Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Users

User: abeinnh

abeinnh's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
2
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 2

  1. Re:couple of bits on RIAA's 'Expert' Witness Testimony Now Online · · Score: 1
    okay, i guess he didn't claim ignorance of NAT, but sheesh. getting him to acknowledge the possibility of ip masquerading was like pulling teeth. moving on...

    Most P2P systems are probably on 192.168.1.0/24 -- why waste precious bandwidth sharing that useless detail?
    i meant: "why would kazaa waste bandwidth putting a locally resolved address into protocol payload?" reading further into the deposition, it sounds like that's really what kazaa is doing. i'm still puzzled as to why. what sort of different actions might a kazaa peer take? I confess to being totally ignorant of kazaa. ...and it's a bummer for the defense, because that makes it really easy to see that there was no NAT device involved. though the defense lawyer didn't seem to pick up on that detail.
  2. couple of bits on RIAA's 'Expert' Witness Testimony Now Online · · Score: 1
    Industry shill, that's for sure. Computer forensic "expert" tries to claim he's ignorant of NAT:

    Q. In your April 7th report you say that in reality they can be identified using the IP address. Is that not what you said in your report? A. Yes, sir. Q. That's not exactly true, is it? A. I guess I'm not clear what you mean by that. Q. Well, it's true, is it not, that there can be more than one computer operating under a single IP address? A. As I talked about it in the report with public IP addresses, in order for the internet to function there can only be -- every public IP address has to be globally unique within that window of time. Q. But there can be more than one computer operating behind that IP address? A. Every -- I don't understand what you are asking. Every device connecting to the public internet has to have a global unique address.
    Next, he claims to be able to see behind firewalls based on what's coming out. Specifically this detail (it may be true, but I'd be suprised):

    The peer-to-peer software will present an IP address within the data payload of the IP packet.
    An IP address in the *payload* ? I've certainly seen screwy protocols that do this sort of thing, but can't think of why P2P software would do it. Most P2P systems are probably on 192.168.1.0/24 -- why waste precious bandwidth sharing that useless detail?