Though I doubt the host 'www.monkey.com' will NOT have a web site on it, given the 'www' prefix...
I'm not saying there is anything whatsoever wrong with doing such a thing. I'm saying that, as part of an IDS, if I run a server that does NOT have an ftp server on it, then I would like to know about all the network traffic coming into my box, period. Even something as simple as an attempted FTP session, yes, is a concern.
Please understand I don't mean to say you should compain about it, or even assume that something bad is happening, only that it is something you should not simply ignore. YOu should record it, make note of it. I'm saying that it has relevance in overall tight network security analysis, period.
I'm not saying portscans are 'bad' to do either, I'm just saying that from a security point of view, as a sysadmin, you DO want to know about ANY non-prescribed network connection attempts or other traffic on your network, so you can properly make *informed* decisions as to what is a threat and what is not.
Re:What about EB and WS?
on
EULA In Games
·
· Score: 2
What do you mean how does it affect the eula?
You are giving up any rights to the software whatsoever if you give it back. I bet it's covered in the eula.
Okay. Attack may be the wrong word, but from a security point of view, someone who is only trying to use a service they already know you have isnt' scanning you; someone is scanning you to find something out they didn't already know, which is something you should be aware of. So yes, it could be considered an attack, from a security analysis point of view. From a legal 'let's sue them' point of view, it's certainly not enough.
And that's not what they said. They said that 'bugtraq will not be distributing Microsoft Security Bulletins'. They said nothign about 'information about microsoft security problems'... they just meant that you will not be able to rely on Bugtraq to release to you MS Security bulletins automatically when released by microsoft.
I mean, I agree to a point.
IF you distribute binaries (isn't making it available to a million interent users 'distributing'?) you must distribute source.
On the other hand... does it mean I can't ever let *anyone* check out my modifications in binary form without providing source? Hmm...
Well, I DO know a thing or two about the OSI model.
OSI layer 2, the data link layer ensures that there are no duplicates and that transmission is error free (dropping a packet *is* considered an error). It's designed to guarantee that it makes it across the underlying physical medium intact.
Think about it. If Layer 4 (Transport) is supposed to do this, why does ethernet bother with collision detection? I mean, you think that should be dealt with at a higher layer, no?
The fact is, layer 2 is supposed to make sure that a message is delivered to another layer 2 device.. and it DOES, if you look at ethernet. Where packets get dropped is at a router, or something that can't process them fast enough, and that's where tcp comes in.
TCP is designed around the premise that any packet loss is due to congestion. Therefore, any packet loss for any OTHER reason, and it doesn't deal with it well. It gets very SLOW if you have a constant packet loss, as it keeps slowing down.
There are many research papers out there on the topic. Look for one by Hari Balikrishna, it was his PH.D thesis from Berkeley, I believe. Good paper about using tcp in half-duplex wireless networks that covers a lot of these issues.
Also... several current wireless offerings have reliable delivery mechanisms, and what the hell are you talking about, most tcp/ip neworks over wireless only ever use UDP? I sure as heck think the wireless connection to my office building uses a lot more than that, as do the thousands of other clients out there with wireless access.
If you want to verify this, rig up a router with linux or something to drop every 100th frame (inducing artificial 1% packet loss) and watch how badly tcp deals with it. Then try it at 2%, etc. You may be surprised what happens.
Why does regulation even have to come up? I mean...
If I take my little network, and hook it to yours, in a completely private deal, who is the government to regulate waht we can and cannot send? At what point then, as this grows, does it suddenly become regulatable?
If the public at large want regulation, they can pay for their own network.
He says 'combined with other evidence gathered, this gives probable cause that his computer is being used as part of illegal activity'.
They did not say 'pgp makes him guilty'. They said that, in addition to everything else he does, it's probably cause.
Having a crowbar does not make you a thief. Being viewed purchasing tools that are also associated with break&enter crimes, as well as having other evidence that seems to point to a life of crime WOULD be probable cause to think you are committing a crime.
Get off the high horse.
Software + OTHER STUFF = probable cause is NOT the same thing as
SOFTWARE = INTENT.
Dude, if I were to sneak into your house undetected, and open your keyboard, and actually add in some small electronics to capture keystrokes for later retrieval, how exactly would you 'know' it was there without actually taking your keyboard apart? Are you some kind of psychic?
