NAT has nothing to do with security. What people confuse as security is the fact that NAT is always implemented in the form of NAT+filter, never as just NAT alone. So they think the security comes from the NAT part when in reality, it's the filter part that does the job of keeping the network secure. You can remove NAT and keep the filter and have exactly the same security with IPv6.
If there was such a thing as NAT _without_ a filter, your ISP could simply set a route to your private address space via your external router - since he's the next hop - and access your internal network freely.
If you think NAT has anything to do with security you're just an amateur who knows nothing other than his plastic blackbox "consumer" router, and draw conclusions from what he sees in the user interface of that thing.
But it is possible to freeload on... publicly served data? You're not making any sense.
I request, they serve. I can do whatever I want with their data on my machine. There's not even a contract here.
"Unspoken understanding" in the context of a multi-million dollar faceless corporation. That actually made me chuckle. They're the first ones to break the unspoken understanding of paying proper taxes for example and I'm supposed to let them infest my machine with bullshit? GTFO.
Go and make me sign a contract or don't serve your shit freely. Easy.
Correction: That's how marketing scum wants it to work.
As was said, it's my machine. It runs code and downloads data _I_ want, not you. Don't like it? Go invent your own Internet with your own protocols that grant you more control and stop freeloading on the open protocols we already have!
I don't use an ad blocker per se. noscript + RequestPolicy somehow seem to prevent ads in videos. Maybe the ads come from different servers, I don't know.
I've never seen an ad in front of a video in years.
Because I don't sugercoat idiocy? You had two chances to state simple and correct facts, yet you chose to claim authority over stuff you know jack shit about, being a pompous idiot in the process and now you're all butthurt?
They're not only not convenient, they're also not secure in the sense that in order to work with your data, you have to decrypt it _somewhere_. Unless you secure erase your free drive space after zipping your files back up and deleting the unencrypted copies, I wouldn't consider that data to be secure anymore, at all.
There is no job you can do if the other party is not trustworthy - other than limiting your communication. All this convoluted header bullshit is useless.
Stop crying for a legal solution when there's a perfect technical one: STOP TALKING TO TRACKING SERVERS! Advertisers had their chance. They failed it. So ignore them and let them sulk in their own bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
NAT has nothing to do with security. What people confuse as security is the fact that NAT is always implemented in the form of NAT+filter, never as just NAT alone. So they think the security comes from the NAT part when in reality, it's the filter part that does the job of keeping the network secure. You can remove NAT and keep the filter and have exactly the same security with IPv6.
If there was such a thing as NAT _without_ a filter, your ISP could simply set a route to your private address space via your external router - since he's the next hop - and access your internal network freely.
If you think NAT has anything to do with security you're just an amateur who knows nothing other than his plastic blackbox "consumer" router, and draw conclusions from what he sees in the user interface of that thing.
Let me guess: Good American Christian?
But it is possible to freeload on... publicly served data? You're not making any sense.
I request, they serve. I can do whatever I want with their data on my machine. There's not even a contract here.
"Unspoken understanding" in the context of a multi-million dollar faceless corporation. That actually made me chuckle. They're the first ones to break the unspoken understanding of paying proper taxes for example and I'm supposed to let them infest my machine with bullshit? GTFO.
Go and make me sign a contract or don't serve your shit freely. Easy.
Encoding targeted ads in real-time into every video? Yeah, that'll work.
Correction: That's how marketing scum wants it to work.
As was said, it's my machine. It runs code and downloads data _I_ want, not you. Don't like it? Go invent your own Internet with your own protocols that grant you more control and stop freeloading on the open protocols we already have!
I don't use an ad blocker per se. noscript + RequestPolicy somehow seem to prevent ads in videos. Maybe the ads come from different servers, I don't know.
I've never seen an ad in front of a video in years.
Stop apologizing to a random text on the Internet. WTF is wrong with you?
What about servers that employ data scrambling? From the sound of it, this should completely defeat the Hammer exploit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... /scrambling
That would work if the murders were covered up and, upon bringing them to public attention, the criminals were brought to justice.
But alas, the murders _are_ publicly know. It's just that the corrective force is completely failing.
The transparency is here, it's just without consequence.
Yeah, who cares about the murders he is directly responsible for. Let's regret missing transparency.
He is a MURDERER.
You have a fucking murderer with a NOBEL P E A C E PRIZE as a president.
Go fuck yourselves, you fascist pigs!
Oma gehts gut!
You implied your "SSL key signer" has your private key which is not the case as it would be royally stupid.
Yeah, they better teach about these techniques if you really think SSL works by handing out your private keys.
Noone is getting tracking information from me. I don't care if the ads are not personalized then because I don't see them anyway.
Fuck off and get a real job, marketing scum.
Because I don't sugercoat idiocy? You had two chances to state simple and correct facts, yet you chose to claim authority over stuff you know jack shit about, being a pompous idiot in the process and now you're all butthurt?
Get off my lawn, kid. Good riddance.
I have no idea WTF you are talking about. A closed TCP port emits an RST. It even says so in the very link you posted:
http://www.tcpipguide.com/free...
"Receipt of a SYN message on a port where there is no process listening for connections."
Next time you try to be a smart-ass, get your facts straight. Idiot.
No, you should be getting a TCP RST.
Do you kids know anything?
The stupidity lies in answering with an A record at all.
Just say there is no address (NXDOMAIN). No useless traffic, no semantics to worry about.
It's always fun to read these posts by people who have no clue whatsoever about routing.
"But if I use publicly routable addresses, my local traffic goes via my ISP!"
Read a networking book, dummy.
As long as this matter is in its current state, I wouldn't even bother thinking about the minute details of the "suggestions" on the page.
This whole thing is just absurdly smelling like Lavabit.
They're not only not convenient, they're also not secure in the sense that in order to work with your data, you have to decrypt it _somewhere_. Unless you secure erase your free drive space after zipping your files back up and deleting the unencrypted copies, I wouldn't consider that data to be secure anymore, at all.
It's not as if 7.1a is suddenly unexecutable...
There is no job you can do if the other party is not trustworthy - other than limiting your communication. All this convoluted header bullshit is useless.
Stop crying for a legal solution when there's a perfect technical one: STOP TALKING TO TRACKING SERVERS! Advertisers had their chance. They failed it. So ignore them and let them sulk in their own bullshit.
You base the choice about which router and firmware to run on a measly side-feature, that also locks you into the router vendor? What. The. Fuck.