I think he's suggesting Linux as a firewall in the "everyone in network administration does it this way" sense:
Internet Linux Firewall Windows Server
I don't mean that as everyone uses Linux for firewalls, I mean everyone in network administration uses separate box(|en) for their servers. He wasn't suggesting a change in OS.
I think that anyone that makes ANY anonymous network should, from now on, heavily research Tor. I've been using Tor for about a year now, and it keeps getting faster and faster. Right now I'm using it for ALL of my transfers, including web and messaging traffic. It's gotten to the point where it's about 2:1 penalty in speed, I don't even notice it anymore.
All of these European countries have even worse than the RIAA in America, here we at least have the right to release free music, we are just pressured so that 90% of authors release with them...
I happen to like a specific Belgian author (Praga Khan), and was going to buy every album he has (already downloaded every song). If it has to go through a group that is worse than the RIAA, I guess I'm not.
A recent poll done on the streets of London say Slashdot user Aeiri is the biggest prick in the world. 5,281 people were polled, and only 2 had dissenting opinions. The survey was conducted by Slashdot Users R' Us based in Paris.
See, I can do it too, why do you think it's not possible for reporters to do it as well?
But after a great start I think Daleks was the weakest or second weakest episode this season.
Weakest? You did see the first episode, right?
I almost didn't watch the second episode because of how bad the first one was. I'm glad I did, because, IMHO, every episode is better than the previous one.
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?
on
Zeta Goes Gold
·
· Score: 1
If you need the source code then you are free to either go for open source software or buy the source code from the developer.
[troll]
One second, let me get out my checkbook.
Let's see here now five... point... two... bill.. yon.. doll... ers... to... my... cro... soft..
The attack allows attack worse than XSS if an XSS vulnerability exists since this time, it doesn't require you to intereact with the client.
It also requires the client to be behind X proxy which was attacked, or the server to be behind FW-1 with IIS. There are very restricted circumstances, and this should not be "highly critical", maybe moderate, but not highly critical. Highly critical should be reserved for a vulnerability which affects everyone, something that affects every program, every server, and every client. Much like US Homeland Security's "red" terror alert,
The way I see it is: IIS is reading the extra data as another request, that is a vulnerability. FW-1 is not truncating passed it's read (specified by the content-length it chose). Some proxy servers are vulnerable to cache poisoning (what's new, that's hard to completely fix sometimes).
This is just a bunch of vulnerabilities strung together being named under the same name, which is stupid. I think I'll make an exploit which exploits a buffer overflow in a firewall product then exploit a buffer overflow in Windows, however, I won't submit it as two separate vulnerabilities to Bugtraq and the vendors, I'll write a paper on it and call it my 2-Tier Magical Roundhouse Attack.
last I looked, echo means "print this to stdout", which would do no executing and merely expose your evil scheme for the world to see.
That was my point, exposing your evil scheme. I was talking to the other guy, who, in order to try and figure out what your commands were, ACTUALLY RAN THE CODE...
He never really found out what it did that way, and I was just trying to show him what it does.
PS: PERL, DUH, *smacks self in head*
When I see some file starting out with nothing that looks like that, I assume Bash, for some reason. If it were Perl, I would expect a sha-bang explaining that...
That isn't what Tor is designed to do and you know it.
Yeah, I do. However you completely missed my point.
My point is referring to the trolls/spammers, people are saying Tor is bad because it encourages trolls and spammers, and I'm proving them wrong by giving them a better, easier way that a troll/spammer could do what they do, rather than using Tor.
In order to evade the IP ban, they can just alter their MAC address to change their IP and post again. This would effectively work against ANY major site, unless they ban entire ISPs, which would not be smart (5 ISP bans later and no hits anymore, what happened CmdrTaco?).
I was showing the goodness of Tor is not overpowered by the badness that could POTENTIALLY come from it, as people outlined in other posts. There is a better way for them to do it, and they probably already do.
Unfortunately, it's not so easy to change the virtual MAC address of many DSL and/or cable modems which are the actual point of contact to the ISP.
This is a sister post, but I don't want to post twice.
Cable/DSL modems do NOT do this. Routers do, but cable/DSL modems do not. Modems are there to correctly establish the connections to the servers, routers connect through DHCP as a single client and allow multiple "child" clients connect through it. If someone couldn't get their router to work properly with it, then they could just plug their computer directly into the modem.
I have had five different cable/DSL modems, and only one of them behaved like parent's sister post said. Why? Because it WAS a router, it was titled "Cable Modem/Home Router". That wasn't even my most recent one, either.