Also, if you are not at all expecting someone to have planted a keystroke monitor on your computer, how would you detect it even if it was software? I mean, you might not even LOOK. And to boot, especially if it's windows, it may be far from obvious.
There are two situations I know of where tcp has difficulties. (Not tcp/ip, I mean tcp itself).
One: This one I've seen personally and studied a bit. In wireless connections where the wireless MAC does not do any sort of reliable delivery (in other words, frames can get lost, and the radio units don't know it). This might be due to say, radio noise (and the design of the radio mac layer, of course). Say there is a 5% packet loss due to noise. TCP will continually back down because it was designed to assume all packet loss was due to network congestion.
Two: largely assymetric connections. You know.. stuff like lots of the 'wireless cable' stuff where the outgoing goes over landline and the return path is over radio, TCP can get confused (by confused, I mean it will attempt to back off to dela iwth congestion that's not there, etc). I'm not up on this too much, but noticed many research papers out there on this topic while looking into point number one (a while ago).
The real reason wireless ISP's as they are called, have failed, and this is from hearing from techies inside the companies, is simply a lack of knowledge about both wiress & the INternet in general (as separate entities).
Most large-scale wireless operations using MMDS and such (do I have the right acronym? I mean all that 'wireless cable' shit) that fail or are failing are failing because those running them underestimated, or simply did not understand, the business they were getting in to.
THe second reason might be that, although wireless is pretty cool, it can't compete with cable & DSL. IN urban areas, these are just too easy to set up by comparison.
FOr example... I can think of one small city (80,000 people) who had no dsl, no cable.. because there was no competition. Then LOOK announced it's plans. Bang. Instant cable & DSL, with look nowhere in sight. IT's too much setup time.
I mean, dealing with the numbers they do.. that's the thing.
The mojority of customers are happy as long as tehy don't have to sit on hold. If they get a person right away, but are told 'sorry, we don't know', that's acceptable.
But it seems to me that this 'RGB decimation', although cool, is the exact same thing, but a different approach, to MS ClearType (tm?).
NOt that MS deserves the credit.. but the point is.. isn't this technically a patented MS technology? or is it only the end result that is the same, and the process is quite different.
I'm not sure I understand.
If someone sends me an email, and I feel that I need to share it with the world, then YES, I feel morally justified in doing so. Just as I can publish a letter you wrote me, or repeat a conversation you sent me, or (in my country anyway) record a conversation we had in person, even if you don't know about it. Unless terms discussing the fact that this was to be kept private were discussed, you have *NOTHING* to bitch about.
Is that the IOC will *not* grant a license to record (as they do with television) for a net broadcaster, for ANY amount of money. Tha'ts hwat they are saying.
They'er saying that if some net broadcaster offers them fees like the television companies do, they will NOT hand them out anyway.
What do you mean? I know I'm being the devil's advocate here, but look...
You can't take pictures at the movie theater, or at lots of concerts, or some museums.. the list goes on. IS that the company in charge exercising 'too much control'? No. It's not.
The olympics is different how? It's not a public exhibition.. they aren't 'outlawing' olympic pictures.. they are simply not giving license for web broadcasters to get the media they need.
ANd the only reason they can do this is because it's what other broadcasters want. Traditinal media *wants* the olympic viewers.
And belive me, when they lose enough viewers over the next few years to the net, things will change.
It should not be regulated. Or rather, it should depend on how the service is sold. Yeah. That's it.
There should definately be an unregulated class of service. I mean, it's simply using our networks to encode and send voice data.. very trivial. Who can regulate that? If they regulate 'VOIP' as a standard, we'll just use something else.
Keep in mind that the UK is much easier for you to enter because you are Canadian, and hence, part of the British Commonwealth. The US is not. This has many ramifications with regards to immigration into the UK & Other British territories.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I doubt the host 'www.monkey.com' will NOT have a web site on it, given the 'www' prefix...
I'm not saying there is anything whatsoever wrong with doing such a thing. I'm saying that, as part of an IDS, if I run a server that does NOT have an ftp server on it, then I would like to know about all the network traffic coming into my box, period. Even something as simple as an attempted FTP session, yes, is a concern.
Please understand I don't mean to say you should compain about it, or even assume that something bad is happening, only that it is something you should not simply ignore. YOu should record it, make note of it. I'm saying that it has relevance in overall tight network security analysis, period.
I'm not saying portscans are 'bad' to do either, I'm just saying that from a security point of view, as a sysadmin, you DO want to know about ANY non-prescribed network connection attempts or other traffic on your network, so you can properly make *informed* decisions as to what is a threat and what is not.
What do you mean how does it affect the eula?
You are giving up any rights to the software whatsoever if you give it back. I bet it's covered in the eula.
Yep. Produce it locally.
But you'll have to get the gas from somewhere...
Okay. Attack may be the wrong word, but from a security point of view, someone who is only trying to use a service they already know you have isnt' scanning you; someone is scanning you to find something out they didn't already know, which is something you should be aware of. So yes, it could be considered an attack, from a security analysis point of view. From a legal 'let's sue them' point of view, it's certainly not enough.
And that's not what they said. They said that 'bugtraq will not be distributing Microsoft Security Bulletins'. They said nothign about 'information about microsoft security problems'... they just meant that you will not be able to rely on Bugtraq to release to you MS Security bulletins automatically when released by microsoft.
I mean, I agree to a point.
IF you distribute binaries (isn't making it available to a million interent users 'distributing'?) you must distribute source.
On the other hand... does it mean I can't ever let *anyone* check out my modifications in binary form without providing source? Hmm...
The GPL is quite specific.. I don't see how it's unclear.
If you release binaries, you must also provide source.
Well, I DO know a thing or two about the OSI model.
OSI layer 2, the data link layer ensures that there are no duplicates and that transmission is error free (dropping a packet *is* considered an error). It's designed to guarantee that it makes it across the underlying physical medium intact.
Think about it. If Layer 4 (Transport) is supposed to do this, why does ethernet bother with collision detection? I mean, you think that should be dealt with at a higher layer, no?
The fact is, layer 2 is supposed to make sure that a message is delivered to another layer 2 device.. and it DOES, if you look at ethernet. Where packets get dropped is at a router, or something that can't process them fast enough, and that's where tcp comes in.
TCP is designed around the premise that any packet loss is due to congestion. Therefore, any packet loss for any OTHER reason, and it doesn't deal with it well. It gets very SLOW if you have a constant packet loss, as it keeps slowing down.
There are many research papers out there on the topic. Look for one by Hari Balikrishna, it was his PH.D thesis from Berkeley, I believe. Good paper about using tcp in half-duplex wireless networks that covers a lot of these issues.
Also... several current wireless offerings have reliable delivery mechanisms, and what the hell are you talking about, most tcp/ip neworks over wireless only ever use UDP? I sure as heck think the wireless connection to my office building uses a lot more than that, as do the thousands of other clients out there with wireless access.
If you want to verify this, rig up a router with linux or something to drop every 100th frame (inducing artificial 1% packet loss) and watch how badly tcp deals with it. Then try it at 2%, etc. You may be surprised what happens.
An issue,that is.
Why is it an issue?
Why does regulation even have to come up? I mean...
If I take my little network, and hook it to yours, in a completely private deal, who is the government to regulate waht we can and cannot send? At what point then, as this grows, does it suddenly become regulatable?
If the public at large want regulation, they can pay for their own network.
But why does everyone keep saying that? THe article *very clearly* states that the feds did this WITH A COURT ORDER.
They can no more tap your phone without an order than hack your box without an order.... I don't see what the big deal is here.
He says 'combined with other evidence gathered, this gives probable cause that his computer is being used as part of illegal activity'.
They did not say 'pgp makes him guilty'. They said that, in addition to everything else he does, it's probably cause.
Having a crowbar does not make you a thief. Being viewed purchasing tools that are also associated with break&enter crimes, as well as having other evidence that seems to point to a life of crime WOULD be probable cause to think you are committing a crime.
Get off the high horse.
Software + OTHER STUFF = probable cause is NOT the same thing as
SOFTWARE = INTENT.
Dude, if I were to sneak into your house undetected, and open your keyboard, and actually add in some small electronics to capture keystrokes for later retrieval, how exactly would you 'know' it was there without actually taking your keyboard apart? Are you some kind of psychic?
Also, if you are not at all expecting someone to have planted a keystroke monitor on your computer, how would you detect it even if it was software? I mean, you might not even LOOK. And to boot, especially if it's windows, it may be far from obvious.
This is fundamentally different than planting a bug or hidden camera? How's that work?
No. The fibbies do NOT have to leave a copy of the warrant on the scene; this wasn't a search warrant, this was an order to do surveilance.
This effect goes away though, if your radio layer does guaranteed delivery.
There are two situations I know of where tcp has difficulties. (Not tcp/ip, I mean tcp itself).
One: This one I've seen personally and studied a bit. In wireless connections where the wireless MAC does not do any sort of reliable delivery (in other words, frames can get lost, and the radio units don't know it). This might be due to say, radio noise (and the design of the radio mac layer, of course). Say there is a 5% packet loss due to noise. TCP will continually back down because it was designed to assume all packet loss was due to network congestion.
Two: largely assymetric connections. You know.. stuff like lots of the 'wireless cable' stuff where the outgoing goes over landline and the return path is over radio, TCP can get confused (by confused, I mean it will attempt to back off to dela iwth congestion that's not there, etc). I'm not up on this too much, but noticed many research papers out there on this topic while looking into point number one (a while ago).
The real reason wireless ISP's as they are called, have failed, and this is from hearing from techies inside the companies, is simply a lack of knowledge about both wiress & the INternet in general (as separate entities).
Most large-scale wireless operations using MMDS and such (do I have the right acronym? I mean all that 'wireless cable' shit) that fail or are failing are failing because those running them underestimated, or simply did not understand, the business they were getting in to.
THe second reason might be that, although wireless is pretty cool, it can't compete with cable & DSL. IN urban areas, these are just too easy to set up by comparison.
FOr example... I can think of one small city (80,000 people) who had no dsl, no cable.. because there was no competition. Then LOOK announced it's plans. Bang. Instant cable & DSL, with look nowhere in sight. IT's too much setup time.
I mean, dealing with the numbers they do.. that's the thing.
The mojority of customers are happy as long as tehy don't have to sit on hold. If they get a person right away, but are told 'sorry, we don't know', that's acceptable.
It's the minority that get pissed at idiots.
Is that you cannot guarantee security on the net ANYWAY. Use encryption.
That is fact, no matter what. You are transmitting data through networks you do not control, and have absolutely no power over.
But it seems to me that this 'RGB decimation', although cool, is the exact same thing, but a different approach, to MS ClearType (tm?).
NOt that MS deserves the credit.. but the point is.. isn't this technically a patented MS technology? or is it only the end result that is the same, and the process is quite different.
I'm not sure I understand.
If someone sends me an email, and I feel that I need to share it with the world, then YES, I feel morally justified in doing so. Just as I can publish a letter you wrote me, or repeat a conversation you sent me, or (in my country anyway) record a conversation we had in person, even if you don't know about it. Unless terms discussing the fact that this was to be kept private were discussed, you have *NOTHING* to bitch about.
If you freely hand out your name, you can't bitch about what they do with it. Especially if it's true. You had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The person has a right to discuss with anyone and everyone who and what was said.
Is that the IOC will *not* grant a license to record (as they do with television) for a net broadcaster, for ANY amount of money. Tha'ts hwat they are saying.
They'er saying that if some net broadcaster offers them fees like the television companies do, they will NOT hand them out anyway.
What do you mean? I know I'm being the devil's advocate here, but look...
You can't take pictures at the movie theater, or at lots of concerts, or some museums.. the list goes on. IS that the company in charge exercising 'too much control'? No. It's not.
The olympics is different how? It's not a public exhibition.. they aren't 'outlawing' olympic pictures.. they are simply not giving license for web broadcasters to get the media they need.
ANd the only reason they can do this is because it's what other broadcasters want. Traditinal media *wants* the olympic viewers.
And belive me, when they lose enough viewers over the next few years to the net, things will change.
The telcos are selling these VOIP companies bandwidth. What's their problem? They are only USING THAT BANDWIDTH.
So they *are* paying for it.
It should not be regulated. Or rather, it should depend on how the service is sold. Yeah. That's it.
There should definately be an unregulated class of service. I mean, it's simply using our networks to encode and send voice data.. very trivial. Who can regulate that? If they regulate 'VOIP' as a standard, we'll just use something else.
Keep in mind that the UK is much easier for you to enter because you are Canadian, and hence, part of the British Commonwealth. The US is not. This has many ramifications with regards to immigration into the UK & Other British territories.