug" was dramatic..... it brought minicomputers and mainframes to their knees.

    But one thing is for certiain, an apple II can use its serial card with so little overhead that using the CALC calculator console command do do long division was provably a useful technique.

    At that time I was busy infiltrating DOD computers, ATT systems, cracking PIN algorithms, and so many other things besides programming that I spent little time having fun with my simple technologies to steal cycles from Merit, other than to prove it conclusively.

    An apple II using ORCA assembler (a macro assembler based on ibm 360 in some ways) could be used to do many things including a 16 bit CCITT CRC without a table lookup in so few lines of code it would blow your mind. (A 6502 can do decrement test and loop branch in one opcode). Therefore I conclude that the original article we are referring to is ludicrous even if the years was 1982 and a apple ii was employed, but i can conclusively state the authors could find nothing lacking in what I divuged in my initial post.

    This CRC article is way off the mark and useless when you consider the overhe3ad for the protocol stacks and the fact that little computation is possible per crc packet of info.

    desingning a computer emulator using nothing more than boolean bit vector math is challenging, I admit, but you might as well buy a box of NAND gates and design a homebrew four bit math calculator just to show it can be done.

    Ahhhh the good old days.....

    But todays fun will be nostalgic history one day too 20 years from now. (writing full DVD decryptors, Macrovision SD2 pattern negators, and other more trendy modern hobby wonders)

    I might not be at my coding peak in another 20 years though, unless medical wonders are created.

    F.E.

  61. Re:I Have DONE THIS! I Did it years ago(steal cycl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realized a moment ago I mispoke about a MOS opcode while looking for the 6502 crc routines others have written, but i did find the historic 1976 source code to the 32 bit floating point library by the amazing Steve Wozniak for his Apple computer.

    http://www.6502.org/source/floats/wozfp1.txt

    Its cool source. uppercase naturally.

    Woz is more famous for his hardware than his software but he is amazing in both areas. once he used all of an Apple II to compute "E" including the video ram area. Old disk programs used to do the same thing (use video memory for storage).

    In hardware Steve Wozniak designed a floppy disk controller using the bare minimum number of chips and gates and also the bare minimum of drill holes through the cicuit board. That floppy controller was able to format and copy a 143 Kilobyte floppy disk in 18.33 seconds years later using special copy programs written by idiot savant 15 year olds at Canton High School MI (Mark Harris (?), aka "The Stack"). I say "idiot savant" because he was in remedial math at the time. 18.33 secdonds on a standard apple disk drive!!! It did not work from card slot 5, and it did not verify the output was being written (you could put karft cheese in the target drive and not get a warning) but millions of americans duplicated their disks onto raw blanks in 18.33 seconds total using the amazing 1978-79 floppy disk controller from Apple.

    Too bad it pathologically sometimes takes longer thatn 18.33 second just to insert and view a directory and look at a 1 K text file on a modern 2001 ibm pc system using the latest bloatware OS's.

    ....sigh

    F.E.

  62. Here an answer by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    I got a PII 350 / 256 Mo Ram.

    Can you tell me :

    1/ Why it cannot stay online for more than 2 days
    (because Network stack has a memory leak the size of Indiana and it eats up all my 256 Mo)

    2/ why, after a fresh start, I only have 160 Mo free ? (hmmm ! because...I start too much Dll ?)

    3/ Why, everytime I close an app, I have to use Memturbo (c) to free the memory it was occupying ?

    Ok This was my "Bad MEmory Windows"

    I propose we meet tomorow to speak about Inerface, and the day after on Filesystem ! 8)

    This Post AutoModerated -1 (Offtopic) +4 (NiceGuy)

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:Here an answer by PONA-Boy · · Score: 1

      I know this is OT...the past few posts in this vein are OT, BUT...

      I *would* like to go on the (offtopic) record by saying that most of your windows memory leaks aren't REALLY unique to the windows platform nor are they BECAUSE of the windows platform.

      If you are familiar with C-based programs, you will be familiar with the malloc() function. The malloc() function is a well-known and well-documented memory hog. Even well-written programs suffer from this...even well-written UN*X-based programs.