Here are the commands in plain text. All you have to do is copy and paste it to a new text file, add echo to the beginning of each line and BE SURE TO REMOVE THE "`"S!
I also had to remove the "$"s... not sure what shell you are using but that doesn't work on Bash or ZSH...
Basically it copies your home directory to your shared stuff, then removes your home directory and copies all of/, mixed with as much random data it can spit out before you Ctrl+C it, to your home directory.
Anyone know if there is (or will be) a Linux Tor binary for NAT routers? I have a Linux router, and I'd like to use it as a client in the Tor network but a server for local computers (behind the router).
They have the source freely available for you to download and compile.
Your situation is easily solved by using iptables to only accept incoming connections locally to the server, and open the ports required for the client.
It's not that difficult to change your IP address. All you have to do is change your virtual MAC address and reconnect to your ISP, their DHCP server recognizes you as a different computer.
To change your virtual MAC address under Linux, given you are using the primary ethernet adapter (not sure in Windows): ifconfig eth0 hw ether NE:WM:AC:AD:RE:SS
Tor has a limited amount of IPs, and if trolls are using it in order to post, they are doing it the wrong way.
They enter multiply encrypted. If the requested protocol is HTTP, they exit unencrypted, just as if the exit node had made the request itself.
I think he's referring to the actual computer using Tor.
PC -> Multiply Encrypted and Bounced Through Network -> Non-Encrypted to Server -> Non-Encrypted Back -> Multiply Encrypted and Bounced Through Network -> PC
It comes BACK encrypted, and that's his point, I believe.
Actually, dude, we are not talking about an "Asian-American" since the oppressed person in this case is actually a Chinese national (NOT an American citizen). Your attempt at being politically correct was actually not only politically INcorrect, but it also displayed your vast ignorance and American-centered views. Good try though.
Looks like someone missed a quote from the Big Lebowski.
It was Walter talking to the Dude about an Asian-American, when the Dude called a guy "Some Chinaman", and Walter corrected him.
He posted the text of the SLASHDOT posting, not the actual site. He's "mirroring" the Slashdot article on Slashdot. The same text is available by scrolling up to the top of the page. How is this informative?
I don't believe there was any evidence that the guns didn't work correctly, only that the court dismissed the case because the software was closed source.
I wasn't aware that guns could test somebody's sobriety. I guess you could hand an unloaded gun to the person and see if he tries to shoot you or something.
I think the "too smart for their own good" part of the plan is to assume that even though A knows B's address, it's not important, because A can't prove B is sending anything. All A knows is that to get a file sent, B has to be contacted. B could then pass the request on to D, for all A knows.
HOWEVER, if that plan was used to connect to B, and B was connecting to a Freenet/I2P like network, then that wouldn't be a bad idea. You could just put up random nodes with nothing being served on it (I would) to send encrypted traffic through your computer.
C could just be another node in B's network, as well.
If it is part of the original code, and every used it, then they can't just pick on the random Bs they get.
Another point is, since ACKs would not work, you would have to accept plain old TCP SYN packets with data, check it, etc, but there is a problem with file integrity this way. If chunk X of file Y were incorrect, the request for X could go from C (the place where the integrity is checked), to A, back to B, through the network, to the sender, spoofed back to C, and the data would be sent through again to C. CRC and hash checks of each chunk like BT currently uses would be pretty much mandatory, as well.
See, you are the first to understand the technology of IP spoofing here (the others don't realize they can't get the packet back), however, even your method is flawed... unfortunetly.
"If they are C, they cannot find out B's address so will not know who's copying their content. They know A's address, but A isn't copying anything."
How does A get B's address? They can just continue doing what they are currently doing on BT and other P2P networks, being A, and get the people who are distributing the (software|music|movies)'s IP addresses.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh?
I think he's suggesting Linux as a firewall in the "everyone in network administration does it this way" sense:
Internet Linux Firewall Windows Server
I don't mean that as everyone uses Linux for firewalls, I mean everyone in network administration uses separate box(|en) for their servers. He wasn't suggesting a change in OS.
I'd have about a 10-foot-long penis
...hmm maybe I should post this as Anonymous Coward...
Actually, those pills shrink your penis. I learned from experience.
I think that anyone that makes ANY anonymous network should, from now on, heavily research Tor. I've been using Tor for about a year now, and it keeps getting faster and faster. Right now I'm using it for ALL of my transfers, including web and messaging traffic. It's gotten to the point where it's about 2:1 penalty in speed, I don't even notice it anymore.
On a TCPA-machine, the TCPA root is the only real machine.
Essentially, each Trusted Computing-program runs on a Neumann-principle machine
Then the Linux/BSD advocates would flip the bird to the TCPA and run "rogue" computers they create/hack up from TCPA thin clients.
Ditto from Belgium
This is ridiculous!
All of these European countries have even worse than the RIAA in America, here we at least have the right to release free music, we are just pressured so that 90% of authors release with them...
I happen to like a specific Belgian author (Praga Khan), and was going to buy every album he has (already downloaded every song). If it has to go through a group that is worse than the RIAA, I guess I'm not.
You're joking, right?
Those are all remixes of video game music from what I can tell.
Of course, those couple of hundred terabytes still don't compare to 347 petabytes.
(347*1024)/200 = 1776.64 times bigger than what you worked with. Quite a big difference.
I've been addicted to Warlords 2 for about 12 years.
Gotta love DOSBox.
Soldat is an awesome game, but I haven't been able to get it to work under Wine or Cedega.
A recent poll done on the streets of London say Slashdot user Aeiri is the biggest prick in the world. 5,281 people were polled, and only 2 had dissenting opinions. The survey was conducted by Slashdot Users R' Us based in Paris.
See, I can do it too, why do you think it's not possible for reporters to do it as well?
But after a great start I think Daleks was the weakest or second weakest episode this season.
Weakest? You did see the first episode, right?
I almost didn't watch the second episode because of how bad the first one was. I'm glad I did, because, IMHO, every episode is better than the previous one.
If you need the source code then you are free to either go for open source software or buy the source code from the developer.
[troll]
One second, let me get out my checkbook.
Let's see here now five... point... two... bill.. yon.. doll... ers... to... my... cro... soft..
There! I just hope the check doesn't bounce...
The attack allows attack worse than XSS if an XSS vulnerability exists since this time, it doesn't require you to intereact with the client.
It also requires the client to be behind X proxy which was attacked, or the server to be behind FW-1 with IIS. There are very restricted circumstances, and this should not be "highly critical", maybe moderate, but not highly critical. Highly critical should be reserved for a vulnerability which affects everyone, something that affects every program, every server, and every client. Much like US Homeland Security's "red" terror alert,
The way I see it is: IIS is reading the extra data as another request, that is a vulnerability. FW-1 is not truncating passed it's read (specified by the content-length it chose). Some proxy servers are vulnerable to cache poisoning (what's new, that's hard to completely fix sometimes).
This is just a bunch of vulnerabilities strung together being named under the same name, which is stupid. I think I'll make an exploit which exploits a buffer overflow in a firewall product then exploit a buffer overflow in Windows, however, I won't submit it as two separate vulnerabilities to Bugtraq and the vendors, I'll write a paper on it and call it my 2-Tier Magical Roundhouse Attack.
last I looked, echo means "print this to stdout", which would do no executing and merely expose your evil scheme for the world to see.
That was my point, exposing your evil scheme. I was talking to the other guy, who, in order to try and figure out what your commands were, ACTUALLY RAN THE CODE...
He never really found out what it did that way, and I was just trying to show him what it does.
PS: PERL, DUH, *smacks self in head*
When I see some file starting out with nothing that looks like that, I assume Bash, for some reason. If it were Perl, I would expect a sha-bang explaining that...
That isn't what Tor is designed to do and you know it.
Yeah, I do. However you completely missed my point.
My point is referring to the trolls/spammers, people are saying Tor is bad because it encourages trolls and spammers, and I'm proving them wrong by giving them a better, easier way that a troll/spammer could do what they do, rather than using Tor.
In order to evade the IP ban, they can just alter their MAC address to change their IP and post again. This would effectively work against ANY major site, unless they ban entire ISPs, which would not be smart (5 ISP bans later and no hits anymore, what happened CmdrTaco?).
I was showing the goodness of Tor is not overpowered by the badness that could POTENTIALLY come from it, as people outlined in other posts. There is a better way for them to do it, and they probably already do.
Unfortunately, it's not so easy to change the virtual MAC address of many DSL and/or cable modems which are the actual point of contact to the ISP.
This is a sister post, but I don't want to post twice.
Cable/DSL modems do NOT do this. Routers do, but cable/DSL modems do not. Modems are there to correctly establish the connections to the servers, routers connect through DHCP as a single client and allow multiple "child" clients connect through it. If someone couldn't get their router to work properly with it, then they could just plug their computer directly into the modem.
I have had five different cable/DSL modems, and only one of them behaved like parent's sister post said. Why? Because it WAS a router, it was titled "Cable Modem/Home Router". That wasn't even my most recent one, either.
Here are the commands in plain text. All you have to do is copy and paste it to a new text file, add echo to the beginning of each line and BE SURE TO REMOVE THE "`"S!
/dev/random ~
/, mixed with as much random data it can spit out before you Ctrl+C it, to your home directory.
I also had to remove the "$"s... not sure what shell you are using but that doesn't work on Bash or ZSH...
cp -r ~ nfs://myserver/myhome
rm -r -f ~
sudo cp /
Basically it copies your home directory to your shared stuff, then removes your home directory and copies all of
Anyone know if there is (or will be) a Linux Tor binary for NAT routers? I have a Linux router, and I'd like to use it as a client in the Tor network but a server for local computers (behind the router).
They have the source freely available for you to download and compile.
Your situation is easily solved by using iptables to only accept incoming connections locally to the server, and open the ports required for the client.
It's not that difficult to change your IP address. All you have to do is change your virtual MAC address and reconnect to your ISP, their DHCP server recognizes you as a different computer.
To change your virtual MAC address under Linux, given you are using the primary ethernet adapter (not sure in Windows):
ifconfig eth0 hw ether NE:WM:AC:AD:RE:SS
Tor has a limited amount of IPs, and if trolls are using it in order to post, they are doing it the wrong way.
They enter multiply encrypted. If the requested protocol is HTTP, they exit unencrypted, just as if the exit node had made the request itself.
I think he's referring to the actual computer using Tor.
PC -> Multiply Encrypted and Bounced Through Network -> Non-Encrypted to Server -> Non-Encrypted Back -> Multiply Encrypted and Bounced Through Network -> PC
It comes BACK encrypted, and that's his point, I believe.
Actually, dude, we are not talking about an "Asian-American" since the oppressed person in this case is actually a Chinese national (NOT an American citizen). Your attempt at being politically correct was actually not only politically INcorrect, but it also displayed your vast ignorance and American-centered views. Good try though.
Looks like someone missed a quote from the Big Lebowski.
It was Walter talking to the Dude about an Asian-American, when the Dude called a guy "Some Chinaman", and Walter corrected him.
8 + 1 = 9
A: 10
Good job with the math so far...
8 / 10 = 0.8
Oh! Now 8 + 1 = 8...
I just can't see you bash Friends like that. It deserves much higher than a 0.8. Now, with my correction, it gets the 0.9 that it deserves!
INFORMATIVE?
Mods, what are you SMOKING?
He posted the text of the SLASHDOT posting, not the actual site. He's "mirroring" the Slashdot article on Slashdot. The same text is available by scrolling up to the top of the page. How is this informative?
I don't believe there was any evidence that the guns didn't work correctly, only that the court dismissed the case because the software was closed source.
I wasn't aware that guns could test somebody's sobriety. I guess you could hand an unloaded gun to the person and see if he tries to shoot you or something.
I think the "too smart for their own good" part of the plan is to assume that even though A knows B's address, it's not important, because A can't prove B is sending anything. All A knows is that to get a file sent, B has to be contacted. B could then pass the request on to D, for all A knows.
HOWEVER, if that plan was used to connect to B, and B was connecting to a Freenet/I2P like network, then that wouldn't be a bad idea. You could just put up random nodes with nothing being served on it (I would) to send encrypted traffic through your computer.
C could just be another node in B's network, as well.
If it is part of the original code, and every used it, then they can't just pick on the random Bs they get.
Another point is, since ACKs would not work, you would have to accept plain old TCP SYN packets with data, check it, etc, but there is a problem with file integrity this way. If chunk X of file Y were incorrect, the request for X could go from C (the place where the integrity is checked), to A, back to B, through the network, to the sender, spoofed back to C, and the data would be sent through again to C. CRC and hash checks of each chunk like BT currently uses would be pretty much mandatory, as well.
Did any of that last paragraph make sense?
See, you are the first to understand the technology of IP spoofing here (the others don't realize they can't get the packet back), however, even your method is flawed... unfortunetly.
"If they are C, they cannot find out B's address so will not know who's copying their content. They know A's address, but A isn't copying anything."
How does A get B's address? They can just continue doing what they are currently doing on BT and other P2P networks, being A, and get the people who are distributing the (software|music|movies)'s IP addresses.