First, my IP address, 10.0.0.11, would not be of much use to the spammer
The executable might report your inside IP address, but the routable source IP would be visible within the headers the smtp server it connects to prepends to the message. Knowing this wouldn't get them thru your firewall, but they'd be one step closer.
In my area, where Sprint has rolled out DSL service within the past year, 'installing' the service is usually a two man job. One to navigate the menus until the exotic P-I-N-G command is found, and the other to watch over his shoulder.
My coworker and I were stunned to see them using 1234, especially at the second and third client!
I couldn't agree more. The designer in this project brought together skills from many different disciplines (electrical engineering, amateur radio, embedded linux & device driver customization, aeronautics) and made them all work right, the first time. Not to mention that he did it with inexpensive, off-the-shelf parts.
There may be other stories on here that have more impact on my day to day life, but I'd say this is the most interesting, inspirational "geek" story I've seen on./ in a long time!
I have a few friends who do infrastructure consulting for a multinational chemical company. I think only one of them has ever met the client face to face. They all work out of their houses and dial into one of the company's RAS servers. From there, they go across the globe managing 3,000+ network nodes. In a company that big, physical location is meaningless.
It's pretty likely that the CPU inside your computer is several magnitudes more powerful than any onbooard processing on your WiFi card. Although it's not perfect, their rationale of saving money isn't all bad either.
What intrigues me is the notion of getting rid of WEP altogether and replacing it with a simplified IPSec implementation. The pieces already exist in Win2k/XP but you need to bring them all together yourself.
If it's so insecure, why aren't people getting cracked all the time?
Secondly, since when does hardware support a networking protocol in the absense of software? Any machine that can run 95 or 98 can run PPTP. They have pretty modest hardware requirements by today's standards.
Thirdly, I have created multiple outbound pptp tunnels behind an ICS connection. It can be done.
Your beef can be easily solved by ensuring that the remote machine's default route is down the tunnel.
As far as I'm concerned, a bigger threat is the road warrior laptop not having adequate virus protection. (VP of Sales does insist on Windows, doesn't he?) Desktops behind the firewall presumably have multiple layers of protection in front of them, the road warrior, maybe not.
Perhaps those managers who are also ACoA are driven by a deep, almost irrational, need to help others. It comes from a lifetime of helping their parents cope with what they ought to have been able to handle on their own. I don't know if the "telltale control issues" was the panelist's viewpoint or your editorializing but it doesn't reflect any substantiative understanding of the dynamics of alcoholism.
although it's not a good one. See here. In a nutshell, the field techs are told that the AMD RAMs are not reliable, and although they'll pass self-test, during gameplay the 3D objects will become distorted.
Well I hope you've fathered all the children you plan on. It is indeed free, if you bring the hardware. If you want to use the kiosk, you pay.
This is kind of funny in light of the recent article discussing security devices running on unsecured 802.11b networks (as if there's another sort of 802.11 network) You won't even look out of place walking around with airsnort running...
Well, if you click on the link entitled "Bernie's Musical Taste," the posting it pulls up shows him having a USRobotics email addy. At a minimum, we know he's been employable for a few years now.
It's quite unethical for a company to even ask money for any sort of development tool for their own system
Unethical? Why should any company devote thousands of man-hours to creating something, and then give it to you for free? Remember, they had to pay for those thousands of man-hours. Perhaps Microsoft could just take a cut of the action when you develop the next killer app?
Hmmm this got me thinking... the Microsoft Public License: "Yeah, we'll give it to you, but you can never ever charge anyone a penny for anything you develop with it." I bet they'd still sell a few copies. It's the price of getting in on the action.
Thank you. I wonder why Wired focused on the privacy issue instead of the "gee I'll get my work done more quickly and efficiently because I won't have to know the location of a given document" bit. I suppose FUD sells...
Add to your list MS SharePoint, Oracle 9i (pieces) and IBM WebSphere Portal server. All the major players have a product like this. Welcome to the table, AltaVista.
If your administrator has half a brain, you won't be able to establish an outbound connection directly to the router - it will be configured to only accept connections from the proxy that logs your actions.
Hmmm, that's too bad. My isp presented what I felt was a good solution to a challenging problem. "You can sustain your high bandwidth, but you have to benefit others at the same time. Through no real effort of your own."