      Someone (from Microsoft even) has a page devoted to alternatives to malloc()...

      http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~zorn/Malloc.html

      ...you can hate microsoft for lots of things, but take it easy on the memory leaks that it shares with almost every OTHER OS out there.

      -PONA-

      --
      +that's funny...I don't FEEL tardy.+
  63. An amusing thing to do... by Nawak · · Score: 1

    ...would be to make a DeCSS that uses this technique to decrypt DVDs with the 'help' of MPAA's web servers!

    --
    A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
  64. Distributed Parasitic Computing by msheppard · · Score: 1

    You wouldn't have to do it all from a single node. If you had, say, 10 "willing" participants on seperate pipes you could send them each 1/10th of the work and they could utilize their bandwidth seperatly to get the packets processed.

    And if your talking about 4 million packets, you'd probably want at least a thousand "willing" participants.

    --
    Krispy Cream is people
  65. Ummmm... HELLO (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did your English teacher skip the part that if the use of a word matches for a SINGLE definition (only one out of hundreds, even), then the word has been used properly. You don't have to use the word for every possible meaning in order to have properly communicated using the word.

    Sheesh. Learn something, man.

  66. Website by msheppard · · Score: 1

    Scientific American pointed me to this website on the topic, looks like the source:
    http://www.nd.edu/~parasite/

    --
    Krispy Cream is people
  67. Re:A better way? Make the client do the work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turning scripting off isn't necessarily a solution. I forget the exact details, but some browsers simply look for <script... tags and ignore the contents. If the page embeds the ascii codes for <script the 'turning off' never happens and the script is executed anyway. In such cases you (may) need a firewall which will block active content.

  68. fake tech journalism article and this on same day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    funny - an example story for the other /. thread! http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/29/2334243.shtm l

  69. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the info. Of course, now that I told someone the scroll wheel wasn't working, now it start working for no apparent reason. I just need to complain about these problems so that they go away, and then I look like I don't know what's going on. Maybe I'll try Enlightenment alone. KDE seemed a lot faster last night, but I tried it for more than 5 minutes as well. It's a little cartoonish looking, but functional, and reasonably zippy.

  70. Villain-to-Victim Computing Applications Anyone? by rsimmons · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of one of the Works in Progress papers from the this year's USENIX security symposium on Villain-to-Victim.

    Basically you store data by sending off an icmp echo request containing arbitrary data to a site or sites that you know have slow links and wait for it to come back. You are using the routers etc in between as a storage medium.

  71. Piracy??? by maddogsparky · · Score: 1
    Such online piracy...

    How is this piracy? Nothing was stolen in the classical sense of the word. Software wasn't even coppied illegally. It seems more analagous to someone playing minesweeper on the catalog computers in a public library (it wasn't the intended use, but it is available for public use and nothing has been changed on the computer). I certainly wouldn't call that "piracy".

    This seems like another example of journalists drumming up readership by using words in a context they don't really understand.

    --
    science is a religion
  72. Re:It is both legal and ethical - no questions her by HydroCarbon10 · · Score: 2

    I don't think we're going to have to worry about ethical or legal implications, simply because this is too expensive and too complex. Just buy yourself a cheapo duron, or start a real DC project and make some cool stats so all the stats freaks will join.

    Note, I haven't read the pdf's yet, so I don't know how well this type of computing scales, or how much power is available.

    --
    The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
  73. Phrasing the question is the bulk of the work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Admittedly I only glanced at the "Nature" article, but it looks like the computation involved in creating the so-called "parasitic" packets for their example eclipses the actual csum computation.
    They have yet to show that a problem can be mapped to their scheme in a usefull fashion...

  74. OT Re:Legality? by netsharc · · Score: 1

    I've done that once or twice, who cares. Well they used to make me work for 6 bucks an hour, so I think I deserve a pee at their cost once in a while. :)

    --
    What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
  75. Moderators? Fuck wits more like by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1

    So the above is "off-topic", but this later post saying the same thing is a "+3 Funny"? I'd like to moderate, if it means I can get some of what this moderator's been smoking. Fuckwit.

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush