Slashdot Mirror


Peek-a-Boo (ty)

Anemophilous Coward writes "Tom's Hardware has a story detailing cDc's new anonymity app, just demonstrated Sunday. Peek-A-Booty is designed to let surfers access sites blocked by government restrictions, and is essentially, a distributed proxy network. It uses a peer-to-peer model, masking the identity of each node. This means the user can route around censorship that blocks citizens' access to specific IP addresses, because the censor doesn't know they're going there. There is also a website dedicated to the project."

218 comments

  1. Easier way? by Peyna · · Score: 2
    Isn't there a much easier way to do this? I know a lot of people that have simple proxies set up on an address that they know isn't blocked, then you can access everything you need to through them. (HTTP at least). Very simple solution to the problem.

    Aside - I first read cDc as 'Center for Disease Control', heh, sure changed the article.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Easier way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Distributed anonymous proxies, hmm
      sounds like a nice way to mount attack
      onto a target withouth finding the original
      source.

      To Peek-A-Booty developers: ever thought
      of creating a distributed document caching
      scheme for your anonymous proxy system, sounds
      like an idea.

      DarkSkies.

    2. Re:Easier way? by Cuthalion · · Score: 2

      To Peek-A-Booty developers: ever thought of creating a distributed document caching scheme for your anonymous proxy system, sounds like an idea.

      That ends up sounding very similar to Freenet.

      --
      Trees can't go dancing
      So do them a big favor
      Pretend dancing stinks!
    3. Re:Easier way? by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

      I call my protocol Samizdat (see dictionary for meaning) it does far more than this .
      Samizdat is a peer to peer network grid which uses military grade crypto with a layer of steganography on top to maintain the illusion of unencrypted Spam being sent.
      This makes it undetectable to the censor and uses any random port which isn't blocked.

      All the censor will see is make money quick scams, shakespeare or crap from slashdot's JonKatz. (exposing censors to JonKatz may be a form of torture)

      Samizdat will be GNU free and able to be ported to any operating system , not just the Kaos system I'm creating from BSD and bits of linux.

      --
      - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
    4. Re:Easier way? by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

      Why bother modifying Freenet? I'm doing an encrypted grid protocol called Samizdat that will have more than Peek-a-Booty ever will.

      And yes, it will let people browse pr0n sites and see real Peek-a-Booty even if they are being censored.

      --
      - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  2. Let's see if I understand... by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 1, Funny

    If someone has blocked you from the PrOn sites, you get this device and you still get to peek-a-booty ???

    1. Re:Let's see if I understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is some place that already does this...it is called Slashdot. Have you already forgotten about the goatse.cx trolls? ;-)

  3. Good for some, nightmare for others by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can see both the good and bad of this application.

    On the good side: China. Folks over there who have to deal with the gigantic "Firewall O' Death" (also known as the "Damn it, Communism works so stop reading about how it doesn't" Firewall) can possibly use this tool to get to the outside information they need to keep spreadin' the news that "Information good."

    On the other side, as a Security Manager in a bank who's sometimes asked to go find out if person XYZ has been accessing nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com, I can see how this utility might make it impossible for me to do my job.

    So I've got mixed feelings on this utility.

    1. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by base3 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      On the other side, as a Security Manager in a bank who's sometimes asked to go find out if person XYZ has been accessing nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com

      What exactly does that have to do with security? Doesn't a "security manager" have anything better to do? If anything, be concerned because it's an encrypted channel for information to move in an out, not that someone might <gasp> be doing some personal surfing on the job</gasp>.

      If these sorts of applications make it harder for security "managers" to play Network nazi (small 'n'--Godwin's law does no apply here), that that is an added benefit, so far as I see.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    2. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Rupert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where I work they have the drones' boxen locked down so they can't change their proxy settings. Thus PeekaBooty is not a problem.

      The more inspired drones have installed Opera, which doesn't require administrator access to install in Windows. They could presumably use PB. They're a small minority, though.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    3. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If they're drones, and have successfully installed Opera, and you haven't been able to have them fired, I guess they aren't as much drones as you seem to think, are they?

      ~~~

    4. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by cat_jesus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      On the other side, as a Security Manager in a bank who's sometimes asked to go find out if person XYZ has been accessing nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com, I can see how this utility might make it impossible for me to do my job.
      Here's a novel idea. How about monitoring employess productivity instead. I could care less if my employees look at porn as long as no one complains and the work gets done. As soon as one of those two criteria change, then I get involved.

      Cat
    5. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by mosch · · Score: 3, Insightful
      As a security manager, you should learn how to lock down the computers that the users are using, thus preventing the installation and deployment of this utility.

      Additionally, your security policy should have language forbidding the use of non-authorized software, thus making the use of said software a fireable offense.

    6. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA ha ha ha! You called the other workers at your company drones! You are so superior and clever! Ha ha ha ha!! I can't stop laughing at your monumental wit!! Whoa ho ho! HA ha ha!

    7. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by shut_up_man · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, you're such a tease... nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com doesn't even exist!

      And here I was getting all excited...

    8. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I don't care how low your uid is, I still find your referring to employees as drones to be patronising and arrogant.

      Presumably you are administering a WINDOWS network, so remember what they say about people who live in GLASS HOUSES.

      graspee

    9. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Why would I want them fired? I'm not the admin.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    10. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      • On the good side: China [...] to keep spreadin' the news that "Information good."

      Er, good side: USA. To find DeCSS or similar tools without fear of prosecution, for example, or to keep spreadin' the news that "Censorship bad, even when it's done by a (heh) democratically (heh heh) elected (heh heh heh) administration."

      • as a Security Manager in a bank who's sometimes asked to go find out if person XYZ has been accessing nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com, I can see how this utility might make it impossible for me to do my job

      Depends on what your job is. If your job is to protect the bank from liability, anonymised browsing allows you to state with certainty "Nobody can link us or our employees with porn surfing. Not us, not nobody."

      If you've been tasked with catching a known baddie in the act (perhaps at preteenlolitas.com), then you've got keyloggers, machine caches (they don't have admin access, right?) or just drop VNC on their machine and catch them with their pants down, so to speak.

      I appreciate your concerns, but really, wouldn't it actually make your job easier if users showed a little courtesy and consideration, and stopped waving their dodgy surfing habits in your face (so to speak)?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    11. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other side, as a Security Manager in a bank who's sometimes asked to go find out if person XYZ has been accessing nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com, I can see how this utility might make it impossible for me to do my job.

      Freaking antisocial narc!

    12. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by fishebulb · · Score: 1

      if an employee is looking at porn, it could get all tangled up in sexual harassment etc. In general i agree with you though. Its like the people that work 14 hour days, but could easily accomplish it all in 5 hours of PRODUCTIVE work

    13. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What exactly does that have to do with security?


      If you have people sitting around looking at porno all that, the courts call that a "hostile work environment". The company can be sued for a lot of money if someone decides to be a 'victim' and gets offended by the person in question looking at porno.

    14. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by base3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That makes it a personnel issue, not a security issue.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    15. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by smallpaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what you're saying is: "On the good side, fundamental human rights. On the bad side, makes life harder for pointy haired bosses who feel that lunch breaks spent playing cards are fine but lunch breaks surfing porn are an abomination.

      And this gives you mixed feelings???

    16. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Rupert · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't administer any kind of network (apart from the 4 Linux & 1 Win98 at home). However, you don't have to be a sysadmin to be patronising and arrogant. And my uid is not particularly low. It's about two orders of magnitude too high to get a proposal of marriage from CmdrTaco.

      They are not drones because they are windows users. The reverse would be more accurate.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    17. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      I could care less if my employees look at porn as long as no one complains

      I guess you haven't been sued under the "creating a hostile work environment" sexual harrasment theory. Yet.

      Personally I could care less what my employees do so long as they produce. However the governement makes me liable for certain on the job employee activities. Unfortunately that mean I have to keep a lid on things.

    18. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

      As long as policies are in place that forbid it, once someone complains about a cow-orker looking at porn, pull the logs, verify it and give a single warning. After that it's termination time. It's really very simple, and cheap.

      Cat

    19. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      *shrug*

      It's a longshot, but I could see how in some circumstances that might be potential blackmail material -- e.g. the employee is married to someone who wouldn't tolerate that sort of thing.

      That's aside from any liability the bank may have if it knows about the browsing but fails to do anything about it (sexual harrassment suits -- 'hostile environment' and that sort of thing). That's not quite a security issue, 'tho.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    20. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never had sexual harassment suits brought against your company, have you? Oh, you're a l33t 18yr old in study hall, I forgot...

    21. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thus spake a pissed off drone

    22. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Slashdot really is going downhill. Now even the anonymous cowards have feelings.

      Did I call you a drone? Did I insult you in any way?

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    23. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Salamander · · Score: 2
      as a Security Manager in a bank who's sometimes asked to go find out if person XYZ has been accessing nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com, I can see how this utility might make it impossible for me to do my job

      No problem. Whatever port is at the other end, the language spoken on the browser's connection will still be easily recognizable HTTP. You should already have an IDS running, and adding a signature for the "offending" HTTP traffic should be a no-brainer.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    24. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Snowfox · · Score: 2
      I don't care how low your uid is, I still find your referring to employees as drones to be patronising and arrogant.

      When Thin-Skinned P.C. Liberal Arts Majors Attack. Tonight on FOX.

    25. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by base3 · · Score: 1

      After your obvious years of wisened wisdom and clever insult development, you don't appear to comprehend the difference between security and personnel issues. Perhaps you could benefit from a study hall.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    26. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope you can keep your ideals when some bank employee surfing for his lunch break masturbation material hits a malicious site. You'll get your account balance back eventually, but not before a bunch of bounced checks and no cash from the ATM ruin your life for a while.

      And before you say that drones' computers don't have that kind of access, remember: it's always the higher ups that think the rules don't apply to them. How about Mr Branch Manager or Ms VP/Accounting getting their workstation compromised?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    27. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Salamander · · Score: 2

      BTW, I forgot to point out that the Chinese can do exactly the same thing. In fact, I'll bet that they already do, and that open-source software makes the task easier for them.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    28. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by mshiltonj · · Score: 1

      On the other side, as a Security Manager in a bank who's sometimes asked to go find out if person XYZ has been accessing nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com, I can see how this utility might make it impossible for me to do my job.

      Poor you. My heart bleeds.

      Exactly how does that affect security? He's a loser for doing it, but exactly how is it insecure? Or is it just a matter of Control instead of Security?

      I'm a litte more anti-coporate that usual this morning, so forgive my coarseness.

    29. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 2

      Indeed. In most banks it is a firing offense to even think about installing non-approved software on your workstation... Needless to say, at certain banks, many more employees (future ex drones?) leave on their own, rather than endure such a draconian regime for too long...

      --
      Say no to software patents.
    30. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      When Insensitive Abrasive MCSEs Hang Out Together. Tonight on Slashdot.

      Meanwhile, those of us who know how to deal with other people as human beings (as opposed to support tickets) will be having dinner with the new girl from accounting.

      "If things go well I might be showing her my O face."

    31. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because that's what power-tripping network nazis usually want when they've been made to look like dumbasses by "drone" users getting around their 1337 security. I took it from the fact that you referred to your fellow wage-slaves as "drones" that you were such a person.

      ~~~

    32. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Cirvam · · Score: 1

      You have no clue how most banks work do you? Most banks still use dumb terminals to access a secured (supposedly) mainframe type system where all the acutal number processing is done. The people with real pcs use some sort of terminal emulator or telnet to access it. So unless this is one hell of a "malicious site" I really doubt anything that bad could/would happen. If anything, on personal computers it would be loan applications and stuff such as that which is duplicated all over the place.

    33. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Havokmon · · Score: 2
      On the other side, as a Security Manager in a bank who's sometimes asked to go find out if person XYZ has been accessing nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com, I can see how this utility might make it impossible for me to do my job.

      Well, having been at a bank myself, that's the least of your problems. :)

      I'd be more concerned if my tax dollars were used to buy filtering software for schools/libraries....
      Which I was against -- SEE! TOLD YOU SO! :)
      Next time, just buy another corporation another stadium.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    34. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Cirvam · · Score: 1

      If they are using peek-a-booty then it uses ssl, so unless your going to have it alert you everytime traffic is seen over the ssl ports then there isn't really any way to tell where they are going. Although you could restrict ssl traffic to domain names that sound right. i.e. ssl.amazon.com instead of user177.net146.net

    35. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Warped-Reality · · Score: 1

      No, employees spending the time that their getting paid anywhere from $6-$60 an hour for are using it to surf pr0n.
      plus there's always the threat of getting a sexual harrassment suit filed.

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    36. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some people have a job... even if you think its lame, its his job... so bug off... its a valid concern...

      sure, those of us in the tech industry have the 'privilege' of surfing around (/.!) while @ work, but, not all employees, (that sow in data-entry), should be allowed to go to udate.com during the work day...

      take your wanna-be-hacker-loser-i-hate-corporate-america-but -i-have-a-white-collar-job attitude and shove it...

      *grinZ*

      -|L|S|D|

    37. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost exactly what my company does. Each department sets their own standards and some don't allow for a warning though.

    38. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a user setting up SSL/HTTPS connections for all of their browsing (recognizable as such by the traffic patterns, even if you can't read the data) would kind of stick out like a sore thumb...particularly in the context of a financial institution.

    39. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree that jpegs of naked cheerleaders with hairy eyebrows are not security issues in and of themselves.

      That doesn't really matter, though. The most vulnerable part of any corporate network is its users, now. A user who's violating the acceptable use policies for his or her employer's network is an automatic security risk. First, such an employee becomes a possible blackmail target. In the case of porn, a network admin must bar porn on a professional network because of the possibility of a sexual harassment suit being filed against the company. That means that the AUP must make accessing such materials through the corporate site a disciplinable offense...hey, presto, instant blackmail. Second, though, any user who is actively subverting procedures put in place to prevent such abuse must believe that he or she "knows better than you do". Although the user's right in the vast bulk of cases, the cost in those rare cases where they're wrong is disastrous. What if the site is malicious? If they can get around your barriers, then what else are they downloading? Do they necessarily even know? How tight are the barriers around their machines?

      Would you be willing to bet the company on their care?

    40. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by sharkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't care how low your uid is, I still find your referring to employees as drones to be patronising and arrogant.

      That's right. Please refer to them more accurately. Call them "lusers".

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    41. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2

      I'm being told that you can access all major news sites on China - if you can read German.

      The situation in China is not as worse as you might think, and while there are repeated announcements about tightened Internet control, it does not seem to be of much relevance to the casual surfer.

    42. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by GTRacer · · Score: 2
      Been there, done that!

      Previous gig had Cetus Stormwindows and LANovation LAN Escort set up. They were fond of randomly disabling basic Windows functions like Find and Help.

      In short order, I found a way to de-Escort my machine and soon found a pair of network stiffs poring over my machine looking for evidence. What was funny was that our division was under a separate charter and budget and technically, as long as I didn't do anything to the corporate net, my PC should have been mine to modify at will...

      Oh well, I quit after all their bullshit and have been much happier since!

      GTRacer
      - Bring it on, NetNazis!

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    43. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Snowfox · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      When Insensitive Abrasive MCSEs Hang Out Together. Tonight on Slashdot.

      Meanwhile, those of us who know how to deal with other people as human beings (as opposed to support tickets) will be having dinner with the new girl from accounting.

      "If things go well I might be showing her my O face."

      You are so cool.

      Sorry. People who think "MCSE" is the foundation of a clever insult tend to be prepubescant, or (a) tend not to be people persons, as you ascribe yourself to be, and (b) tend to only show their O face to the Sears Hoisery catalogs and Cisco press releases.

    44. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by trog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No this makes it a security issue. Remember, all web browsers have remote expoits in them from time to time. Pr0n sites tend to be the first one's to exploit these holes (to get email addresses, install software, pop up ad pushing, etc.) Surfing pr0n sites at work is an almost for sure way to compromise the office network.

    45. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by zpengo · · Score: 2
      I don't care how low your uid is, I still find your referring to employees as drones to be patronising and arrogant.

      That's probably because you're resentful of being one of those drones.

      --


      Got Rhinos?
    46. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Not that I particularly care for the surfing policies of most corporations (porn on the lunch break? who cares?), but the bank owns the machines and can make up whatever silly rules it wants with regards to their use.

      However, I'm kinda curious: isn't this a waste of your time and talents as security manager? Shouldn't this be handed off to some clueless MCSE who doesn't have anything better to do? I dunno, but I'd be annoyed if I was Chief of Security and had to waste my time chasing lunch-hour porn-meisters when somebody more expendable could be doing the job.

      Also, what do you do when it's one of the managers violated the Terms of Use policy? In one administrator job I had it was made clear to me that only the proles were subject to the policy; the managers all had BearShare, Limewire, etc. installed on their machines and spent an inordinate amount of time downloading music, as well as pornographic movies and pictures. It got so bad that the network actually started to choke on the traffic, which led to management demanding a 'crackdown' on the proles (who weren't doing the downloading), resulting in a presentation of the traffic results by machine and yours truly being transferred to a different branch of the company. :-)

      Just wondering what you do when you find out that management is the cause of the problem.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    47. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terminal emulator on a Windows machine.

      I see a way into the back door right there.

    48. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Guess you've been living user a rock...

      Right or wrong, companies exist to make money. People who surf porn on their lunch hour potentially pose a threat to that reason for existance.

      HOW, you say? Companies are liable for all kinds of sexual harassment, including the lone lunchtime pornography viewer. SH lawsuits are expensive and troublesome. The legal test for what is SH is much wider than most would guess. Companies spend a lot of time educating their managers on what might be considered SH and what their responsibilities are to limit the companies exposure to a lawsuit.

      The company decides they can't afford any SH problems.

      They come up with a list of stuff that is easily under their control and write policies so that everyone knows what is expected.

      One policy is that you aren't supposed to use the company computers and networks to look at pornography.

      The company reasonably wants to prevent/detect violations of this policy and sets up appropriate measures.

      Not that hard to understand. Don't like it, find another company that doesn't have this policy. Good luck trying to bring it up in the interview.

      So, um... what is your policy on internet surfing?

      What do you mean?

      Um, do you like block anything and keep track of where people surf during work?

      Yes, why do you ask?

      Well, I think that is bogous censorship, man. I should be able to look at whatever I want as long as I get me job done!

      Ok! Thank you for coming down... we'll let you know.

    49. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Jugomugo · · Score: 0

      I'm sure since this application will work on some port, if you use a product like Packetshaper or something, you can just block access to this software. It works for napster-like programs.

      I work for a public school, and we run Packetshaper and WebSENSE. We have a pretty good handle on things. :-)

      --
      "In a cat's eye, all things belong to cats."
    50. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by zpengo · · Score: 2
      Because that's what power-tripping network nazis usually want when they've been made to look like dumbasses by "drone" users getting around their 1337 security. I took it from the fact that you referred to your fellow wage-slaves as "drones" that you were such a person.

      Do I sense some resentment here?

      --


      Got Rhinos?
    51. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by smallpaul · · Score: 2

      No, employees spending the time that their getting paid anywhere from $6-$60 an hour for are using it to surf pr0n.

      If you don't have good ways to monitor their productivity then you need to trust them. Let's say that they aren't surfing porn. What if they bring it in on a floppy disk? Or mail it to themselves? Or bring in a magazine?

      plus there's always the threat of getting a sexual harrassment suit filed.

      Same question above. And anyhow, does any of this rate in importance even close to the issue of human rights?

    52. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Where I work they have the drones' boxen locked down so they can't change their proxy settings

      Whoops! Sorry for ruining your plans.

      [It works great for IE, Netscape, Winamp, all sorts of things...]

    53. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Unfortunately that mean I have to keep a lid on things.

      Well, write a no-porn company policy. Explain to the workers that if you see them with porn there will be meetings on the problem.

      Then just make it known when you will be entering the room.

      Problem solved.

    54. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by base3 · · Score: 1
      What you describe could be construed as a security issue. "Hostile environment" for sexual harassment purposes remains purely a personnel issue, something smart admins stay the hell away from.

      And remember, I said that users having an encrypted channel is a valid security concern.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    55. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      Actually I am unemployed and would grateful for any job at the moment since I can't pay my mortgage.

      graspee

    56. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Strog · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I was a network admin at a 1/2 billion dollar bank (not too big as banks go). I went to quite a few banking technology meetings and the push has been to Windows based for a while now but terminals are starting to come back into favor. At least a couple of the mainframe software vendors use a proprietary communication software that runs on Windows. They have been migrating to web based apps so you could use whatever you want. I was a little concerned when the new sorter was running off an NT box that was communicating to a dedicated NT server. There were some issues at first but it actually has run well otherwise.

      I live in the Midwest and 90% of the banks that I have had interaction with have used MS based computers across the board with a mainframe running the critical stuff. I found out that a lot of banks were running online banking services with little or no firewall protection. At first I thought it was a fluke but I quickly found out it was fairly common in the smaller banks. These institutions would be fairly easy prey for someone with a little knowledge that wouldn't be hard to obtain. I admit I have limited experience in a specific locale so do what you want with my stats.

    57. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      More like observant in this case.
      Now if he were the sysadmin referring to his charges as drones it would be patronising and arrogant. Bad style.
      Watching the interplay between the drones and the administrators (from a safe distance) has got to be verrrry, verrrrry interesting.

    58. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      TExplain to the workers that if you see them with porn there will be meetings on the problem.

      Unfortuantely merely having a policy is not enough. You also must enforce it to protect yourself against lawsuits.

    59. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone I knew at a past employment who would get connected to the net on his laptop using his personal dialup account. His laptop wasn't hooked up to the company network.

    60. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a crap?

      If they get their job done on time and do it well, employees should be able to do what the hell they like (minus anything potentially illegal).

      There's no end to managers who would rather have a worker who does 1/10 th of what the old guy does but doesn't surf the internet at work. And there's no end to the amount of managers looking for jobs.

      I guess they go hand in hand.

    61. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those of us without people skills will be sending naked midget porn to the new girl, from your account and then locking you out of your mailbox and changing your ldap password.

      Have fun tomorrow.

    62. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about something even simpler - Jane the VP has all her login names and passwords recorded in Gator (or Password Tracker, or an Excel File)

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    63. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Com2Kid · · Score: 2

      Bah,

      as someone who has both admin'd and broken through other admin's security setups, let me say that anybody who cannot COMPLETELY secure a box has no idea what they are doing.

      One box I was on was setup so that only files with certain names could be run.

      Solution?

      Rename file (if rename is disabled, just download it as an 'allowed' file name) to one of the allowed program file names.

      The latest clever admin trick that I saw was that the computer was setup such that Install Shield always detected the presence of Uninstall Shield running in the background, thus Install Shield would refuse to run.

      Nifty that. I may have to ask them how they did it. :)

      I simply got the manual extractor for Install Shield compressed files and decompressed the files myself. (luckily the program did not have a bunch of DLLs that it demanded be installed in the System32 directory or anything. ;) ).

      Hell systems locked down to run nothing else but Word and Explorer I have managed to get to DOS on. (and once your in DOS shit tends to go all haywire. ;) Few Window's admins know how to or care to lock down the basic DOS commands, heh).

      This 'security issue' was eventually addressed (even in a Microsoft patch I do believe. . . .) and the ability to add items to your favorites menu in IE from Office was eventually set to something that the Administrator could toggle on or off. :) (heh)

      Of course as a last resort option I simply stick in any of a number of Linux Boot Disks that are designed to go in and change the Admin password on a box. I have had to do this several times after being assigned to work on machines for which nobody knew the administrative password for. ::groans::

      (once physical access to the box has been gained, the machine CAN and eventually WILL be compromised. Period. Unless you encrypt the living shit out of the entire HD and only have the key stored on a dongle that has to be plugged in to the serial port while typing some long password on the keyboard and said dongle is stored in a Fort Knox like security situation)

    64. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Zygo · · Score: 1

      It seems you're doing something wrong...where I work, the only access to the outside world is via the proxy; changing proxy settings to other values will result in loss of Internet access because values other than the ones prescribed by the company don't work.

      Internal relaying is irrelevant because sooner or later all relays must go through the One True proxy to outside. PB doesn't really change that situation.

      PB does allow an internal machine to co-operate with an external machine to make content more difficult to automatically classify (e.g. by disguising the URL so a URL filter won't work, or encrypting or transcoding the data so a content filter won't work). This is nothing new; there have been public web mediator sites for working around content filtering restrictions since probably a few hours after the first content filter was deployed, and PB is just another one. Maybe PB makes it easier to find many new open relays. Whee.

      The only way to have secure content filtering is to maintain a white-list of sites, lock down all those sites plus the DNS and low-level communications paths between them and your content-filtering proxy, and deny all other traffic. This works but you need a content control officer to add each new approved site, and the security of the entire arrangement is equal to the security of the easiest site to crack. It does work well for things like promotional kiosks in stores, where you only want users to access your own web site.

      Any other arrangement, even one that analyzes content, just leads to an arms race between deny rules, open proxies, and co-operative external mediators. IMHO this whole thing is a waste of time except for fixing very short-term problems (e.g. someone idiot starts 500 simultaneous mp3 downloads, so you block that site just long enough to apply a cluebat to the user).

      It's usually a lot more effective to have people agree to a usage policy, then log traffic and discipline and/or fire people after the fact. You can kill off anything PB-like with a generic "no traffic we don't approve of or can't analyze" prohibition combined with logging.

      --
      -- I avoid spam by accepting only OpenPGP encrypted or signed email at this address. Clear-signed, RFC2015, heck, even
    65. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Naw, no resentment. I outgrew my network nazi phase some time ago ;).

      ~~~

    66. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually it becomes a legal nightmare. Person Q sees person XYZ browsing "aforementioned naughty site". Person Q becomes offended and sues "Bank" because "Bank" has more money than person XYZ. So it's the bank's job to prove that they have adequate policies and controls in place. So if your corporate structure has the proper policies and controls in place, your legally covered and it comes down to reprimanding/firing/beheading person ZYX for misusing company property.

      Note this is only one example, as usual w/ legal angles you could apply a plethora of other examples, but this should cover a majority of situations

    67. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by estes_grover · · Score: 1

      It's both security issue and personnel issue; primarily a personnel issue. 'Cause if employee A rats on employee B for surfing to naughty sites at work, HR is probably going to try and be darned sure there is a problem before dropping the discipline stick on employee A.

    68. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Strog · · Score: 1

      Great point. There is way too much valuable info that could be snagged on these "non-critical" Win-whatever machines.

    69. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by raju1kabir · · Score: 2
      First, such an employee becomes a possible blackmail target. In the case of porn, a network admin must bar porn on a professional network because of the possibility of a sexual harassment suit being filed against the company.

      This often-repeated argument will make sense to me once there are other "security" personnel going through people's desks and briefcases looking for porn. Until then, it's just a silly rationalization for cheap power trips.

      Second, though, any user who is actively subverting procedures put in place to prevent such abuse must believe that he or she "knows better than you do".

      Sounds like a thought crime to me.

      Although the user's right in the vast bulk of cases, the cost in those rare cases where they're wrong is disastrous. What if the site is malicious? If they can get around your barriers, then what else are they downloading? Do they necessarily even know? How tight are the barriers around their machines?

      Those are problems for the security people to solve. Telling people "You can't bring your own food in for lunch because we don't know that you won't jam peanut butter in the locks" just makes me think you need to hire a better locksmith.

      Would you be willing to bet the company on their care?

      If the computer systems you provide are so easily compromised that any random input source spells doom for your company, then you clearly have selected the wrong computer systems.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    70. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by damiam · · Score: 1
      The only way to keep people from looking at porn at work is to not give them ANY Internet access, not even filtered, make sure their computers have no floppy, Zip, or CD drives, and do a full strip search anytime anyone enters the building to make sure they're not carrying a Playboy. Even then, people would find a way if they wanted to.

      Instead of trying to block porn, I would just grep the logs for porn sites and ask the bosses of offenders to warn them about accessing porn at work. If it happens again, fire them.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    71. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by shyster · · Score: 2
      IANAL (is anyone on Slashdot?), but I'd think that a complaint would have to be filed, then disregarded, before a sexual harassment suit would be even discussed.

      If a complaint came in, then I'd chastise the employee for being stupid, and talk to his manager. At that point, it's out of my hands.

      I trust that the execs and HR dept. hire qualified individuals to do their job. My job is to maintain the PC's, servers, and network. It's not to police users. If HR can't hire good ones, and managers can't fire bad ones, then the company has a boatload of other problems to worry about.

    72. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by muffen · · Score: 2

      Hmm...
      Even though I must say that your way of presenting the information is impressive, you seem to only look at this from one side.

      On the bad side, makes life harder for pointy haired bosses who feel that lunch breaks spent playing cards are fine but lunch breaks surfing porn are an abomination.

      You think that the only securityhazard of this is that people surf porn??
      This enables people in companies to break company reglations. This can cause securityholes in the company network, enable people to download malware, enable people to hog network bandwidth by downloading things they are otherwise restricted from downloading etc etc etc.

      Inside a company, the company rules apply. The reason for this is mainly because they pay for the bandwidth. This tool will enable people to break the rules, thus making it a hacktool.

      The question is, will big companies pressure antivirus vendors to add detection for this?

    73. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Joe+Rumsey · · Score: 1

      My goodness, is that what uids are for? You mean to tell me I'm only one order of magnitude away from a marriage proposal from CmdrTaco? What if Kathleen dumps him, I might be next! SWOON!

    74. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by filtersweep · · Score: 2

      Of COURSE this is a security issue... at work they've *finally* blocked all web mail (except a java-based site I found called perfectlyprivate mail, but I digress) because so many BOZOs where passing around those stoopid snowball fight games, etc... and of course some nasty worms made it into the network, viruses, etc... aside from the loss of productivity answering yahoo mail... think god all the monkeys can still track their beanie babie auctions on ebay.

      Of course only people that "truly need" internet have it- which means EVERYONE has it... and nobody follows the use policy.

      The thing is, I seriously doubt the type of person who would use this in the workplace (ie. has the saavy) would be in the same category as those causing virus/worm problems by opening shady attachments, etc..

      BTW- I've never seen a "network nazi" be a fascist by choice- they usually have a very "firm" mandate from some upper management type who hasn't even figured out how to turn his PC on.

      One might seriously question how many people actually NEED internet in the first place... the only legitimate use I've ever had for it is the reverse phone directory, and mapquest (which is a nightmare)... maybe the download of a few government forms- but to have it on every desktop? Let's get real... half the people posting HERE are doing it while at work.

      --


      Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
    75. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by smallpaul · · Score: 2

      You think that the only securityhazard of this is that people surf porn?? This enables people in companies to break company reglations.

      I just don't see logfile checking or IP address filtering as an effective way to enforce corporate regulations. If you want to stop big downloads, stop big downloads. If you want to stop people from messing up their machines then lock down the machines. Filtering or logging IP addresses can be at best a reactionary move because you don't know the "bad" IP addresses in advance anyhow (unless they have very obvious domain names). Plus, proxies exist today. I could probably surf porn

    76. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, don't allow incoming binary e-mail (maybe even print it out and leave it in peoples' inboxes, and don't allow direct access to the files or scanners). And for bringing in physical media, just don't allow them to bring anything. Hidden in their clothes, you say? No clothes, no problem! Now there's no chance of sexual harassement... oh, wait.

    77. Re:Good for some, nightmare for others by SealBeater · · Score: 2

      It seems you're doing something wrong...where I work, the only access to the outside world is via the proxy; changing proxy settings to other values will result in loss of Internet access because values other than the ones prescribed by the company don't work.


      If you can get out via https, check out bouncer, it's an easy way to create an ssl tunnel to another box to bypass proxies, bouncer

      SealBeater

      --
      -- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
  4. Easily blocked too... by Nijika · · Score: 3, Interesting

    THe problem is restrictive governments have people on staff to look for stuff like this. This app (while I haven't tested it) pulls from multiple sources. I like the idea a lot. Sorta moving towards a P2P web network where you can browse content like you do now but peer to peer rather than client / server.

    --
    Luck favors the prepared, darling.
  5. Yup by wiredog · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I wish I'd seen this before I submitted the story on the Great Firewall to kuro5hin. Arrgh.

  6. Upgrade your firewall by Birdie-PL · · Score: 1

    Well, the software is still very easy to block.
    I assume that they use HTTP as the transport. So it's enough to use firewall that understands HTTP, i.e. any that is advertised as 'application layer' firewall.
    And if you don't block per IP you probably already use such an firewall. The only difference is that you will scan for forbidden URL (or a part of thereof) in the POST fields or GET agruments and not in the URL prefix.
    Writing a piece of software that monitors all your HTTP connections and blocks any that match the string 'goatse' is very easy (less than 4 hours if you don't care about scalability and configurability).

    --
    e-mail: karol at tls-technologies.com
    www: http://www.tls-technologies.com
    sig: not found
    1. Re:Upgrade your firewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And if you don't block per IP you probably already use such an firewall. The only difference is that you will scan for forbidden URL (or a part of thereof) in the POST fields or GET agruments and not in the URL prefix."

      Duh that's why they scramble the data and distribute it via multiple hosts.

      "Writing a piece of software that monitors all your HTTP connections and blocks any that match the string 'goatse' is very easy (less than 4 hours if you don't care about scalability and configurability)."

      Or effectiveness. Cripes read about what the app does and how it does it instead of saying "My skillz make this easy to block."

      The only real way to effectivly block this is a secure desktop locked down AND a list of trusted sites that are all one can access.

    2. Re:Upgrade your firewall by Cirvam · · Score: 1

      It uses SSL.
      That means that all the get/post stuff is encrypted. That kinda invaildates your whole argument.

  7. This still won't work! by SMN · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Peacefire has been following Peek-A-Booty for a while, and we keep coming to the conclusion that a peer-to-peer anti-censorship system is impossible. There's a very basic problem that Peek-A-Booty still hasn't solved.

    The problem: Say I'm a user who wants to connect to a Peek-A-Booty network. I need to get the address of a node to connect to. How do I get this? The obvious solution, and the one used for Gnutella and other peer-to-peer apps, is to publish a list of nodes (or at least one). But that won't work here -- because then the censors can use the same list to track down the nodes and block and/or disable them. This is especially problematic if you're using Peek-A-Booty as it claims it is meant to be: if you're in a country that filters access (say, China) and the government can track down the users trying to circumvent the filters, they can and will punish/torture/kill those people.

    Peek-A-Booty has not solved this problem. Read what Tom's article has to say about it:

    "For security, there's no attempt at initial discovery - you'll get sent details of a node by word of mouth, or from some other secure source. Baronowski and de Villa expect that citizens groups (NGOs) will become trusted servers."
    That's right -- the only way to connect to a Peek-A-Booty network is word-of-mouth, which is horribly ineffective. Finding a node will be extremely difficult unless you know the right people, and then it's very easy for the censor to ruin it. Trust the wrong person, and your whole network is exposed. Government spies could give out addresses that the claim are Peek-A-Booty networks, then catch anyone who tries to connect to those. Worst of all, they could just offer some huge incentive to people for turning in their friends.

    I hate to say it, but this system simply isn't ready yet. They have not come up with a technically sound solution.

    --
    -- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
    1. Re:This still won't work! by compwiz3688 · · Score: 1

      What about the standard SSL?

      Peek-A-Booty nodes send out standard SSL, so the censorware can't distinguish the request from any other secure electronic transaction

      I thought that was pretty good, although it might make the government suspicious about lots of people connecting to a single server using SSL...

    2. Re:This still won't work! by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • the only way to connect to a Peek-A-Booty network is word-of-mouth, which is horribly ineffective

      Bear in mind that you'll also have to find out about and then get Peek-a-Booty in the first place. If you can do that, chances are you'll be able to find a list of nodes as well. Once this is up and running, a Google search and some patience should get you settled in.

      I completely agree that it's not easy, that there is no magic technical solution, and that even using Peek-A-Booty may be risky for people in some areas.

      The thing is: what's the alternative? Accept the firewalling? Use non-SSL public proxies that leave your traffic visible? Peek-a-Booty is one solution. What's your alternative?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:This still won't work! by schwatoo · · Score: 1

      "Government spies could give out addresses that the claim are Peek-A-Booty networks, then catch anyone who tries to connect to those. Worst of all, they could just offer some huge incentive to people for turning in their friends."

      So that would be a Peek-A-Booty-Bounty then?

      --
      I have trouble with passwords among other things.
    4. Re:This still won't work! by Electric+Angst · · Score: 1

      Yea, word-of-mouth is totally ineffective, and can very easily be stopped by government censorship. That's why drug dealers have to resort to big, flashy television ads to reveal where they are and what they're doing...

      I swear, sometimes you technocrats don't seem to understand that human solutions are sometimes the best solutions. That sometimes there just isn't a technical solution nearly as effective as letting the people take care of the problem...

      --
      Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
    5. Re:This still won't work! by lysurgon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate to say it, but this system simply isn't ready yet. They have not come up with a technically sound solution.

      And they never will. Why? Because the problem they are attempting to solve is not a purely techincal one. Censorship is a political issue (e.g. involves people, not just machines) and as such demands a political component to it's resolution.

      The merit of the program sits on the notion that repressive countries cannot afford to blockade the internet wholesale in order to control access to the proxy network. Ergo the success of the project is based on enough people in non-firewalled countries participating. And this doesn't just mean a lot of p2p proxy nodes, it also means a lot of people publishing a list of gateways.

      Much like in the world of warez, the massive proliferation of information would make it difficult if not impossible for the censoring agent not only to keep up with the number of IPs that serve as proxy nodes, but also to keep up with the number of websites that point to potential gateways.

      Look, this is a software project designed to break the laws of repressive countries. As such, it will never be a "technical solution" to the problem. At best (and this is what I think they're going for) it is a technical aid in the struggle for freedom. I say cheers to them.

    6. Re:This still won't work! by smallpaul · · Score: 2

      I hate to say it, but this system simply isn't ready yet. They have not come up with a technically sound solution.

      The best is the enemy of the good. It doesn't make sense to hold up a solution with some flaws in favor of an impossible system with no flaws. Freedom fighters take risks. That's their choice. We should help them to understand the risks they are taking but we should not deny them the right to even try to work around the system. Proxies are popular today even though they have the problems you describe. Peek-a-booty just ups the ante a little bit.

    7. Re:This still won't work! by pjrc · · Score: 2
      The obvious solution, and the one used for Gnutella and other peer-to-peer apps, is to publish a list of nodes (or at least one). But that won't work here -- because then the censors can use the same list to track down the nodes and block and/or disable them.

      If a node list is published on many sites which also have desirable content, filtering becomes much more difficult. Not impossible, but consider publishing node lists inside discussion forums such as slashdot, yahoo groups, bravenet, ezboard, myforum, hostboard, etc.

      Sure, a censor could search out the node lists, but a simple countermeasure would be to make sure the node lists are updated regularily with short-lived hosts. Another simple countermeasure would be to poison the list with hosts a censor would not wish to block. The software could maintain a local cache of hosts NOT running the proxy to avoid swamping normal sites with invalid proxy requests. Forged node-lists posted by censors could (maybe) be detected by checking signatures and some sort of "ring of trust" public key infrastructure, PGP style.

      It's probably impossible to make censorship completely impossible... but it is possible to make it more difficult and expensive for censors. It sounds like a lot more is yet to be done. There are a lot of creative people out there and I'm sure some of them won't have any problem coming up with some really good ideas (I just made up these on the spot as I read your message... and there are certainly a lot of people who've put a lot more throught into this than I have).

    8. Re:This still won't work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they can and will punish/torture/kill those people.

      Yes, I can see it now... "You have downloaded pornography? As a law enforcer in China, I must act in accordance to gross exaggerated stereotypes of ignorant Americans, and SHOOT you!!" *Bang*

      Those crazy Chinese devils, you never know what they're gonna do. Good to be safe and racist in the free US, eh?

      I can actually imagine this technology going a step further in the future... A functionality with a more generalized purpose integrated into a future browser, a p2p network of cached sites which allows one to retrieve site content that has either been blocked by firewall, slashdotted, or unavaialable for any other reasons.

    9. Re:This still won't work! by SMN · · Score: 2
      Yes, I can see it now... "You have downloaded pornography? As a law enforcer in China, I must act in accordance to gross exaggerated stereotypes of ignorant Americans, and SHOOT you!!" *Bang*

      Those crazy Chinese devils, you never know what they're gonna do. Good to be safe and racist in the free US, eh?

      They routinely execute Christians and Falun Gong members merely for having their religion behind closed doors. Yes, I think that they would happily murder thousands of people for circumventing their firewall and breaking their moral codes of conduct.
      --
      -- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
    10. Re:This still won't work! by ozbird · · Score: 2

      That's right -- the only way to connect to a Peek-A-Booty network is word-of-mouth, which is horribly ineffective.

      Don't worry, now they can send you the list of nodes on a self-shredding e-mail.

    11. Re:This still won't work! by uucpbrain · · Score: 1

      "The obvious solution... is to publish a list of nodes... but that won't work here."

      Exactly right. That approach can NEVER work well to circumvent a determined censor. There is no way a piece of software can tell who is a good guy and who is a bad guy, and any centralized server which gave out addresses would be immediately blocked anyway. Glad we have that out of the way.

      "Peek-A-Booty has not solved this problem."

      Of course not. Nothing but a change in China's politics can solve that. Anyone who thinks there is a foolproof technical solution to this is overlooking something. That Peek-a-booty does not solve impossible problems related to network topologies which it does not use is a rather lame complaint.

      "That's right -- the only way to connect to a Peek-A-Booty network is word-of-mouth, which is horribly ineffective."

      Not at all. We had at least a hundred Chinese users on a proxy run by some sysadmins at work, and they happily downloaded many gigabytes of stuff over a period of months. Eventually the porn in their downloads got the attention of the Information Security department, and the proxy was shut down. But the Chinese employed word of mouth extremely effectively, lots of people were using the proxy, and the government never blocked it. Peek-a-booty brings thousands of new proxies into the equation. What's your problem with that?

      "Trust the wrong person, and your whole network is exposed."

      No, trust the wrong person and one address gets blocked. Fortunately, there will be thousands of other addresses available.

      "Worst of all, they could just offer some huge incentive to people for turning in their friends."

      Oh, you mean exactly like they've done in every sphere of life for decades?

      If your critique offered any sort of hope for the Chinese that would be one thing, but you pose no solutions. The fact is that they have been circumventing censorship for years using much less secure methods than Peek-a-booty (primarily normal http proxies). If people can access the Peek-a-booty network with a browser, the user will be exposed to ZERO risks they are not exposed to now, but monitoring the content will be impossible (due to SSL) and blocking or monitoring the addresses will be a lot harder, since there will be so many more. Nodes running on DHCP connections will change address regularly, so blocking them all will be extremely difficult. The only reliable option would be for the government to block almost all ports on almost all of the Internet (since the Peek-a-booty port number is a configuration option).

      From everything I can see about it (and I am familiar with the source code, BTW), Peek-a-booty alleviates a lot of problems that the Chinese (and Saudis, and UAE residents) are facing now, but does not introduce any new problems. I fail to see what about this is grounds for criticism, especially criticism that offers no source code, or pseudocode, or even ideas. Peek-a-booty isn't perfect, and nobody involved in the project would ever claim otherwise. It's just a big improvement from how things are now.

    12. Re:This still won't work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, gross exaggeration. China is much more religion-friendly than during the Great Leap Forward. I think the difference between past China and current needs to be put into perspective.

      Falungong as the Chinese government calls it, Falundafa were banned among the members of the Communist party because they were (A) anti-government, (B) it was a dangerous cult that advocated among many things unhealthy practices.

      There are churches and shrines in China. The current Chinese government is religion friendly. Their new attitude is that religion is essential to a nation. (I forget the exact slogan/propaganda from the gov't., tho.)

    13. Re:This still won't work! by hoquaim · · Score: 1

      What about this for a solution: what if you could get a number of significant sites (Yahoo, Hotmail, Slashdot, CommiesRUs.com) to add an extra piece of meta-data to their index.html?

      Surely you could make a good argument that these companies could economically benefit from the potential long-term political consequences (present business loss in China aside).

      Then you could obtain a list of nodes (or one of a rotating list of nodes) from a legitate site.

      Of course, digital signatures are not going to solve the problem that a repressive government may modify (and then re-encrypt) the pages in question and place fake, trap node addresses to catch users of the Peek-A-Booty (or other) network.

    14. Re:This still won't work! by thirdrock · · Score: 1

      They routinely execute Christians and Falun Gong members merely for having their religion behind closed doors. Yes, I think that they would happily murder thousands of people for circumventing their firewall and breaking their moral codes of conduct.

      Wow! Someone hit the bong early this morning. I can just see the routine now.
      8:00AM Early morning kung-fu practice
      9:00AM Execute one Christian and one FalunGong member
      9:30AM Breakfast

      Look, the most common thing that the Chinese government does with dissenters is put them into a mental hospital, or harass them by arresting them three times a week.
      Occaisonally, they give one a beating. When the inmates go on a hunger strike, they force a drip into their arms.
      But to come out with the hysterical statement that christians and flg practitioners are routinely executed...sheesh...
      By the way, people are routinely executed in the US too. Unfortunately, their crime is something they don't have a choice about. They're black.

      --
      >>
      I am the director, and this is my movie ...
  8. It'd be nice... by compwiz3688 · · Score: 1

    unless it's done the same way as the *tella style p2p.

    It's just so annoying that when I wanted something from the *tella network, the server isn't even on. Or I kept seeing people probing my computer for a *tella server.

    Then again if it's done similar to the central location way, it can be easily blocked too. Hrm. Guess there'll be more traffic hammering my firewall. *sigh*

  9. sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And naturally our wonderful corporate wwwproxy kicks in and leaves me unable to see the peekabooty site...
    Well, I guess it is good for me since it could rupture my fragile little mind..

  10. Use ssh and squid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    For a while I've been browsing the web from work without my employer knowing which sites I go to. I've been doing this using Teraterm secure shell to redirect a port from my work machine to a linux machine at home. At home I have linux running squid, a proxy server. I change my work browser's proxy settings to localhost and the redirected port number. Anyone sniffing my traffic at work will just see encrypted packets flying by with no idea what they mean.

  11. If I where the China Security Manager ... by changos · · Score: 1

    I would block the download site right now. Are sites like /. also censored? I'm not taking the pessimistic view, but I bet they are some really anal geeks working for the chinesse government. Probably looking for projects like PB and then banning them.

  12. Could this be my saviour? by Aash · · Score: 1

    My university has an agonizingly frustrating download limit of 500 megs per week. Could this program possibly circumvent my limit? I'd try it now, but I'm at home (reading week).

    Actually, those bastards also block out morpheus. Could this program get around that, too?

    --

    --
    These aren't the droids you're looking for.
    1. Re:Could this be my saviour? by compwiz3688 · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm mistaken or this "university network" isn't very universal, any traffic going outside the university network count towards your limit...

      So, unless you have the address of somebody else within your university network who happened to be very generous about people using his/her limit, you'll still use up your 500MB/week, won't you? And what about people connecting to your server from the outside? Those could count as double to your limit...

    2. Re:Could this be my saviour? by base3 · · Score: 1
      Technical answer: no. The data is still transferred to your machine.

      Practical answer: Transfer! There are colleges and universities out there that don't do this kind of crap. Find on and attend it.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    3. Re:Could this be my saviour? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Geez, given that they own the machines and can implement whatever policies they please, maybe you should:

      a) buy your own computer, and
      b) subscribe to an ISP

      In any event, unless you waste university resources by downloading porn mpegs or ripped movies, 500 megs is more than enough for any serious work.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    4. Re:Could this be my saviour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time, you may not want to leave such an easy trail for IST to follow :-)

  13. Gang mentality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hmmm... gangs act in funny ways. They often think if they conduct illegal activites en masse they are somehow shielded from the law.
    I certainly would not want to use an anonymous network where some sicko could be using your computer to conduct their crimes. Do you think the cops would really understand or care how those files got onto your computer? No. Off to jail you go.

  14. Where to download by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Humm, I can't see where to download it.

    The "download" page on www.peek-a-booty.org doesn't have anything.

    Has anyone been able to download it?

  15. Imagine... by mESSDan · · Score: 1
    Getting your ip banned from Slashdot because someone used this service for unblockable? trolling. Heck, imagine some slick spammer figuring out a way to exploit this proxy into millions of free, anonymous spam. (How? I don't know.)

    Hopefully the good will outweigh the bad, to that end I imagine that the test of time will tell.

    --

    -- Dan
  16. Spooky prediction by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Great Rogerborgio will make a spooky prediction. When Peek-a-Booty 1.0 reaches 100,000 downloads, a story will break that the client contains a hostile trojan that lets "evil hackers" take control of your machine, impersonate you, steal your credit card details, and screw your shrieking girlfriend in the ass while you watch helplessly, tears of frustration streaming down your shocked, betrayed face.

    The story will be submitted by a "credible group of anonymous white hat hackers" and run - unquestioned - by BBC Online and - slightly questioned, at best - by Reuturs, and every other online news source will pick it up from there and spread it as gospel truth.

    It will not be true. It will be Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, pure and simple. Many interested parties will want Peek-a-Booty to fail. In fact, there are so many - governmental and industrial - that even the Great Rogerborgio cannot peer through the mists of time sharply enough to determine the culprit.

    But it will happen. And remember, you read it here first.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Spooky prediction by snake_dad · · Score: 2

      So... how long have you been a member of cDc?

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  17. There's a slight problem here by zzyzx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you mean I can go to any website out there, even if my websurfing is blocked? Great! How do I get this software? Oh go to this website. Hey. It's blocked.

    1. Re:There's a slight problem here by slcdb · · Score: 1

      If you look into it, you'll find out that the clients don't need to download any software. They just need to properly configure their web browser.

      --
      Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
    2. Re:There's a slight problem here by zzyzx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes but are the instructions on how to do that on that website? I still think there's a chicken and egg problem here.

    3. Re:There's a slight problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telephone, fax, email, snail mail, word of mouth, 2 cans and a piece of string between them...the internet is not the only medium for sharing information.

  18. Aims & Reality by greygent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While the aims and goals of this project are commendable, I can't help but think that this program will be utilized moreso by old men wanting to look at kiddie porn safely, than those in oppressed countries.

    One can simply see this trend with the GNUtella network, and monitoring the search strings people send out. They're full of stuff such as "hairless pre-teen sex" and "dogs fucking women".

    I'd be much more interested in running Peek-A-Booty if it had some sort of information-type limiting, but this would go against the whole basic concept of the program. I'd be glad to assist those who are oppressed, but WILL NOT help sexual predators and the like.

    Maybe people who want to help those in oppressive countries should throw up rogue squid proxy servers with bandwidth rate limiting and perhaps some client access limiting (*.cn, *.ru, and soon, *.us). This is what I do and it works quite well.

    I don't even advertise it, but quite a few people find it and use it (mostly people in southeast asia, actually)

    1. Re:Aims & Reality by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      In a few years no one will have to worry much about the online child molestor types. Given the advances in graphics technology fans of this sort of crap will be able to create 'virtual' children and have them run through any perversion they please, without harming any real children in the process.

      As for the dogs, are you referring to the four-legged kind or the college-boy kind?

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    2. Re:Aims & Reality by wickidpisa · · Score: 1

      I'd be glad to assist those who are oppressed, but WILL NOT help sexual predators and the like.

      Yeah! It horrible that a government should tell people what is right and wrong to look at, but it's fine when I tell them!

      Why is it right to censor kiddie porn but not other things? You are not really against censorship if you believe that it is, you just disagree with what should be censored.

    3. Re:Aims & Reality by greygent · · Score: 2

      >Yeah! It horrible that a government should tell people what is right and wrong to look at, but it's fine when I tell them!

      >Why is it right to censor kiddie porn but not other things? You are not really against censorship if you believe that it is, you just disagree with what should be censored.

      Because, it's my fucking computer. The government has nothing to do with my computer or my decisions not support something. You seem to have people and government confused.

      Your argument is ridiculous. Would you give a neo-nazi group, or perhaps a coprophiliac web space on your server? Probably not.

      A person is not a government. A person can exercise their freedom of choice, and their opinions, and my opinion is that I simply do not want to support some causes. I am not oppressing them by not supporting them.

    4. Re:Aims & Reality by wickidpisa · · Score: 1

      Because, it's my fucking computer. The government has nothing to do with my computer or my decisions not support something. You seem to have people and government confused.

      If an ISP decided to block sites they did not like, would that not be censorship? They are not a government, it is their "fucking computer", so by your argument it is not censorship. You seem to have government censorship and censorship in general confused.

      Your argument is ridiculous. Would you give a neo-nazi group, or perhaps a coprophiliac web space on your server? Probably not.

      I am not giving out web space in the name of free speech or anti-censorship, but if I was, I would most certainly give them the space. You want to give access in the name of anti-censorship, and then you want to censor that access. If that is not hypocritical then I do not know what is. Remember that China views freedom-fighters the way you view nazis.

      A person is not a government. A person can exercise their freedom of choice, and their opinions, and my opinion is that I simply do not want to support some causes. I am not oppressing them by not supporting them.

      Yes you are oppressing them. Not supporting them, and specificly blocking them are different things, and you want to specificly block them. You have every right to block their traffic through your computer, but do not say you are against censorship if you do that. China does not support people promoting freedom, so they block it, the same way you want to block things you do not promote. It does not matter that they are a government and you are not, it is still oppression. You are abusing your power as someone who can grant access to otherwise blocked material to promote your values to the people that want to use your system, which is exactly what China is doing.

    5. Re:Aims & Reality by greygent · · Score: 2

      > If an ISP decided to block sites they did not like, would that not be censorship? They are not a government, it is their "fucking computer", so by your argument it is not censorship. You seem to have government censorship and censorship in general confused.

      Yes, that's censorship. Again, an ISP is not a citizen. An ISP's server is not an individual's computer.

      There is no burden on a citizen that requires them to participate in Peek-A-Booty, which is my whole point. There is no burden that a citizen must provide all of their available resources for public use in America.

      As I said before, I am not against Peek-A-Booty, it's just something I would not participate in, because it does not align with my ethics (concerning helping pedophiles). This is not oppression, this is an individual's personal freedom in effect.

      You seem to carry the misconception that my not participating in this program means I am somehow actively blocking them from accessing their destinations. This is completely wrong. I am merely choosing not to allow my personal equipment be used as an avenue for them.

      Using your argument, I'd be oppressing people if I didn't have CAT5 cables running from my DSL equipment out to the curb for general citizen use. It's the same thing.

      To force citizens to participate in ideologies they wish to take no part of is against freedom and oppression in itself.

      You need to make the distinction between the rights of a person, and that of governments and corporations.

    6. Re:Aims & Reality by damiam · · Score: 1
      As for the dogs, are you referring to the four-legged kind

      I believe he was referring to the five-legged kind. :-)

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    7. Re:Aims & Reality by wickidpisa · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's censorship. Again, an ISP is not a citizen. An ISP's server is not an individual's computer.

      When you run Peek-A-Booty, or any proxy, you are acting as an ISP for the people using your proxy to access the internet. Just because you give it away for free does not mean you are not an ISP.

      You seem to carry the misconception that my not participating in this program means I am somehow actively blocking them from accessing their destinations. This is completely wrong. I am merely choosing not to allow my personal equipment be used as an avenue for them.

      No, I never said that. I am not saying that not running Peek-A-Booty is opressing or censoring anything. I am saying that running Peek-A-Booty and filtering out certain types of material is censorship.

      You need to make the distinction between the rights of a person, and that of governments and corporations.

      I have said nothing about rights, or even what is right or wrong to to. All I am saying is that it is hypocritical to censor anti-censorship software. You have the right to do it, but it is still hypocritical.

    8. Re:Aims & Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who like kiddie pr0n already have a problem. I mean, the availability of kiddie pr0n doesn't make you a pedophile.

      Kiddie porn is not the problem, it's a symptom.

      And I am SURE there are more oppressed people than there are pedophiles.

  19. Where's the "Beef"? by spotter · · Score: 2, Funny

    this supposdly "non vaporware" still isn't downloadable from the peekabooty website.

    Just because people have seen it run, doesn't make it non vaporware, it has to be distributed.

    So where's the Beef? ([lame joke]or should that be dead cow?[/lame joke])

    1. Re:Where's the "Beef"? by spotter · · Score: 1

      I'm sure whoever modded this comment flamebait, was really thinking "flame broiled" bait :)

  20. Can you spell sarcasm? by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 1

    (n/t)

    --
    Say no to software patents.
  21. Huh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never on Slashdot did I think I'd see a story title with the word 'booty' in it.

    AnonyCoward

  22. Another Diamond Age prediction true? by wickidpisa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doen't this system remind anyone of the media network in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age? Information gets passed from one place to another by different people, so that no one can tell where the person on the other end is. Looks like another one of Stephenson's ideas has become a reality.

  23. Here is what will happen... by RexRuther · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... some cracker will set up a node that, when asked for a web page, issues spam instead.

    ... or worse yet the web page requested with spam interspearsed.

    That will be the end of that.

    The End. (uggh) Nice idea though!

    --
    -"The early bird catches the worm, but the late bird sleeps the most"
    1. Re:Here is what will happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should not doubt the coding power of the cow.....

  24. Does this really help the oppressed? by sterno · · Score: 2

    If I'm a Evil Opressive Government (TM), does this really do anything to circumvent my ability to oppress the masses? Great, so a bunch of dissidents decide to go out and get their information on-line through this system. I, as the Evil Oppressive Government use my intelligence networks and eventually discover this system. So what I do is find several of these proxies and begin logging their activity.

    A few months later after I've seen a lot of people going to these systems I begin sending out visitors in the wee hours of the night to "educate" these people. Really these systems may actually make it EASIER to find incorrect thinking individuals. I don't have to compromise an entire network of dissidents, I just have to find a couple proxy sites and let the proxy logs do my work for me.

    I've spent a lot of spare brain cycles thinking about this stuff and it seems like you really need a way to obfuscate that nature of your communication over multiple channels. You need legitimate looking sites to act as proxies and to limit the frequency and size of transmissions to reduce their visibility. Anything that can make connection profiling possible rules it out as a viable solution.

    Now, this system does have a host of possible uses, don't get me wrong. It will make it possible for somebody at the library to work around net nanny software, etc. It will make it easier to avoid the snoopy firewalls at the office who want to keep track of how many times I visited Ebay today. But I don't think this will do dissidents much good.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Does this really help the oppressed? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      So what I do is find several of these proxies and begin logging their activity.

      The proxies are presumably not located in your country, so you'll be unable to trace their onward traffic. And the communication was encrypted, so you'll have to break that to figure out what they were doing. Which is an entirely different issue.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  25. Re: simple solution.. by Karoshi · · Score: 1

    If the user can't install it, they can't use it.
    In a bank, a user shouldn't be able to install anything at all.

    --
    Don't answer me. Moderate. Slashdot is about moderation, not discussion.
  26. REAL smart guys.... by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

    So in other words, I can put the full use of my internet pipe to a distributed and proxied "load test" of slashdot, or whatever site annoys me today. For the non-techy monkeys out there that's a denial of service attack...convieniently anonymized and distributed for me. Slashdot has some moderately big pipes, but a handful of people doing this, and your gonna see some problems. Especially if they intentionally keep hitting lots of database intensive, non-static html screens.

    FREEEEEDOM! Thanks cDc! And thank YOU slashdot, for telling me about it!

  27. numerous problems by mr_burns · · Score: 2

    Hey guys, this ain't released yet, and for good reason. There's still work to do. If you have an attack which you think is probable of success, you would do good to let them know so they can design countermeasures.

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
  28. censor the proxy by JDizzy · · Score: 2

    Its easy, just block the proxy network, and boom... its blocked again. That was easy!

    --
    It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    1. Re:censor the proxy by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 1

      You're a genius! So what you're saying is, simply block HTTP and HTTPS and Peek-a-Booty is useless??
      Why didn't I think of that! ;O)

  29. OK, but.... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Couldn't you (as a net admin) block the IP to the peekaboo(ty) site?

    Lesseee, according to my monitor Jimmy in accounting has used 1.8 gigs of bandwidth on our t1 in the last 4 hours all from one IP. Hm, IP doesn't show up on my list of naughty sites, and it's not stileproject.com. OK, I'll just ban that IP, copy the contents of his temp file to my admin machine ... done.

    In that circumstance what has peekabooty done except given poor Jimmy a false sense of security. In that respect, it's a Machiavellian netadmin's dream.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:OK, but.... by Drakin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the sounds of it, that wouldn't work very well. It's based on P2P networking, so it would hop between known nodes, and likely have nodes added as other nodes inform your node of them.

      So it would show up as a lot of connections to various IP's, not one single bannable IP.

    2. Re:OK, but.... by BCoates · · Score: 1

      So it would show up as a lot of connections to various IP's, not one single bannable IP.

      But if you can probe the server's port to see if it is a peek-a-booty proxy, you could just ban on-the-fly the way most irc servers ban open proxy machines... I don't know if it's possible to test for peek-a-booty or not, though.

      --
      Benjamin Coates

    3. Re:OK, but.... by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Only time will tell if it's testable... but, I beleive that PaB sends via SSL... so it would just seem like a secure connection, one that's common all across the web for a variey of tasks.

      The register has a few details on it too.

    4. Re:OK, but.... by Drakin · · Score: 1

      damn thing. Ment to add the URL to the reg story. Here

    5. Re:OK, but.... by Funkitup · · Score: 1

      Yeh, but don't most of the censoring countries work the other way around. They censor everything and only allow stuff through that is useful?

      Doubtless there are countless other ways round it. Mostly it just sounds a useful way to stop my boss knowing i'm spending the whole day on gay.com ;o).

  30. Blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd like to use this, but my company has blocked access to the site.

  31. YEAH! by Sigge · · Score: 0

    Finally a way around Norways oppressive censorship :P

  32. Jealousy by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Troll

    Those who use these technologies to bypass governmental restrictions are merely jealous of those who are able to grab control of governments and use them to their advantage.

  33. New trend in /. posting? by Slothrop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    'Look! Neal Stephenson was right in !' He's not that great people, nor all that presicent. Most of the science in the Diamond Age was bad or ill-concieved, and even the media system is somewhat mangled and unworkable. It involves a really major paradigm shift that he never bothers to explain. That said, I like most of his books, except for the constant and irritating moralizing that he's doing more and more with each book. The Diamond age is stuffed to the ears with 'magic', not tech, so I wish that people would stop crowing that the man is right all the time. He's basically a conservative commentator that writes Sci-Fi. That doesn't make him bad, but it also doesn't make him a futurologist (which wouldn't make him nessecarily more correct anyway, looking at some of the lastest stories here.).

    1. Re:New trend in /. posting? by wickidpisa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just because he doesn't fully explain the workings of a technological idea he has does not mean they are not tech, he is a writer not an engineer. If everything he wrote about was technologicly possible he would not be an author, he would be making billions off his inventions.

      His media system is not perfect, but it follows some of the same principles that this new sofware follows. The Diamond Age was published in Feb 1995, if you can even remotely describe a technology that will not be invented for 7 years I will be impressed, even if you don't work out all the bugs right now.

  34. The Net interprets censorship as damage, ... by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 2
    The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.
    -- John Gilmore

    What if censorship is in the router?
    -- Seth Finkelstein

    Is routing-around true in practice, rather than than simply a trivial underground? It doesn't seem to ever work for "the masses". We're seeing another experimental test of this principle. I wish it well, but the past failures are sobering.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

  35. The game continues by zpengo · · Score: 2
    It's a big game with no resolution. There will always be some who want pure freedom, and others who want to restrict it, and there will be people developing software on both sides.

    It will never end, and there will never be a winner. The game just goes on and on and on...move and counter move, move and counter move...

    It certainly is fun to make the other team (whoever they may be) squirm, though.

    --


    Got Rhinos?
  36. Look for the worst and you'll always find it. by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Information-type limiting works against the very idea of the system.

    I don't mind helping everyone equally. Even sexual predators- there are other ways to catch them.

    Sorry, kiddie porn is not a trump card with me.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

    1. Re:Look for the worst and you'll always find it. by greygent · · Score: 2

      And I respect your opinion.

      As obvious, the opinions I voice are merely my own. While my ethics do not align exactly with law, I have a particular distaste for sexual predators and child molestors, and it's a great enough issue that I do not want to potentially help them.

      I'd like to also clarify my "I'd be much more interested in running Peek-A-Booty if it had some sort of information-type limiting" comment. I meant this at the participant-level, and not a network-wide level. Some sort of mechanism where the participant has the freedom to disallow his resources to be used for certain ideologies of which he does not want to take part.

      But again, this goes against the entire Peek-A-Booty concept, and I may even be alarmist.

      The proxy idea works great for me, and my proxy server hasn't been firewalled from China as of yet.

      I get a significant amount of traffic from China, and they seem to look at a lot of democracy-oriented and (non-child) porn sites from the rare times I've taken a glance at the traffic.

      Please note, I am all for this project, and not against it in the least. I merely have some concerns.

  37. NakedHairyEyebrowedCheerleaders.com by zpengo · · Score: 2

    Wait a minute...those aren't pom-poms! Ewww, gross!

    --


    Got Rhinos?
  38. RE: Someday, I see this splitting up the net by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    Already, we have the "Internet 2" project for researchers, so they can have their own Internet, free of commercial traffic and home users clogging things up with streaming video/audio and file downloads.

    I see more of this coming. In the future, I predict businesses will get together and pay in to some sort of entity that builds (or promises to build) an independent Internet type network just for business purposes. If you're a porn provider or warez site, you simply won't qualify to be a part of this private network. The only question remaining is how many ties to the rest of the Internet will it have? It seems it has to have at least a few, because employees working from home will want to tunnel in via VPN to the workplace.

  39. Why it will by joeblowme · · Score: 1

    What your forgetting here is all i need is a start node to connect to the network. From there I'll know the location of more and more nodes. So ip address 10.9.0.1 is the first node and I'm able to connect. After I know where that node is I know where the other 1000 nodes connected to it are. Then if someone blocks access to that node I connect to one of the others. Then anyone I know can initially connect to me. The idea is the network will have a spider web effect similar to how the internet works now. So if one route goes down there are other routes to go through. And the spider web just gets bigger and bigger where it's impossible to take it down without totally disconnecting you from the internet. It's not a hard concept the network just needs to be created.

    --

    If your not cheating your not trying. If your not trying your not winning and if your not winning why play?
  40. Re: At least you have the monitoring idea right by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    The biggest problem I see is management content to drop the whole Internet surfing problem in the lap of the I.T. department. What most I.T. workers are saying is "Hey, I want to spend my time taking care of the computer systems and network -- not becoming the Internet police."

    It's the job of a manager to oversee his/her employees and make sure they're using their time efficiently. As I've always said, employees who want to waste time will find a million ways to do it. If you restrict them from surfing the net, they'll just talk to friends on the phone, or bring in a newspaper to read, or walk the halls with a cup of coffee and try to look busy.

    I have no problem with putting the basics of an automated system in place to block known porn sites and other blatantly illegal sites. Just by doing that, you're showing you took measures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. I think most companies would like to be in a position to say they did that, if it ever came up in court.

    Beyond that, I think it's wrong for managers of other departments to request/expect I.T. to "fill them in on what so-and-so is doing on the web", or to complain that something's not "locked down tight enough". If you know you have employees surfing where you don't want them surfing, take care of it yourself!

  41. give outsiders access to intranet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the question I have.

    Let's say someone where I work (NASA) decides to install this to get around the proxy. It allows them to connect to blocked sites through other peek-a-booty clients, right? Does this in turn punch a hole through our firewall and allow others to access our intranet that they are blocked from accessing?

    It sounds like this is can be used as a voluntarily installed cracking tool.

  42. Unemployment by zpengo · · Score: 2
    Actually I am unemployed and would grateful for any job at the moment since I can't pay my mortgage.

    I'm sure that getting upset at people for how they refer to employees probably hasn't helped you get a job.

    Instead of saying "I resent that you call employees drones!", you should try, "Who should I talk to about becoming one of your drones?"

    --


    Got Rhinos?
  43. Employee surfing - hard learned lessons by nomadicGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see a lot of posts which seem to imply that employee surfing should be ignored. Why is it a big deal if an employee does some personal surfing? Why not measure an employee's productivity and leave it at that?

    I used to work at a company that had a very liberal internet use policy. We were pretty early adopters as far as the corporate world goes. We wanted people to use the Internet as a tool and didn't want to micromanage or scrutinize its usage.

    Over the years we had to tighten our policy as abuses started to mount. The final straw was an idiot who was collecting kiddie porn and saving it on our network server! We immediately notified the police and he has arrested and prosecuted. The guy literally had hundreds of pictures carefully organized into directories to categorize them. It was obvious (1) that he had been doing it for a while, (2) he had invested a great deal of thought and time in these activities.

    The company was dragged into the employee's defense trial. We spent a lot of time and money on attorneys, depositions, etc. It was a nightmare. We were forced to implement a system to control and monitor access to the Internet to insure that this type of thing did not happen again. It is one thing to get caught in that type of situation once but it can't happen again.

    So we spent a lot of time and money watching and controlling Internet access. It sucks but it only takes one idiot to mess things up for everyone and there are a lot of idiots out there.

    I still think that ideally Internet usage should be the employees' responsibility but in the real world things often get much more complicated.

    1. Re:Employee surfing - hard learned lessons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, the proxy at work blocks SLASHDOT!!!!!!!
      Can you believe it? Amazon.com is not blocked, possibly because some big-shot exec wants to do some online shopping, but slashdot.org is blocked because it is considered "entertainment".

    2. Re:Employee surfing - hard learned lessons by pHDNgell · · Score: 1

      I find it ridiculous that people believe it is their right to use company resources however they want. Basically, the more people can do with their computers on a public network, the higher the risk of something horrible happening because of this.

      It's always a big conflict. They want employees to be really happy and feel like they can do whatever they want, but when something bad happens, they come and ask why and who. The discussions are always essentially, ``Is there any way we can keep people from doing bad things without preventing them from doing bad things?''

      It's just stupid. They don't get TVs on their desks they can sit around and watch. They don't assume it's OK to spend a couple hours a day talking on the phone. They certainly don't think it's OK to bring one of their friends in and hang out all day.

      There is a real risk here, and we've had to clean up after plenty of people who downloaded an app that broke their machines, leaked confidential information, harrassed people, etc... all using our resources. It's not like very many people actually need Internet access above local E-mail.

      There are so few jobs where people even get internet access that it seems even more bizarre when people think of it as a fundamental job right.

      --
      -- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
  44. Can't disallow installing software by yerricde · · Score: 1

    If the user can't install it, they can't use it. In a bank, a user shouldn't be able to install anything at all.

    Some software doesn't need to write to the registry to be installed; it can run from a simple unzipped folder. The only way to disallow installing software is not to let the user write to storage at all.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Can't disallow installing software by Karoshi · · Score: 1

      You still can disallow the execution of untrusted applications.
      That also works for Windows.

      --
      Don't answer me. Moderate. Slashdot is about moderation, not discussion.
  45. Not to worry.... by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 1

    It's not going to be a big a deal as you think, because of the way it's set up.

    (Note: I've never seen the software, all this is based on how I *think* it would have to work. YMMV.)

    (Note: I'm probably going to hell, because you know the Commies are reading this, and they'll use this stuff just the same as your company will.)

    The system does no initial discovery, you have to know the address of an upstream node. Presumably, any folks using this within your company are probably going to know each other, and they're going to have one, maybe two upstream nodes that they're connecting to.

    Syslog your firewall port 443 (or whatever port this thing ends us using - - if it's not port 443, even easier!), and every so often, check the destination addresses. You'll find your PaB users soon enough.

    If, once the inital connection is made to a known node, the system jumps around from node to node, then scan for single machines making large numbers of SSL connections to different addresses.

    If it *is* truely P2P, then the machines inside your organization are also nodes. Portscan your machines for the incoming port(s), and they'll show up easily.

    Also, if you have an intranet, chances are the proxy's going to try to contact an external peer for your own internal web offerings. You'll be getting help desk calls that your people can't see your intranet soon after this thing's put in place.
    *evil bofh grin*

    I think it's going to be easy to pick out inside any network.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

  46. Simple by Snaller · · Score: 1

    On the other side, as a Security Manager in a bank who's sometimes asked to go find out if person XYZ has been accessing nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com, I can see how this utility might make it impossible for me to do my job.

    So tell them, "its no longer possible"
    you might also suggest; if this person is doing his job, what does it matter if he watches po*n - and if he doesn't do his job... fire him. Simple.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  47. This works now by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful
    the only way to connect ... is word-of-mouth, which is horribly ineffective. Finding ... will be extremely difficult unless you know the right people, and then it's very easy for the censor to ruin it. Trust the wrong person, and your whole network is exposed.


    Millions of drug users use this model quite happily.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

    1. Re:This works now by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2
      "Millions of drug users use this model quite happily."

      Drug users are slightly safer. If a single Peek-A-Booty user of a given node is compromised, the government can start watching all traffic to that node and build a giant list of criminals. If a single drug customer is compromised, there're practical limits on how many other clients they can catch during a sting.

    2. Re:This works now by r101 · · Score: 1

      Only if they get good shit

    3. Re:This works now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All guitar players considering taking part in the ongoing Limp Bizkit guitarist auditions and anyone else that hates Fred Durst with a passion should read the following account written by a recent applicant (originally posted at this location). A very entertaining read, indeed. Here it goes:

      "Some of you may have heard about the Limp Bizkit guitarist search. Basically, the band has been 'touring' the country visiting Guitar Center stores, holding auditions for a new guitarist to replace the one who left the band.

      "The deal is this. From 7:00 to 11:00 AM you can sign up for a slot to try out that day. The tryouts are from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM. During this time, they take you into a room to play your stuff. At the end of that time, you leave. They call three to ten people at 5:30 to come back to the place and play in front of Limp Bizkit. Out of those people, one is selected to return at 9:00 to jam with the band, and anyone who participated is invited to watch -- a free concert, basically.

      "So I arrive there, with a copy of our band's full CD in hand. I'm with a friend who wants to try out, so I go ahead and sign up too. We get there at 5:00 AM and we're 83rd and 84th in line. Not incredibly bad. Free Krispy Kreme donuts and coffee, so all isn't too bad.

      "10:00 rolls around. The line is moving slow, but that's to be expected. We finally get up around the corner of the building to the front of the line at about noon. Current total time there: 7 hours.

      "Get to the table, and I notice there's a waiver you have to sign. No problem, standard stuff. Then I notice it's a three-page contract. This contract basically said that if you play, you must sign the contract. Okay. No big deal here either. So I keep reading it. An interesting note. Anything you play canNOT be copyrighted, and can be used by Limp Bizkit in audio, video, or recorded form of any sort. Other big words which basically translated to the fact that if you play something, they are fully authorized to steal it and use it on a CD. The artist agrees to zero compensation and zero rights over the track, and will get their name in the liner notes 'if possible'.

      "This didn't sit well, as me and the guy I was with were planning on playing something we wrote with [our band] Starfront. So we sign it and decide to make something up. An annoyance at the very least, but we'd waited seven hours to get this far.

      "Then we got to stand in the parking lot for another two hours. We finally get inside at about 2:30, where it's another 30-minute wait for your turn. Current total time there: 10 hours.

      "So then we get the 'rules'. They are outlined for us straight out. No guitar solos. No playing cover songs. No playing copyrighted material. No playing Limp Bizkit songs. "This effectively means that you're forced to play something that you made up, but don't have a copyright for. You may see where this is going.

      "Entering the room, there's one guy. He's got a mute button under his foot. His job is to make sure you follow the rules. If you break any, you get muted and kicked out immediately. So I go in, and there's one amp for me to plug into, and the settings are turned to 'mud'. It sounded awful, and was not pleasing to the ears. And it was loud enough that the awfulness didn't go away for some time. Then comes another fun part.

      " 'You have 60 seconds to play. Starting now.'

      "One f.cking minute?! I mean, f.cking... okay. So since the thing I'd been planning was two minutes and thirty seconds, I cut most of the parts out. Kept it under time (about 57 seconds), but it still sounded worse than a handful of ass due to that beautiful amplifier (hmm). And I leave the room and the line proceeds. We're told that the winners will be announced at 5:30. And that we are to remain in the front parking lot until that time. No leaving. Period. This makes for unhappy people. We're talking 200+ people here, plus any wives / girlfriends / husbands / boyfriends / family / friends which accompanied them. But what can you do? We stay until 5:30. Total current time there: 12 hours, 30 minutes.

      "5:30 rolls around. People are getting ansi. The band management promised 'free pizza'. It came, and there were two boxes of pizza. Two large pizzas. For about two hundred people at least. No cool points here either. Anyway, the clock keeps ticking, and it's 6:00 before we notice anything going on. Guitar Center management flags all their people and security to come inside to discuss something. They go in there, and the guy in charge walks out with a megaphone. After getting everyone's attention, the guy on the megaphone speaks:

      " 'This competition has been called off effective immediately and will not be rescheduled. The band will not be performing with nor for anyone. They will not be signing autographs. This is beyond our control, but please exit the area immediately.'

      "The guy then proceeds to enter back inside the huge glass doors, and two armed officers stand behind the door. They lock the building as the massive amount of people head directly towards them. After reaching the building, people start going apesh.t. Cops are called in basically a way to clear the crowd. After about an hour, most have gone home or been 'taken' home by the police. The radio station is completely screwed, having brought their entire broadcast booths out to cover it. Everyone is very, very pissed. Me and the other guy stayed awhile to figure out what was going on. It's now about 7:30 PM.

      "FM99 is having a field day with it. They're referring to this as 'F.ck Fred Durst Friday', taking calls in from people who went. But unless you've read this carefully, I don't think you understand what happened.

      "Limp Bizkit now has over 200 guitar parts, written by various artists around here, which are unowned and not copyrighted. Limp Bizkit now owns these riffs. Limp Bizkit just stole 200 pieces of material right out from under these guitarists' noses, myself included. If I'd played something off our CD, I would be ABSOLUTELY pissed. I *am* absolutely pissed. They have completely ripped off hundreds of people, and they're getting away with it because they can. They're on their way to Georgia, and the radio station here has given out request line numbers for the stations down there for us to call and let them know what's happening over the course of this event, to warn them. But people aren't going to buy it. They're going to go and get their sh.t stolen too.

      "Someone needs to beat the living hell out of him. He's an asshole, and someone who doesn't deserve to be breathing the same air as a f.cking cockroach.

      "To add insult to injury, Guitar Center ran a contest where the winner would get to watch the band play even if they didn't play guitar. One person and a friend. That person also won an autographed Gibson Les Paul Studio (00+ guitar) by the band. She showed up after a near 200-mile drive to the area. Guitar Center told her that the band refused to acknowledge the contest at this point, and so not only did she drive three and a half hours for no performance (which she took her ten-year-old kid to see as his first concert), but apparently the guitar wasn't given either. All because the band wanted to be one giant collective asshole.

      "If any of you know anyone who's considering going to these tryouts, show them this message. If they have any questions they can contact me directly. I'm doing everything I possibly can to make sure this does NOT happen to anyone else. It's not my stuff I'm concerned about -- our CD is copyrighted completely and legally -- but I'm guessing 90% of the local bands who passed Durst a copy of their CD are going to be f.cked. Many bands, especially newer local ones, don't have the money or know-how to copyright their stuff, and by giving it to them tonight, they just basically tossed them a new Limp Bizkit CD if Fred wants to do that. I wouldn't be surprised if he copyrights their sh.t tomorrow.

      "It hurts to look around and see hundreds of people get excited at the chance to be able to make something of their guitar work to have a shot at being in a popular band, making a living doing what they dream of. Fred Durst and Limp Bizkit are taking that dream and fucking it over. And anyone who wasn't there who just caught the coverage at noon and 5:00 on the news just think everything is perfect. Happy Fred Durst in front of the cameras behind the place, fenced off, saying how good the turnout is and how happy everyone seems, and talking about all the great sh.t he's hearing. That man is the true meaning of a music label representative. He's the perfect salesman and nice guy in front of the media, and turns around and screws everyone involved in the ass without having to take any hit in his overall popularity, and possibly gaining a sh.t ton of new music in the process that he's ripped from people.

      "Not many things piss me off, but I'm pissed off. I'm not the only one. All sorts of 'this band is playing tonight at this place, and they'd like me to announce to Fred Durst that if you're still in the area and you come to this venue, you will be able to see what a REAL band is like -- right before the real band beats your skull in.' This radio station is sick of the sh.t from this band, and so are its listeners. If this keeps happening, I wouldn't be surprised if some sh.t goes down somewhere really damn soon. If it does, I'll let you know

    4. Re:This works now by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and WHY do we? For the same reason that Peek-A-Booty exists.

  48. Peek-A-Booty is no longer affiliated with CDC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://cultdeadcow.com/details.php3?listing_id=426

    PEEKABOOTY UPDATE
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    LUBBOCK, TX, February 7 -- The CULT OF THE DEAD COW (cDc) would like to clarify a few matters in relation to Peekabooty, an anti-censorship software application currently under development.

    Peekabooty was originally the brainchild of the Hacktivismo group, an international cadre of hackers founded by the cDc's Oxblood Ruffin. Hacktivismo's mandate was and is to develop technology in the service of human rights. Peekabooty was its first project; others are in various stages of planning and development.

    The CULT OF THE DEAD COW has supported this work from its conception, because we view censorship of the Internet as a cancer that must be excised. However, it should be noted that the cDc membership have not been contributing code or driving the development schedule for Peekabooty. This project was entirely the concern of Hacktivismo group.

    Two years ago, Bronc Buster and Mr. Pink wrote the proto-code for the current iteration of Peekabooty. Paul Baranowski (who until recently used the handle "Drunken Master") later became its chief architect and took charge of the Peekabooty programming effort. Some months ago, Paul chose to dedicate himself full-time to refactoring the codebase and finish implementing the remaining functionality.

    Paul has recently decided to sever ties with the Hacktivismo group but he will continue to develop the Peekabooty app. Occasionally developers can't find the environment they need to do their best work and now is one such time.

    Paul will be leaving Hacktivismo and taking on full responsibility for his work and all future development of his software. So from now on, Paul is directing all aspects of the Peekabooty project. It is no longer a Hacktivismo production. The Hacktivismo group will shift its main focus back to other projects in the pipeline.

    We continue to wish Paul the best of luck. We believe that Peekabooty will prove itself to be a liberating force on the Net. Although Hacktivismo has severed formal ties with the project, some members intend to informally contribute their testing skills, etc. to the ongoing effort.

    Paul will be presenting a recent snapshot at CodeCon, February 15 - 17, in San Francisco. Go check it out. But please be aware that this is not a launch; Peekabooty is still a work in progress.

  49. What about a ddos attack by joeblowme · · Score: 1

    Could this thing give you the ability to run a ddos attack completely anonymously? So much so that it would be impossible to shut down. If you can't detect who is sending it or it keeps sending different IPs, it would be impossible to stop the attack. Also it could shut down everyone on peek-a-booty. They may have made that impossible to do but since I can't find anything on it I have to leave it open as a possiblity. If it is possible, once the peek-a-booty network was going the whole web could be taken down. I like the idea of this thing but it was developed by hackers for hackers so I am a little warey.

    --

    If your not cheating your not trying. If your not trying your not winning and if your not winning why play?
  50. Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this project illegal since the DMCA doesn't allow people to make software that "cracks" the "security" (and I'm sure thats what the chinese goverment call it.... protecting their people from all bad stuff on the net.)

  51. Software Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is a great idea. Lots of posts have already raised the issues that always arise with free speech. When people are free to speak (and more importantly hear) what they like, then sometimes they use that freedom to say and hear unpleasant things. Personally I think that this price is trivial compared to the benefits that flow from freedom.

    However, I do have another concern. We all know how hollow claims of security often turn out to be. This project invites people to commit crimes which, in some countries, carry severe penalties including (in a few countries) the death penalty. So I hope that this system really is secure, and that if it isn't entirely secure, I hope that the people running it are honest about the risks.

    It would be a pity if someone were to encourage people in (lets say) China to seek the truth, and then left them exposed to the Chinese government.

    The people who are working on this project ought to think long and hard about any promises or assurances of security that they make.

    Praksys

  52. Defeating Geographic Region Control by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2

    Most of the comments I've seen for this story talk about how it will be good (or bad) for employee surfing. It occurs to me that this will also be a way to defeat the websites that try to lock out certain regions from being able to access them, for matters of national licensing and such. (I saw a story about that sort of thing on /. a while back, but I'm too lazy to go look it up. :)

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  53. Nomenclature by Dr.+Carl+Jung · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Technology merits aside, why did they have to choose the name 'peek a booty' ?? This really isn't helping us getting rid of the 'pron-fiend-p2p-user' stereotype. I can't imagine the company or technology being recognized by corporate types, either.

    --
    -Linux was for the masses, who spoke, and everything was crystal clear.
    1. Re:Nomenclature by isbhod · · Score: 1

      well let's see, some of cDc's previous offerings are named "Back Orifice", and "Butt Trumpet" i think "Peek-A-Booty" is right in line.

      but that's just my opinion i could be wrong

  54. Quick Browse by kevinoshea · · Score: 2, Informative

    I wonder if a program like Quick Browse - http://www.quickbrowse.com - might also do the trick?

  55. The BEST two apps for *nix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come it is whenever I see the vast majority screencaps on a *nix machine, it is ALWAYS running these two apps:

    XEYES
    XLOGO

    It really makes me wonder if *nix is all it's cracked up to be if this is all I ever see?

  56. Re: At least you have the monitoring idea right by shyster · · Score: 2
    Beyond that, I think it's wrong for managers of other departments to request/expect I.T. to "fill them in on what so-and-so is doing on the web", or to complain that something's not "locked down tight enough". If you know you have employees surfing where you don't want them surfing, take care of it yourself!

    At my last admin gig, I refused to provide managers with info on what sites were being accessed, what email was being rec'd, and what personal files were on hard drives. If a direct order didn't come from an executive or the IT Director, then it was not my place to rat out employees.

    Talk about liability! I have no way of knowing/proving that John Doe accessed this site. I only know that John Doe's PC accessed xxx.com. But PHB's won't understand the difference.

    Managers wouldn't ask someone in a cube famr what the guy next to him was surfing, why should I be put in that position? The other employees are my colleagues, and I refuse to disrespect them simply because I control the servers.

  57. This should not be released under the cDc name. by muffen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I heard about this program a year ago. Back then I wasn't sure what to think about it, because cDc isn't one of the "software producers" I trust. Personally, I would never install anyhing written by them on my computer.

    Peek-a-booty appears to be a valid program, and may even be really useful for people who have governments blocking them from freely accessing the internet. However, I do think that they should get rid of the cDc name, mainly because cDc is associated with lame backdoor trojans by a lot of people. Also, if it ever got mainstream media attention, it is likely that they would start the article by saying something like: "cDC, the makers of the infamous backdoor trojan program Backorifice...". This is likely to scare people from installing it.

    Just my two cents...

  58. Re: At least you have the monitoring idea right by Squalish · · Score: 0

    Since when is porn "Blatantly Illegal?"

    --
    People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
  59. Uh huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do any of you seriously trust this tool, or cDc at all? What's the last big "product" that they dumped on the Internet? Back Orifice. And we all know how respectable a "remote administration tool" that was, don't we? Especially the part where all the positive results for server scans made by the old GUI client were sent to a cDc affiliate's website, that was REAL trustworthy on their part. I'm sure as hell not going to put my privacy, my machine, my connection and my LEGAL STATUS in the hands of people that don't even respect the community they claim to be a part of. If you want to do something constructive for free speech on the Internet, do the following:

    Visit http://freenet.sourceforge.net and download their client. Run it. Submit bug reports, feature requests..anything you can think of to improve the TRUSTWORTHY privacy software already in the making.

    Visit http://www.eff.org and do whatever you can to support them.

    Lobby your local officials in government, talk to representatives..try to get things done. Don't support a program made by a bunch of underhanded blackhats, because in the end, what's going to happen? Within a week CNN will be televising the first White House briefing about how Peek-a-Booty is yet more proof that encryption and privacy software in general are supportive of terrorism.

  60. How I'd discover proxies... by sterno · · Score: 1

    Remember, the proxies get discovered by word of mouth or perhaps off a website. The oppressive government has the same resources if not more to find these proxies. I don't need to know what you actually transmit over the proxy, as long as I know what the proxy could be used for I can do what I want with you.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  61. depending on source license && availabilit by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe that Peek-a-Booty will be GPL'd, or at least open-sourced.. in that case, one would simply distrust the binaries and compile (or DL from trusted site) the program locally.
    As far as it goes, however, Back Orifice is notable as one of the trickier trojays to ferret out .. it's a neat piece of code. Assuming the widely-heralded P-a-Booty is coded to the same high standards, I would very much like to get ahold of it.

  62. Uh...huh.... by DMBoyd · · Score: 1

    An even geater problem than finding the first node address would be actually finding the program. Wouldn't china(or any other censoring country) have any sites that provide this software blocked? and if they didnt, are they really that censored?

    1. Re:Uh...huh.... by mu_wtfo · · Score: 1

      I thought of this also. I'm not sure if they can configure their firewalling setup like this, but all they need to do is block any transfers containing the string "peekabooty.zip"(or whatever), and presto-chango, Peek-A-Booty never gets a foothold in those environments where it's most needed. Even changing the filename to get around this restriction will have very limited success, because for this project to actually succeed, it has to be VERY easy for people to get, install, and use.
      Censorship sucks.

      --
      If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
  63. Lame joke by Dante'sPrayer · · Score: 1

    So, are you telling that the cult of the dead cow is behind all this?

    You conspirance theorist. :)

  64. Fine, till there's a knock on my door... by mu_wtfo · · Score: 1

    ...because someone decided to use peek-a-booty to try to crack whitehouse.gov, and the luck of the draw gives him *my* machine to use as a proxy, so when the Secret Service traces the attack back, they find just lil old me. This has happened to me in the past (not through a proxy, I got back orificed)stupid windows user!!)), and my ISP shut down my account for 2 days until I managed to convince them that I'm not a cracker.
    But as long as that can't happen, then I'm all for this project!

    --
    If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
  65. Sticking out like a sore thumb? by Jeff+Ballard · · Score: 1
    Wouldn't running this software cause you to stick out like a sore thumb?

    For example, consider that you are currently in an environment that you have connectivity out to the world, but it is monitored. Once you connect, won't some fraction of the "anonomized" traffic come through you?

    At some point, if you are trying to view a website with potentially objectionable material, a clear connection has to come from somewhere, and if someone else's connection comes from you, the gestapo could come looking for you.

    Once I started looking at Snort, I became very afraid of what is possible. NIDS is a wonderful thing, but if used in the wrong way it could become a good tool for someone wanting to be big brother....

    -Jeff

    --
    Good Fast Cheap. Pick any two.
  66. Re: At least you have the monitoring idea right by aurelian · · Score: 1

    The problem is, some of it is very illegal. Your average user may just be surfing for cheerleaders or whatever, but a small minority of people are looking for exploitative or paedophile sites. This isn't necessarily an argument for keeping everyone under observation at all times, but if it becomes impossible to watch what's coming in and out even on those rare occasions when you want to, then there is a legitimate concern.

  67. OK, luser, you got a job? by CRConrad · · Score: 1

    Then you're obviously an employee, and thus a luser.

    Or are you unemployed? Well, then you're obviously a luser who can't even get a job.

    Either way, your ridiculously high uid marks you as a luser.

    --

    Christian R. Conrad
    mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here