Although 3Gb seems kind of stingy, I have to question some of the bandwidth calculations I've seen here. The internet usage of an individual is typically quite bursty - sustained rate calculations are meaningless. How many people pull down a steady 28.8k stream 24x7x365?
Put another way, it's roughly 100Mb a day. That's a lot more traffic than just email and web surfing.
My ISP in Minneapolis discussed something like this a year or so ago when Qwest went and upped all DSL from 256k to 640K - they weren't sure they would be able to handle the increased bandwidth demands.
What they proposed at the time was to cap people's bandwidth to the internet after a period of sustained burst. They said they wouldn't cap internal network access.
The trick was, connecting to their cache server was considered internal network access. The upshot was, you got sustained high bandwidth but your data also got cached for others to use.
Of course telestra may already be doing transparent proxying, so who knows.
Translated to we'll show you why are products are better in biased fashion, at a more reasonable price than $0,000.00 (free).
Microsoft's point, which was lost on you, is that there is a huge investment in any OS, free or otherwise. Software licensing is a minimal part. Maybe you pay $4,000 for your OS, or $0. The real expense is the $50,000 administrator. How many servers that admin can reasonably manage is where the cost-savings lie.
"\\boxname\c$" only works if you have administrative privileges on that box. You would expect to do whatever the heck you want when you're logged in as root, wouldn't you? Same thing...
I think the author's point is that behind a NAT device, there is no such thing as a "firewall-friendly protocol. The NAT device needs to be manually configured.
I think the bigger implication is... what if there's a p2p protocol and no one is able/capable/willing to share what they've got?
Dummynet is great for this sort of application. I set up a small FreeBSD box at work with 5 IPs. I then configured a different set of pipes for each ip, 28.8, 33.6, 56, ISDN and DSL. I also configured different latencies and a small amount of packet loss. Now, if our developers want to simulate a low-speed connection, they configure their browswer to use the appropriate IP, where they connect to squid, and then to the appropriate devel server.
Slashdot Mirror
The executable might report your inside IP address, but the routable source IP would be visible within the headers the smtp server it connects to prepends to the message. Knowing this wouldn't get them thru your firewall, but they'd be one step closer.
In my area, where Sprint has rolled out DSL service within the past year, 'installing' the service is usually a two man job. One to navigate the menus until the exotic P-I-N-G command is found, and the other to watch over his shoulder.
My coworker and I were stunned to see them using 1234, especially at the second and third client!
I couldn't agree more. The designer in this project brought together skills from many different disciplines (electrical engineering, amateur radio, embedded linux & device driver customization, aeronautics) and made them all work right, the first time. Not to mention that he did it with inexpensive, off-the-shelf parts.
./ in a long time!
There may be other stories on here that have more impact on my day to day life, but I'd say this is the most interesting, inspirational "geek" story I've seen on
I have a few friends who do infrastructure consulting for a multinational chemical company. I think only one of them has ever met the client face to face. They all work out of their houses and dial into one of the company's RAS servers. From there, they go across the globe managing 3,000+ network nodes. In a company that big, physical location is meaningless.
Offshore development firms prove it too.
It took some digging but I found the link to their TOS (PDF) click here
It's pretty likely that the CPU inside your computer is several magnitudes more powerful than any onbooard processing on your WiFi card. Although it's not perfect, their rationale of saving money isn't all bad either.
What intrigues me is the notion of getting rid of WEP altogether and replacing it with a simplified IPSec implementation. The pieces already exist in Win2k/XP but you need to bring them all together yourself.
If it's so insecure, why aren't people getting cracked all the time?
Secondly, since when does hardware support a networking protocol in the absense of software? Any machine that can run 95 or 98 can run PPTP. They have pretty modest hardware requirements by today's standards.
Thirdly, I have created multiple outbound pptp tunnels behind an ICS connection. It can be done.
Your beef can be easily solved by ensuring that the remote machine's default route is down the tunnel.
As far as I'm concerned, a bigger threat is the road warrior laptop not having adequate virus protection. (VP of Sales does insist on Windows, doesn't he?) Desktops behind the firewall presumably have multiple layers of protection in front of them, the road warrior, maybe not.
