LOCKOUT has disabled my computer so I can get some work done. Unfortunately I have forgot how to boot up my typewriter and telephone. Damn it where is the power button.
Tax information via email...cool...what's your domain name and MX record? Better yet who's your ISP?
ARE YOU INSANE!!!! I really hope you are using some level of encryption on your email communications. If your not, your...wealthy individuals... won't be wealthy for long.
god, you believe the "they hate our freedom!" line, don't you?
No I don't believe that they hate are freedom, what I believe they hate is our beliefs and morality. Unfortunatlly our beliefs and moral fiber as a society are based upon the fact that our freedoms let us be this way.
...we're addicted to oil...
Please don't tell me that you believe that the war we are fighting are for oil. Any fighting we do in the Middle East is not for oil. If we as a country were that desperate for oil, why would we not start drilling in the rich oil fields of Alaska. This country is quite capable of being self suffcient, but our government will not drill it for sake of the environment. Not to mention, if we were the war mongering oil seeking nation that you believe we are, why would we not just invade Saudia Arabia and take the oil. I'm so tired of people saying that we are fighting for oil.
Instead of trying to detect attacks, how about eliminating the reasons the terrorists have for attacking us in the first place?
O.K. everyone, you heard the man. Let's get rid of all of our freedoms, women must become property, the only true God is Allaha, Let's move society back in time about a 1000 years. That way the terrorists will be happy and stop attacking us. Oh wait, now the/.'ers are up in arms. They want their religion (or lack of one) back. The want their online pr0n. They are threatning to blow up our mud huts unless we move back into the 21st century.
There is no way humanly possible to appease every single group of people on this planet. Realistically, we will always have people that love us and hate us. So as for elimaniting the reasons, if you try to do taht, all you are going to accomplish is making new reasons and new terrorsits.
I never thought I would see the day that the/. crowd would ever recommend that the government do anything to restrcit(and by restrict, I mean training. You know that Big Brother will then be forcing his own views on what you can and can't do.) a persons freedom on the Internet.
Don't get me wrong, I think adware should be completely abolished. I spend more time cleaning up crapware off of computers, than I do viruses. I personally believe the government is actually trying to do the right thing and litigate the way crapware is ditrubuted, and what it can do to your computer.
Unfortunatelly, I don't believe that it will ever be enforced. All of the crapware distributor's will just move off shore where they can't be touched.
A quick warning from their ISP might be just enough to scare them off, and word of mouth to their friends might help to keep others from thinking it's "cool" to attempt to break into computer systems.
Or in my experiences, a quick word from their ISP, just pisses them off and they notify all of their friends, which now are pissed off, and then they tell everone in the IRC room, which in turn piss them off. Now all of these pissed off script kiddies all are attacking your site, instead of a single bored assh*le that has nothing better to do with their time. IMHO, just keep monitoring it, and if an intrusion trully happens, then save all of your logs and call the Feds.
since when has public view been important to linux?
and linux was doing just fine before IBM et al. hint: they came to linux because they saw great potential, no one cold-called IBM and made a sales pitch.
You just answered your own question. IBM and Novell would IMHO never looked at Linux based stratedgies seriously enough, if Linux was not in a favorable public view.
If M$ can successfully beat the linux endorsing companies, they theoretically can put the OS in a bad public light. People will then not trust it, and buy more M$ products, thus reverting the view of Linux back to the hobby it was viewed as 10 to 15 years ago.
(yes, yes, VoIP runs over the internet - I don't see why that's especially relevent - your ISP does not need to know and frankly doesn't care what you're doing with your connection in the same way as the people who make the copper wires your POTS line uses don't care what you're using them for)...
You are right your ISP and Teclo provider could for all intents and purposes care less about what you are using the lines for...until the Feds show up. That's the whole point of the regulations. The Feds want to be able to monitor what you are doing supposedly when they have a legitamte legal reason. I'm just trying to point out that even though you may think it is *end-to-end* communications, there are lots of places and ways to enforce this regulation.
Once your communications leave your control, then they are succeptible to be sniffed and captured(Please don't confuse this with filtering or blocking, that is totally different). Encryption will only keep your neighbors from hearing the conversation. The Government however has always been in the busines of decoding encrypted information, and are quite good at it. You don't really believe that the Govt. can't beak IPSec encrypted communication, do you? They definetily have the resources available to do so.
I think somewhere along the line we diverged from my arguement:....
Wow all of that sounds awfully different from your orginal post of...
I don't understand how this is enforcable - VoIP is an end-to-end system - no middlemen are needed. How are they going to stop me doing VoIP over an IPSEC connection?
From you orginal post it sounded to me like you were questioning how they were going to enforce it, when you believed that there were no middlemen involved. Which is what I was arguing. Now it sounds like you think that they want to ban encrypted VoIP communication.
I am talking specifically about people providing VoIP services, not general internet connections and I cannot see how you can legislate that no ISP is allowed to carry any encrypted traffic of any description (whcih is essentially what you'd need to stop private individuals from being able to transmit encrypted VoIP traffic between them).
Unfortunatelly you can not talk about VoIP without talking about Internet connections. The only way you can talk about VoIP without talking about the Internet is if you are routing the conversation to the PSTN, or if it is all internal communcations within a private organisation. As soon as you call an IP enabled phone that is external to your control, then the traffic is going to be transmitted via IP on other peoples network and/or the Internet. Besides, the big selling point to VoIP is the fact that it does work with the Internet.
I do not believe that the intent of the FCC regulation is to ban encrypted communications. The FCC regulation ownly wants to make it possible to tap the conversation, just like they can tap a normal phone call. How that is going to be accomplished if you encrypt it I do not know. I'm just speculating now, but if they can capture the packets, I would believe that it would not be to hard to get a court order to make you surrender your encryption keys to decrypt the conversation.
Ok, maybe I should've been clearer - they don't dictate what application layer protocols I can use...
Well fianlly, you are starting to see what I'm talking about.
Yes, they could sniff the traffic, but they're not going to be blocking it - if the backbone routers start blocking traffic then the internet is frankly doomed. If the backbone routers start parsing traffic to work out what to filter they would fall over from the load. And if my ISP starts filtering my traffic then I'll damned well find an ISP with a clue...
Who said anything about blocking? I thought we were talking about sniffing and capturing?
Yes, and as my original message said - how are they going to stop me encapsulating it in IPsec? I wasn't arguing that you couldn't sniff VoIP traffic
That's what it sounded like to me...
Ok, I'll hand you an IPSEC encrypted VoIP stream and you tell me what the conversation was about -
I never said that I could do it. I don't have the reources available to me to accomplish that in my lifetime. That does not mean that somone...like say...the Government, may not already have those resources availbale.
if they have the technology to break encryption they wouldn't need to have legislation saying that the protocol allows for them to listen in would they?
Why spend millions/billions of dollars on Super Computer time to break encryption, when you can pass legislation to make it so people have to give you the ability to listen. Sounds much cheaper to me.
My ISP, but they are not a telephone provider and will not be dictating what protocols I can and can't use...
Yes they do, it is called IP.
Yes, but again, they are not going to be dictating what protocols I can use...
Yes they do, it is called SMTP
...some random router on the internet isn't going to sit there sniffing TCP traffic on port 25 and reject it because I'm sending an encrypted email - only the mail relays are in a position to do that...
Who say's that they have to be sniffing for encrypted mail. You have an MX record for your email server don't you? You can sniff for traffic based the IP address that is being sent to or sent from and capture the raw data. After that, you have a copy of the raw data that can be rebuilt and hacked against to break the encryption. Just for fun put a Snort box right outside of your email server and see what you get.
By "end-to-end" I meant that the protocols don't rely on there being lots of VoIP relays understanding the protocol and routing it - the source VoIP server connects directly to the destination server, the routers between just do IP routing and don't know/care what protocol I'm using over IP. The backbone routers are not in a position to be stopping me using whatever protocols I want...
Your are still looking at it at to high of a level. VoIP is still nothing more than data encapsulated into an IP packet. Once the data is transmitted via IP it can be sniffed and captured. IP traffic can be captured at any point once it is being transmitted. Put a sniffer on the data wire after your telephone or VoIP server and make a call. You should be able to see and capture the raw data since it is nothing more than IP packets. After that it is not impossible (even though it may take some time.)to reconstruct the data from the packets and break any encryption.
Take a look at the OSI model, and pay closer attention to the bottom layers.
Capturing IP packets is trivial. Sincce VoIP is nothing but IP encapsulated data, sniffing and capturing phone conversations should be just as trivial as long as you have the resources to rebuild the voice and break the encryption.
I'm not entirely sure who the "providers" are you're talking about - doing VoIP over the internet involves 2 endpoints talking to eachother...
I run a mail server on the end of my DSL line and people wanting to email me send to there, no middlemen involved.
Who provides you your DSL connection? You don't really think that your network is connected directly to the Internet Back bone do you? When people send email to your server from somewhere else, there are lots of middleman involved. That is the hole concept behind routing. When I said "provider" I was meaning your data provider or better known as ISP.
What are these providers doing? Why do you need them?
What these "providers" are doing is connecting you to the Internet, by providing the proper routes to the backbone which will then provide the proper routes to another ISP that will send data to the other endo of your convesation, whether it is VoIP, mail, IM, IRC, etc. The methold of communication does not matter. If it is data that is being transmitted, then there are lots of middlemen involved.
I don't understand how this is enforcable - VoIP is an end-to-end system - no middlemen are needed. How are they going to stop me doing VoIP over an IPSEC connection?
If you are using a provider, are you not actually sitting on that providers network? For eaxmeple, lets say that I am using provider A, and make a VoIP call to a subscriber that uses provider B. Don't my packets travel from my phone to provider A's network, bounce around in their until they are routed to provider B's network, bounce around their until they get routed to the other VoIP phone that I am calling. Sounds like there are a lot of different places that packets can sniffed. It seems to me to be quite possible to sniff the packets. You probably coud do it with Snort or anyother IDS implemetation. The only problem then would be to break any encryption.
...Now, using other proxies on other ports might well be a way around that, but that's what firewall logs are for...
That's exactly why I don't even have a filter in place for my kids. My children are all still young (8, 6, and 2 years old). I DO NOT give them net access without myself or wife being with them. Sure they all have their own PC's, with various educational titles installed for their appropriate age ranges and skill levels. My oldest is now starting to become aware of the Internet. Sure I could put in a filter and censor everything, but I do that all day to protect my lusers at work from themselves. I don't want to have to monitor even more logs when I get home. Not to mention, I feel that filters are a cop out for lazy parents anyways. How many parents are going to vigilantly check and monitor the logs. I don't know about other parents, but I know my schedule is quite hectic between work, soccer games, baseball games, vacations, family functions, etc.
What I do, is block all Internet access to my childrens computer. When they(mostly the 8yr old) want to go to a website or search for something, I then sit down and help him do whatever he wants after I open up the firewall. If I feel that it is appropriate for all of my kids, I then open up the firewall to access it from their PC's. When I feel they are mature enough to understand that the world is not always a nice place, then they will get unfiltered access. Once they have come to this realization, they will have already figured out how to get around any filter or firewall that I would put into polace to stop them. Hell they could just go to a friends house, the library, a WiFi hotspot, Internet Cafe, etc. Until then, I keep the Internet off of their PC's, except for specific sites that WE have visted. This way I can not only ensure that they do not view something that would scar them, I get to spend some quality time with my kids.
What is better for a person, watching porn or reading a book? Reading is way better, especially when it is your favorite porn mag or erotic novel OK, watching porn or cleaning out your garage? Cleaning the garage is a good way to get rid of your stale porn mag and vhs collection to make more room for the new stuff How about watching porn or taking a nap? Taking a nap is way better, my erotic dreams don't even compare to a porno Watching porn or taking 20 minutes to think about what you want out of life while staring at your basement wall? Thinking about what I want out of life is way better, due to the fact that it has helped me visualize my plan of accomplishing my life long goal of becoming a porn star.
Oops, I think I have a problem. Maybe I'll just log off/. and go look at some more porn.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes, the terrorists used over 10000 DDoS zombies to disrupt the Bernoulli Effect and cause the Planes to follow out of the sky.
LOCKOUT has disabled my computer so I can get some work done. Unfortunately I have forgot how to boot up my typewriter and telephone. Damn it where is the power button.
Tax information via email...cool...what's your domain name and MX record? Better yet who's your ISP?
...wealthy individuals... won't be wealthy for long.
ARE YOU INSANE!!!! I really hope you are using some level of encryption on your email communications. If your not, your
god, you believe the "they hate our freedom!" line, don't you?
...we're addicted to oil...
No I don't believe that they hate are freedom, what I believe they hate is our beliefs and morality. Unfortunatlly our beliefs and moral fiber as a society are based upon the fact that our freedoms let us be this way.
Please don't tell me that you believe that the war we are fighting are for oil. Any fighting we do in the Middle East is not for oil. If we as a country were that desperate for oil, why would we not start drilling in the rich oil fields of Alaska. This country is quite capable of being self suffcient, but our government will not drill it for sake of the environment. Not to mention, if we were the war mongering oil seeking nation that you believe we are, why would we not just invade Saudia Arabia and take the oil. I'm so tired of people saying that we are fighting for oil.
Instead of trying to detect attacks, how about eliminating the reasons the terrorists have for attacking us in the first place?
/.'ers are up in arms. They want their religion (or lack of one) back. The want their online pr0n. They are threatning to blow up our mud huts unless we move back into the 21st century.
O.K. everyone, you heard the man. Let's get rid of all of our freedoms, women must become property, the only true God is Allaha, Let's move society back in time about a 1000 years. That way the terrorists will be happy and stop attacking us. Oh wait, now the
There is no way humanly possible to appease every single group of people on this planet. Realistically, we will always have people that love us and hate us. So as for elimaniting the reasons, if you try to do taht, all you are going to accomplish is making new reasons and new terrorsits.
How funny is that? When I click submit I received a popup ad.
I never thought I would see the day that the /. crowd would ever recommend that the government do anything to restrcit(and by restrict, I mean training. You know that Big Brother will then be forcing his own views on what you can and can't do.) a persons freedom on the Internet.
Don't get me wrong, I think adware should be completely abolished. I spend more time cleaning up crapware off of computers, than I do viruses. I personally believe the government is actually trying to do the right thing and litigate the way crapware is ditrubuted, and what it can do to your computer.
Unfortunatelly, I don't believe that it will ever be enforced. All of the crapware distributor's will just move off shore where they can't be touched.
A quick warning from their ISP might be just enough to scare them off, and word of mouth to their friends might help to keep others from thinking it's "cool" to attempt to break into computer systems.
Or in my experiences, a quick word from their ISP, just pisses them off and they notify all of their friends, which now are pissed off, and then they tell everone in the IRC room, which in turn piss them off. Now all of these pissed off script kiddies all are attacking your site, instead of a single bored assh*le that has nothing better to do with their time. IMHO, just keep monitoring it, and if an intrusion trully happens, then save all of your logs and call the Feds.
since when has public view been important to linux?
and linux was doing just fine before IBM et al. hint: they came to linux because they saw great potential, no one cold-called IBM and made a sales pitch.
You just answered your own question. IBM and Novell would IMHO never looked at Linux based stratedgies seriously enough, if Linux was not in a favorable public view. If M$ can successfully beat the linux endorsing companies, they theoretically can put the OS in a bad public light. People will then not trust it, and buy more M$ products, thus reverting the view of Linux back to the hobby it was viewed as 10 to 15 years ago.
We actually would record audio files and then transfer them to the Sun Workstation and play them remotely.
Nothing would beat the reactions of newbies in the lab when their workstation would seem to talk to them and say:
"Newbie, don't do that newbie".
Apparently you do not live in New York.
If I build one of these, will Sigourney Weaver be my Gate Keeper?
But, this is /. so whose serious, right?
/. we don't know any cute girls
Don't you mean...
But, this is
How about if we just paint the end of it hunter safety orange. Then it will look like a toy.
(yes, yes, VoIP runs over the internet - I don't see why that's especially relevent - your ISP does not need to know and frankly doesn't care what you're doing with your connection in the same way as the people who make the copper wires your POTS line uses don't care what you're using them for)...
You are right your ISP and Teclo provider could for all intents and purposes care less about what you are using the lines for...until the Feds show up. That's the whole point of the regulations. The Feds want to be able to monitor what you are doing supposedly when they have a legitamte legal reason. I'm just trying to point out that even though you may think it is *end-to-end* communications, there are lots of places and ways to enforce this regulation.
Once your communications leave your control, then they are succeptible to be sniffed and captured(Please don't confuse this with filtering or blocking, that is totally different). Encryption will only keep your neighbors from hearing the conversation. The Government however has always been in the busines of decoding encrypted information, and are quite good at it. You don't really believe that the Govt. can't beak IPSec encrypted communication, do you? They definetily have the resources available to do so.
Why should't we mandate that all locks be openable by a government master key?
What do you mean, I thought they were....
I think somewhere along the line we diverged from my arguement:....
Wow all of that sounds awfully different from your orginal post of...
I don't understand how this is enforcable - VoIP is an end-to-end system - no middlemen are needed. How are they going to stop me doing VoIP over an IPSEC connection?
From you orginal post it sounded to me like you were questioning how they were going to enforce it, when you believed that there were no middlemen involved. Which is what I was arguing. Now it sounds like you think that they want to ban encrypted VoIP communication.
I am talking specifically about people providing VoIP services, not general internet connections and I cannot see how you can legislate that no ISP is allowed to carry any encrypted traffic of any description (whcih is essentially what you'd need to stop private individuals from being able to transmit encrypted VoIP traffic between them).
Unfortunatelly you can not talk about VoIP without talking about Internet connections. The only way you can talk about VoIP without talking about the Internet is if you are routing the conversation to the PSTN, or if it is all internal communcations within a private organisation. As soon as you call an IP enabled phone that is external to your control, then the traffic is going to be transmitted via IP on other peoples network and/or the Internet. Besides, the big selling point to VoIP is the fact that it does work with the Internet.
I do not believe that the intent of the FCC regulation is to ban encrypted communications. The FCC regulation ownly wants to make it possible to tap the conversation, just like they can tap a normal phone call. How that is going to be accomplished if you encrypt it I do not know. I'm just speculating now, but if they can capture the packets, I would believe that it would not be to hard to get a court order to make you surrender your encryption keys to decrypt the conversation.
Ok, maybe I should've been clearer - they don't dictate what application layer protocols I can use...
Well fianlly, you are starting to see what I'm talking about.
Yes, they could sniff the traffic, but they're not going to be blocking it - if the backbone routers start blocking traffic then the internet is frankly doomed. If the backbone routers start parsing traffic to work out what to filter they would fall over from the load. And if my ISP starts filtering my traffic then I'll damned well find an ISP with a clue...
Who said anything about blocking? I thought we were talking about sniffing and capturing?
Yes, and as my original message said - how are they going to stop me encapsulating it in IPsec? I wasn't arguing that you couldn't sniff VoIP traffic
That's what it sounded like to me...
Ok, I'll hand you an IPSEC encrypted VoIP stream and you tell me what the conversation was about -
I never said that I could do it. I don't have the reources available to me to accomplish that in my lifetime. That does not mean that somone...like say...the Government, may not already have those resources availbale.
if they have the technology to break encryption they wouldn't need to have legislation saying that the protocol allows for them to listen in would they?
Why spend millions/billions of dollars on Super Computer time to break encryption, when you can pass legislation to make it so people have to give you the ability to listen. Sounds much cheaper to me.
My ISP, but they are not a telephone provider and will not be dictating what protocols I can and can't use...
...some random router on the internet isn't going to sit there sniffing TCP traffic on port 25 and reject it because I'm sending an encrypted email - only the mail relays are in a position to do that...
Yes they do, it is called IP.
Yes, but again, they are not going to be dictating what protocols I can use...
Yes they do, it is called SMTP
Who say's that they have to be sniffing for encrypted mail. You have an MX record for your email server don't you? You can sniff for traffic based the IP address that is being sent to or sent from and capture the raw data. After that, you have a copy of the raw data that can be rebuilt and hacked against to break the encryption. Just for fun put a Snort box right outside of your email server and see what you get.
By "end-to-end" I meant that the protocols don't rely on there being lots of VoIP relays understanding the protocol and routing it - the source VoIP server connects directly to the destination server, the routers between just do IP routing and don't know/care what protocol I'm using over IP. The backbone routers are not in a position to be stopping me using whatever protocols I want...
Your are still looking at it at to high of a level. VoIP is still nothing more than data encapsulated into an IP packet. Once the data is transmitted via IP it can be sniffed and captured. IP traffic can be captured at any point once it is being transmitted. Put a sniffer on the data wire after your telephone or VoIP server and make a call. You should be able to see and capture the raw data since it is nothing more than IP packets. After that it is not impossible (even though it may take some time.)to reconstruct the data from the packets and break any encryption.
Take a look at the OSI model, and pay closer attention to the bottom layers.
Capturing IP packets is trivial. Sincce VoIP is nothing but IP encapsulated data, sniffing and capturing phone conversations should be just as trivial as long as you have the resources to rebuild the voice and break the encryption.
I'm not entirely sure who the "providers" are you're talking about - doing VoIP over the internet involves 2 endpoints talking to eachother...
I run a mail server on the end of my DSL line and people wanting to email me send to there, no middlemen involved.
Who provides you your DSL connection? You don't really think that your network is connected directly to the Internet Back bone do you? When people send email to your server from somewhere else, there are lots of middleman involved. That is the hole concept behind routing. When I said "provider" I was meaning your data provider or better known as ISP.
What are these providers doing? Why do you need them?
What these "providers" are doing is connecting you to the Internet, by providing the proper routes to the backbone which will then provide the proper routes to another ISP that will send data to the other endo of your convesation, whether it is VoIP, mail, IM, IRC, etc. The methold of communication does not matter. If it is data that is being transmitted, then there are lots of middlemen involved.
I don't understand how this is enforcable - VoIP is an end-to-end system - no middlemen are needed. How are they going to stop me doing VoIP over an IPSEC connection?
If you are using a provider, are you not actually sitting on that providers network? For eaxmeple, lets say that I am using provider A, and make a VoIP call to a subscriber that uses provider B. Don't my packets travel from my phone to provider A's network, bounce around in their until they are routed to provider B's network, bounce around their until they get routed to the other VoIP phone that I am calling. Sounds like there are a lot of different places that packets can sniffed. It seems to me to be quite possible to sniff the packets. You probably coud do it with Snort or anyother IDS implemetation. The only problem then would be to break any encryption.
If you are small and need the contract to pay you mortgage you either take it (and sell your soul) or leave it and go and flip burgers....
Or better stated...
If you are small and need the contract you can join the Party or leave it and become a prole.
Jesus look out the Thought Police are coming and are going to take you to the Ministry of Love.
Check out this article Here
If I was a gambling man, I bet it can't be much different.
...Now, using other proxies on other ports might well be a way around that, but that's what firewall logs are for...
That's exactly why I don't even have a filter in place for my kids. My children are all still young (8, 6, and 2 years old). I DO NOT give them net access without myself or wife being with them. Sure they all have their own PC's, with various educational titles installed for their appropriate age ranges and skill levels. My oldest is now starting to become aware of the Internet. Sure I could put in a filter and censor everything, but I do that all day to protect my lusers at work from themselves. I don't want to have to monitor even more logs when I get home. Not to mention, I feel that filters are a cop out for lazy parents anyways. How many parents are going to vigilantly check and monitor the logs. I don't know about other parents, but I know my schedule is quite hectic between work, soccer games, baseball games, vacations, family functions, etc.
What I do, is block all Internet access to my childrens computer. When they(mostly the 8yr old) want to go to a website or search for something, I then sit down and help him do whatever he wants after I open up the firewall. If I feel that it is appropriate for all of my kids, I then open up the firewall to access it from their PC's. When I feel they are mature enough to understand that the world is not always a nice place, then they will get unfiltered access. Once they have come to this realization, they will have already figured out how to get around any filter or firewall that I would put into polace to stop them. Hell they could just go to a friends house, the library, a WiFi hotspot, Internet Cafe, etc. Until then, I keep the Internet off of their PC's, except for specific sites that WE have visted. This way I can not only ensure that they do not view something that would scar them, I get to spend some quality time with my kids.
The answer to your questions:
/. and go look at some more porn.
What is better for a person, watching porn or reading a book?
Reading is way better, especially when it is your favorite porn mag or erotic novel
OK, watching porn or cleaning out your garage?
Cleaning the garage is a good way to get rid of your stale porn mag and vhs collection to make more room for the new stuff
How about watching porn or taking a nap?
Taking a nap is way better, my erotic dreams don't even compare to a porno
Watching porn or taking 20 minutes to think about what you want out of life while staring at your basement wall?
Thinking about what I want out of life is way better, due to the fact that it has helped me visualize my plan of accomplishing my life long goal of becoming a porn star.
Oops, I think I have a problem. Maybe I'll just log off