Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Releases Software to Spot Net NonNeutrality

Posted by kdawson on from the reset-this dept.

DanielBoz writes in with word of the EFF's new initiative to help consumers detect if their ISP is spoofing packets. From the press release: "In the wake of the detection and reporting of Comcast Corporation's controversial interference with Internet traffic, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a comprehensive account of Comcast's packet-forging activities and has released software and documentation instructing Internet users on how to test for packet forgery or other forms of interference by their own ISPs."

7 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. If it's Comcast... by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...how will the software tell the difference between traffic shaping and Comcast's usual crappy service?

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:If it's Comcast... by faloi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because the shaped packets coming from Comcast will get to the application more promptly than regular traffic. Traffic generated outside of Comcast will still take half of forever to arrive, if they arrive at all.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    2. Re:If it's Comcast... by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If packets start showing up at one end of the connection that were not send by the other, they had to have been added en-route. This can occur naturally, as a result of IP-level fragmentation in the network, or it can be done deliberately, as Comcast and the great firewall of China do. IP-level fragmentation occurs because a packet is too large and it is being cut into fragments to improve performance; as I understand it, in practice on the real internet, it's actually pretty rare. On the other hand, if those packets that mysteriously show up are TCP-resets, then it's (IMO) an entirely reasonable assumption to make that they were put there by someone wishing to interrupt the traffic stream.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
  2. Important, by SlipperHat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there a website where we can post these results? Broadband Reports comes to mind, but maybe the EFF has a place set up?

  3. Not tesing is not science by l2718 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all, the EFF may has not tested your ISP. You may trust them that in general ISPs are sending spoofed packets, but still want to know whether your ISP is using the tactic. Beyond that, however, just because you trust them doesn't mean independent verification has no value. Results mean something different if you obtained them yourself. Also, as in regular science, independent confirmation of results gives more than that: more people conducting tests will also give better data.

  4. Stop misusing "Network Neutrality" by bconway · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Network Neutrality refers to ISPs double dipping on charging/extorting fees for both users paying for their connections and web sites paying for prioritization of traffic according to origination and destination. It does not refer to protocol-based QoS. It does not mean a flat, unmanaged, unQoS-ed Internet. By repeatedly and deliberately misusing this phrase, its importance is being weakened.

    --
    Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    1. Re:Stop misusing "Network Neutrality" by kebes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Network Neutrality refers to ISPs double dipping on charging/extorting fees ... It does not refer to protocol-based QoS. Unfortunately when it comes to the definition of Net Neutrality, there isn't yet consensus (e.g. see various definitions offered here, and associated references). Maybe we need to come up with new terms, like "Strict Net Neutrality" versus "General Net Neutrality" to distinguish between various implications of the term. As usual, though, it's very hard to get people to agree on definitions.

      And, of course, the definitions vary in part because people have different opinions on what is "important." Supporters of net neutrality agree that data carriers should at a minimum be source/destination neutral (the version of neutrality you are referring to). However some people do indeed believe that carriers should also be neutral with respect to the devices allowed to connect to the network, and the types of traffic sent over the network.*

      So, in short, there is a diversity of opinion about what the term means (or "should" mean, I guess).


      [*] As an aside, my mind isn't made up, but I understand the logic for saying that traffic neutrality may be ultimately a good thing. Yes, it prevents certain QoS strategies on shared carrier networks (but not on closed private networks, of course)... but then again, do you trust your ISP (which has its own interests) to pick the QoS strategy that actually works best for you? (Or even for most customers?) Also, any QoS strategy inherently makes a judgment call about what is "important" and what isn't. So, it inherently limits new technologies/protocols we haven't yet dreamed of. And, it would seem inefficient because any QoS which degrades protocols that customers are interested in will be circumvented (e.g. by masking your traffic as a type of traffic that is "approved" for high-speed delivery). Certainly we wouldn't let other carriers discriminate based on the content (e.g. postal service that delivers boxes that contain videotapes slower than boxes that contain paper; phone carrier that delays voice calls to prioritize fax calls...).