Perhaps those managers who are also ACoA are driven by a deep, almost irrational, need to help others. It comes from a lifetime of helping their parents cope with what they ought to have been able to handle on their own. I don't know if the "telltale control issues" was the panelist's viewpoint or your editorializing but it doesn't reflect any substantiative understanding of the dynamics of alcoholism.
although it's not a good one. See here. In a nutshell, the field techs are told that the AMD RAMs are not reliable, and although they'll pass self-test, during gameplay the 3D objects will become distorted.
I guess they've come a long way, eh?
Well I hope you've fathered all the children you plan on. It is indeed free, if you bring the hardware. If you want to use the kiosk, you pay.
This is kind of funny in light of the recent article discussing security devices running on unsecured 802.11b networks (as if there's another sort of 802.11 network) You won't even look out of place walking around with airsnort running...
Well, if you click on the link entitled "Bernie's Musical Taste," the posting it pulls up shows him having a USRobotics email addy. At a minimum, we know he's been employable for a few years now.
I think ol' Bernie has proven that he does not simply toss out messages he wasn't expecting. Maybe he *ought* to but that's a different story.
Unethical? Why should any company devote thousands of man-hours to creating something, and then give it to you for free? Remember, they had to pay for those thousands of man-hours. Perhaps Microsoft could just take a cut of the action when you develop the next killer app?
Hmmm this got me thinking... the Microsoft Public License: "Yeah, we'll give it to you, but you can never ever charge anyone a penny for anything you develop with it." I bet they'd still sell a few copies. It's the price of getting in on the action.
Thank you. I wonder why Wired focused on the privacy issue instead of the "gee I'll get my work done more quickly and efficiently because I won't have to know the location of a given document" bit. I suppose FUD sells... Add to your list MS SharePoint, Oracle 9i (pieces) and IBM WebSphere Portal server. All the major players have a product like this. Welcome to the table, AltaVista.
If your administrator has half a brain, you won't be able to establish an outbound connection directly to the router - it will be configured to only accept connections from the proxy that logs your actions.
Hmmm, that's too bad. My isp presented what I felt was a good solution to a challenging problem. "You can sustain your high bandwidth, but you have to benefit others at the same time. Through no real effort of your own."
Although 3Gb seems kind of stingy, I have to question some of the bandwidth calculations I've seen here. The internet usage of an individual is typically quite bursty - sustained rate calculations are meaningless. How many people pull down a steady 28.8k stream 24x7x365?
Put another way, it's roughly 100Mb a day. That's a lot more traffic than just email and web surfing.
My ISP in Minneapolis discussed something like this a year or so ago when Qwest went and upped all DSL from 256k to 640K - they weren't sure they would be able to handle the increased bandwidth demands.
What they proposed at the time was to cap people's bandwidth to the internet after a period of sustained burst. They said they wouldn't cap internal network access.
The trick was, connecting to their cache server was considered internal network access. The upshot was, you got sustained high bandwidth but your data also got cached for others to use.
Of course telestra may already be doing transparent proxying, so who knows.
Translated to we'll show you why are products are better in biased fashion, at a more reasonable price than $0,000.00 (free).
Microsoft's point, which was lost on you, is that there is a huge investment in any OS, free or otherwise. Software licensing is a minimal part. Maybe you pay $4,000 for your OS, or $0. The real expense is the $50,000 administrator. How many servers that admin can reasonably manage is where the cost-savings lie.
"\\boxname\c$" only works if you have administrative privileges on that box. You would expect to do whatever the heck you want when you're logged in as root, wouldn't you? Same thing...
I think the author's point is that behind a NAT device, there is no such thing as a "firewall-friendly protocol. The NAT device needs to be manually configured. I think the bigger implication is... what if there's a p2p protocol and no one is able/capable/willing to share what they've got?
Dummynet is great for this sort of application. I set up a small FreeBSD box at work with 5 IPs. I then configured a different set of pipes for each ip, 28.8, 33.6, 56, ISDN and DSL. I also configured different latencies and a small amount of packet loss. Now, if our developers want to simulate a low-speed connection, they configure their browswer to use the appropriate IP, where they connect to squid, and then to the appropriate devel server.