If it's a gateway, then it's a gateway to the Internet. You can't just be a gateway to part of the Internet... by definition. Do you know anything about how routers work?
And it wouldn't be useful if the decoy router was publically addressable. Random peeps would just hang around and steal his bandwidth; it'd be a wardriving target.
You know that FTP isn't really client-server, right?
Or at least, it's only really client-server in passive mode. The rest of the time, it's two servers talking to each other in the dumbest, most broken way imaginable.
(And if you have no idea what I'm talking about, examine the mechanics of the PORT command. And understand why firewall designers the world over just wish everybody would switch to WebDAV over HTTPS, or sftp, or some other equivalent, so we could pretend FTP never existed.)
This is an iMac; I really doubt it has a floppy drive.:)
By default, USB mass storage devices get automounted at/Volumes/ with your basic read/write access enabled anyway on OS X. You shouldn't need to do anything special to enable write access to USB keys.
The filter's a good idea. Maybe set up squid locally, and prohibit the box from direct-access to port 80 remotely except via squid.
Not sure how to do that on OS X, but it's a BSD so probably ipf or ipfw rules.
I would install fink on the box for sure though. Most of your favourite *nix sysadmin tools are either preinstalled on OS X or available through fink; it will help fill in the gaps in a big way.
WEP's been broken. Long time ago. You really ought to have a firewall on the other side of any 802.11 device, perhaps (as you say) a 486 running Linux or *BSD. Personally, I'd suggest restricting access from the WLAN to port 22 on the firewall box, and then requiring PKI to login to the firewall. Use port-forwarding in SSH to access everything.
There are more people downloading movies on P2P now than selling them. It's gone into the millions of people. There aren't millions of people selling pirated movies. Come on.
At one point earlier in my life, I was in school, with an RBC student loan. (I know - it wasn't my choice, though. Evil provincial government. Evil, evil evil.)
They lost my I'm-in-school form. They had my correct address, and phone number, but didn't use it. Instead they tried calling me at my mother's place. For SIX MONTHS.
She kept on telling them I wasn't here, and trying to tell them I was in a DIFFERENT PROVINCE, but they wouldn't listen.
Eventually, I come home for Christmas. They call me then, and threaten to send the account to a collection agency. I'm like, "Uh guys - I'm in school. Don't you guys send letters?" And they're like, no, policy changed and now we only make phone calls. So anyway.
Moral of the story - if she'd come up to visit me for Christmas, I'd never have spoken to RBC and they would have sent the account to an agency. Dimwits.
I was a Canada Trust customer way, way back in the eighties for a while (switched to Principal) and quit using them mainly because of no-notice service charges (i.e. they started applying service charges, didn't bother to let anyone know what they were first).
I've now been with TD on and off since the early '90s (I went through a period when my main financial institution was a credit union, but I still had some dealings with TD) and they've been the kings of straightforward, even after the merger (which I admit to watching with some trepidation). So I'm not sure you're blaming the right half.;)
Assuming you're correct, then by releasing the names they'd be violating the Bank Act. That Act controls all chartered banks here in Canada, and if you violate it, there are criminal penalties & what's more, theoretically anyway, it's possible for a bank to lose its charter.
We live in a land of regulated banks. I do note, however, that your version of the story is not one I've seen anywhere else. Certainly RBC is (a) a gang of idiots, and (b) like any other bank, they act as a VC, and make investments for themselves. So what's your basis for the claim that they were acting as a broker in this case? (Which they also do, of course.)
Reprinting the letter is a violation of copyright: You're copying the letter.
Re-mailing the letter is not a copyright violation. Assuming you re-mail the original letter, you can stuff it back in the envelope and give it to whomever.
In some circumstances, reprinting the letter might be allowed under fair use. For example, journalists sometimes publish letters written between private parties. It's allowed by fair use, but not copyright.
When will people learn to separate copyright from property?
Received mail is the property of the receiver. However, forwarding email produces a copy of that email. You need a copyright license to copy something that somebody else holds the copyright to.
And yes, you can own something and yet not have the copyright. I just bought "Sethra Lavode" by Steven Brust; I own it. However, I have no right to copy it. Duh.
In that case, they don't care about you.:) They only want to disclaim against people who've actually read the email. Unless you have some automatic-forwarding script set up, you evil bastard.
Suppose an author sends a manuscript to O'Reilly. Does that give O'Reilly the unfettered right to produce ten thousand copies of that book without any contract with the author?
I'm pretty sure O'Reilly itself would say "no," and they'd be right.;)
It's not a contract, and you're partially right, but not for the right reason.
In order for a contract to exist, both parties have to get something from it. For example, one party gets paid,
while the other party has its garbage-cans emptied.
With an email transmission, this is not necessarily the case. To make it a contract, you'd have to argue that the
email itself constituted payment of a kind, which would be tough except in exceptional circumstances.
So what is it? It's a license agreement. Like the GPL. In order to do things that require copyright permission (like
forwarding the email), you need to get permission from the holder of the copyright. This is where the Samoan lawyer is
completely wrong. People forward and print emails all the time, so you can conclude that there's an implied license
allowing people to do it, because it's normal behaviour. However, implied licenses are always trumped by written notice. If I send a manuscript to a
publisher, and the publisher's interested in it, the publisher will probably copy it and send it around to editors to see what they think of it. It's
easier than showing them the original manuscript, one at a time. Publishers do this all the time; they have an implied license to do it. However, if I
put in my submission that the publisher can't do this, then the publisher can't. (Of course, they are free to laugh in my face.:)
So the
"disclaimer" is actually written notice of the originator's claim to copyright.
The problem is that lawyers are used to telephone networks, where you just grab the device and begin to speak; all you have to do is say stuff like "Are you alone?" to establish privilege. And even there - you'd be amazed how many lawyers deal with confidential information over unencrypted cellphones. That's beginning to improve, but I don't know of any cases where a lawyer's been successfully prosecuted for failure to protect solicitor-client privilege.
Where I am, that's mail fraud, which is a criminal offense. I was under the impression in the U.S. that it was a federal offense. What she did was legally just the same as if she'd broken into the post office itself, and removed random letters found there.
My guess was that the USPS didn't believe you, and wanted you to go away.
The Sinclair ZX-80 was 1979, IIRC. And the mass-market Commodore machines were all in the '80s.
Yes, the PET was out there. My junior-high school had PETs; I recall them well.:) But they weren't ubiquitous the way Apple was. You didn't go to a department store and buy them. (Yes: in the '80s, you could go to an ordinary department store to buy your computers, in much the same way that people buy their PlayStations and VCRs now. The rise of the dedicated computer store came later.)
Anyway, I guess the key term you all seem to be missing is "mass-market." There were other mass-produced machines, including the IBM PC (1982), but it wasn't until the late '80s when you got people like Tandy and, yes, Amstrad showing up that the lock was broken on Apple and Commodore's grip of the market.
Hmm. Maybe that does say something good about Apple. Look at where Commodore is now:)
Apple invented the desktop market. The Apple ][ was the first mass-market desktop. There wasn't one before, unless you count some CP/M machines - but I don't. Flip back to 1981, and you're looking at Apple everywhere in the micro world.
Then, the introduction of the Macintosh. The Mac dominated business for several years after its introduction. It wasn't really until the late 80s, when clones started becoming common, that it lost its edge; remember, Apple was cheaper than IBM way back then.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's a gateway, then it's a gateway to the Internet. You can't just be a gateway to part of the Internet... by definition. Do you know anything about how routers work?
And it wouldn't be useful if the decoy router was publically addressable. Random peeps would just hang around and steal his bandwidth; it'd be a wardriving target.
Well, at least until everybody's wristwatch is in possession of forty-two IPv6 addresses. :)
A honeypot is a server that appears to be riddled with security holes. What you have isn't a server, so not a honeypot.
A darknet is an IP-addressable network that appears to be not in use. What you have isn't IP-addressable, so not a darknet. We need a new phrase :)
The equivalents in Linux would be ipchains and iptables, I do believe. (My firewall's FreeBSD, never touched any Linux firewall rules.)
These tools allow you to log raw packets. Handy.
Or at least, it's only really client-server in passive mode. The rest of the time, it's two servers talking to each other in the dumbest, most broken way imaginable.
(And if you have no idea what I'm talking about, examine the mechanics of the PORT command. And understand why firewall designers the world over just wish everybody would switch to WebDAV over HTTPS, or sftp, or some other equivalent, so we could pretend FTP never existed.)
By default, USB mass storage devices get automounted at /Volumes/ with your basic read/write access enabled anyway on OS X. You shouldn't need to do anything special to enable write access to USB keys.
Anything 300+ MHz should be fine for basic X development (although maybe 500+ for Panther).
Not sure how to do that on OS X, but it's a BSD so probably ipf or ipfw rules.
I would install fink on the box for sure though. Most of your favourite *nix sysadmin tools are either preinstalled on OS X or available through fink; it will help fill in the gaps in a big way.
WEP's been broken. Long time ago. You really ought to have a firewall on the other side of any 802.11 device, perhaps (as you say) a 486 running Linux or *BSD. Personally, I'd suggest restricting access from the WLAN to port 22 on the firewall box, and then requiring PKI to login to the firewall. Use port-forwarding in SSH to access everything.
But I'm paranoid :)
There are more people downloading movies on P2P now than selling them. It's gone into the millions of people. There aren't millions of people selling pirated movies. Come on.
At one point earlier in my life, I was in school, with an RBC student loan. (I know - it wasn't my choice, though. Evil provincial government. Evil, evil evil.)
They lost my I'm-in-school form. They had my correct address, and phone number, but didn't use it. Instead they tried calling me at my mother's place. For SIX MONTHS.
She kept on telling them I wasn't here, and trying to tell them I was in a DIFFERENT PROVINCE, but they wouldn't listen.
Eventually, I come home for Christmas. They call me then, and threaten to send the account to a collection agency. I'm like, "Uh guys - I'm in school. Don't you guys send letters?" And they're like, no, policy changed and now we only make phone calls. So anyway.
Moral of the story - if she'd come up to visit me for Christmas, I'd never have spoken to RBC and they would have sent the account to an agency. Dimwits.
That'd be the horde of faceless, nameless MBAs that RBC keeps around. I swear they clone them in a vat somewhere.
I was a Canada Trust customer way, way back in the eighties for a while (switched to Principal) and quit using them mainly because of no-notice service charges (i.e. they started applying service charges, didn't bother to let anyone know what they were first).
I've now been with TD on and off since the early '90s (I went through a period when my main financial institution was a credit union, but I still had some dealings with TD) and they've been the kings of straightforward, even after the merger (which I admit to watching with some trepidation). So I'm not sure you're blaming the right half. ;)
Then you should have changed banks :)
We live in a land of regulated banks. I do note, however, that your version of the story is not one I've seen anywhere else. Certainly RBC is (a) a gang of idiots, and (b) like any other bank, they act as a VC, and make investments for themselves. So what's your basis for the claim that they were acting as a broker in this case? (Which they also do, of course.)
Reprinting the letter is a violation of copyright: You're copying the letter.
Re-mailing the letter is not a copyright violation. Assuming you re-mail the original letter, you can stuff it back in the envelope and give it to whomever.
In some circumstances, reprinting the letter might be allowed under fair use. For example, journalists sometimes publish letters written between private parties. It's allowed by fair use, but not copyright.
Received mail is the property of the receiver. However, forwarding email produces a copy of that email. You need a copyright license to copy something that somebody else holds the copyright to.
And yes, you can own something and yet not have the copyright. I just bought "Sethra Lavode" by Steven Brust; I own it. However, I have no right to copy it. Duh.
In that case, they don't care about you. :) They only want to disclaim against people who've actually read the email. Unless you have some automatic-forwarding script set up, you evil bastard.
Suppose an author sends a manuscript to O'Reilly. Does that give O'Reilly the unfettered right to produce ten thousand copies of that book without any contract with the author?
I'm pretty sure O'Reilly itself would say "no," and they'd be right. ;)
In order for a contract to exist, both parties have to get something from it. For example, one party gets paid, while the other party has its garbage-cans emptied.
With an email transmission, this is not necessarily the case. To make it a contract, you'd have to argue that the email itself constituted payment of a kind, which would be tough except in exceptional circumstances.
So what is it? It's a license agreement. Like the GPL. In order to do things that require copyright permission (like forwarding the email), you need to get permission from the holder of the copyright. This is where the Samoan lawyer is completely wrong. People forward and print emails all the time, so you can conclude that there's an implied license allowing people to do it, because it's normal behaviour. However, implied licenses are always trumped by written notice. If I send a manuscript to a publisher, and the publisher's interested in it, the publisher will probably copy it and send it around to editors to see what they think of it. It's easier than showing them the original manuscript, one at a time. Publishers do this all the time; they have an implied license to do it. However, if I put in my submission that the publisher can't do this, then the publisher can't. (Of course, they are free to laugh in my face. :)
So the "disclaimer" is actually written notice of the originator's claim to copyright.
The problem is that lawyers are used to telephone networks, where you just grab the device and begin to speak; all you have to do is say stuff like "Are you alone?" to establish privilege. And even there - you'd be amazed how many lawyers deal with confidential information over unencrypted cellphones. That's beginning to improve, but I don't know of any cases where a lawyer's been successfully prosecuted for failure to protect solicitor-client privilege.
Where I am, that's mail fraud, which is a criminal offense. I was under the impression in the U.S. that it was a federal offense. What she did was legally just the same as if she'd broken into the post office itself, and removed random letters found there.
My guess was that the USPS didn't believe you, and wanted you to go away.
Now, if I can just persuade them to let me pay back my student loan on the same terms that they let SCO pay them back... :)
The Sinclair ZX-80 was 1979, IIRC. And the mass-market Commodore machines were all in the '80s.
Yes, the PET was out there. My junior-high school had PETs; I recall them well. :) But they weren't ubiquitous the way Apple was. You didn't go to a department store and buy them. (Yes: in the '80s, you could go to an ordinary department store to buy your computers, in much the same way that people buy their PlayStations and VCRs now. The rise of the dedicated computer store came later.)
Anyway, I guess the key term you all seem to be missing is "mass-market." There were other mass-produced machines, including the IBM PC (1982), but it wasn't until the late '80s when you got people like Tandy and, yes, Amstrad showing up that the lock was broken on Apple and Commodore's grip of the market.
Hmm. Maybe that does say something good about Apple. Look at where Commodore is now :)
Then, the introduction of the Macintosh. The Mac dominated business for several years after its introduction. It wasn't really until the late 80s, when clones started becoming common, that it lost its edge; remember, Apple was cheaper than IBM way back then.