Slashdot Mirror


Safeweb Turns Off Free Service

An Anonymous Coward writes: "Seems like Safeweb was the last one to cancel providing free anonymizing service. Rest in peace, Safeweb, I loved you a lot. With Anonymouse down and Anonymizer.com restricted, are there any free services left for those suffering from corporate oppression?"

18 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Guess My Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    12. Or perhaps 12 and a half?

  2. WTF? by 3waygeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anonymous Cowards here aren't, because their IP addresses are still subject to subpoena, and there's a 2 week long window where Slashdot stores the IP address as an MD5 hash, which can be easily defeated.

    How can MD5 be "easily defeated"? I was under the impression that MD5 is a one-way algorithm, so that the original IP address couldn't be recovered from the logs.

    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Sure, but that's when you don't know what the source of the MD5 was.

      If you know that the md5'ed string was an IP address, well, there are only 4 billion possible values you'd need to check. How long would that take? A few minutes maybe.

    2. Re:WTF? by ichimunki · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      With only 2.3 billion possible IP addresses it is trivial to loop over them, hashing each as you go, and comparing it to the target. Nearly as trivial would be to build a database table that contained every possible IP address and its respective hash. Then you could just put your list of target hashes into a table and do a join to get matches.

      This approach assumes you know that the hash represents a valid, unaltered IP address. You could also show that the hash does *not* derive from a valid IP address as well, since the hash would not be in your list of 2.3 billion possible hashes.

      I can't see any reason to store IP addresses this way, though. Maybe someone from the Slash development team could elaborate on this.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    3. Re:WTF? by ichimunki · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ack! Dyslexia (or something)!

      4.29 billion!

      --
      I do not have a signature
  3. Re:Guess My Age by gazbo · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Hmmm....tricky. I always thought of you as being somewhat older than the usual weenies who hang around /. maybe 27 or so.

    But why would anybody old enough to drink ask people to guess his age? That is the trick of a 15yr old. Only one thing to do: (27+15)/2 = 21. I deduce through logic that you must be 21.

    BTW, an hour long blowjob would be pointless - I only last 2 minutes, and I hear that Taco is better than average.

  4. pity... by ariehk · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    It's a pity that the anonymizers are dying. There are a whole number of pressures on them:



    * The dryup in advertising revenue. A lot of these site's revenue was from the banners they add in on the webpages you viewed using them. The global slowdown has cut all advertising budgets, so they lose out.


    * As someone pointed out, the nature of anonymizing sites is that they dont advertise much themselves, so no mass audience.


    * A lot of these sites were used in schools and libraries who blocked certain URLS. People used the anonymizers to get round the blocks. However, the sysadmins got wise to this and blocked the major anonymous web services. So much of the key audience is cut out.


    It's a pity, though. Next time I want to ogle at goatpr0n at the public library, my trusty safeWeb will be gone.

    --
    These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined. -- Homer Simpson
  5. Re:Sweet Irony by Asphalt · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    I submitted the story almost as soon as SafeWeb went down.

    I guess they prefered the AC's notification to mine.

    Whatever. I usually just lurk anyway.

  6. Well, a bit less by srichman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There are lots of invalid IP addresses and private IP addresses that can't transit the Internet.

    1. Re:Well, a bit less by ichimunki · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Just for the sake of completeness I would probably check those. They are a small portion of the total possible number. My main point was to correct my math error. The limit on IP addresses is 256**4, which is approx 4.3 billion.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:Well, a bit less by srichman · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      They are a small portion of the total possible number.
      Agreed, I was just being anal. There are 2^24 + 2^20 + 2^16 = 17,891,328 private IP addresses. I don't know offhand how many representable IP addresses are invalid (I'd have to look up an RFC and I'm lazy), but it's not too many.
      My main point was to correct my math error.
      I know :)
  7. Speaking of which... by 3ryon · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I have been looking to set up a proxy inside our firewall and have been unable to find one that will meet my requirements. If you know of any, please reply to this message.

    What I'm trying to accomplish: we have a VPN solution that will let users access our intranet pages, but they must use a different DNS name (one that is resolvable on the Internet) than what is used internally. Yes, this is stupid, but it's the way it is. The problem arises when they click a link on one intranet site that would bump them to another intranet site (inter-site link). The DNS name in that link will only work inside the firewall, as they can't resolve the internal name. Now, I was thinking if I could put an anonymizer-style proxy server inside the firewall, all of my users could connect to that, and the proxy server would have no problems connecting to the internal DNS names as it actually resides inside the firewall. I don't care at all about the service being anonymous, I just want a true proxy.

    Problems: I have looked at a lot of solutions, but most are either very expensive (licensing software from anonymizer.com, etc), or simply not good enough (cgi-proxy vomits on a lot of client-side Javascript). Most solutions are for *nix, which I'm not opposed to, but my team doesn't really have strong skills in that arena.

    Does anyone know of an inexpensive ( less than $1,000) proxy solution that works flawlessly (forms, Basic Authentication, SSL, Client-side Javascript) that ideally runs on Win2k? On any OS?

  8. Re:Sweet Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Troll? Weirdos!!!! Why on earth has that happened? Not the .sig, surely ;-)!

  9. Disposable email addresses by tgeller · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    They're not quite the same thing, but disposable email addresses can be used "anonymously" -- and you can throw them out when you're done with them.

    --Tom

    --
    Tom Geller
  10. "Flamebait" moderation for religious comment by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Why must every time someone says anything pro-Christian or pro-religion they get modded down?

    "Flamebait"? Nothing up there is flamebait as far as I can tell. It seems to be a good argument, one that one could disagree with, but not "flamebait". But someone moderated it as such, and I suspect it is due to anti-religious bias.

    There is more to the world than technology, folks.

    (P.S. I suspect this one likely will get modded down also. Just remember, there is always metamod.)

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  11. Sweet Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Slashdot stores the IP address as an MD5 hash, which can be easily defeated

    MD5 is a one-way hash. You can't get the original string from the MD5 of that string. You can only MD5 other strings and compare the MD5s. Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, be quiet. Misinformation is bad.

    As for Safeweb, it's not "gone." If you're not willing to pay for the service then it clearly wasn't worth anything to you, so why are you all lamenting? If they are charging unreasonable prices then that's another story. But all you whiners make me sick.

  12. Re:Anonymity versus Abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Given the lengths to which a very few people will go to ruin something for everyone else, I'm not surprised several free services aren't fighting to keep their non-paying customers.

    cvs.slashcode.com is down right now; i'll assume your link worked. that said, you're totally right. nearly half of slash is designed to contain the damage from .01% of its' users. the worst part is, the "damage containment" is anything but; instead of elminating bot posts they've implemented measures to gag/censor dissent. while the current system easily gags anonymous posters who post unpopular stuff, it has no effect on anyone spamming a user journal or any other sid where moderators aren't. it's extremely feasible to truly implement anonymous coward, logging no IP's, while at the same totally blocking automated posting. slashdot would seem to be the perfect fit for this.

    however, given the fact that /. must also function as a business, and your point that catering to this low-demand zero-profit task would take oodles of development time, it may not be such a good idea.

    in the end, the market adjusts everyone.

  13. Re:Corporate Oppression? by Arandir · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    But I don't want cheeese... I can't eat cheeese... How can you eat cheeese when the corporate masters won't let you get pr0n for freee...

    sniffle sniffle

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned