"Why would Cogent have to disconnect from Sprint? Why wouldn't Sprint just turn down the links after the trial period?"
That's what they should have done. But they were afraid that Cogent will scream to the media and their customers that there was a settlement free contract in place and Sprint is breaking the Internet. Basically this is a high stakes version of a bad tenant that moved in to your rental and refused to pay its bills. If you throw them out and cut off their customers, it still ends up looking bad for you and you get a bunch of folks in the media and here in slashdot blaming Sprint for rupturing the Internet.
If Sprint is right and Cogent really lied about the existence of a settlement free peering arrangement to the media, the SEC should investigate them.
This isn't about Sprint charging Cogent for the 3-month trial; it's about Cogent freeloading for nearly a year AFTER the trial expired despite repeated warnings of a disconnection.
Using your newly defined metric, I get to start my own tiny network and peer with all of the tier 1 providers for free right? Heck, I demand free peering with my broadband provider and my home network today!
Cogent is the one behind the story in link and it's obviously one-sided. Most of the time, ISPs get de-peered because they deserve it. However, the smaller ISP almost always gets away with it because they play the part of the victim who got severed and they usually win on the PR front. Pressure mounts and the larger ISP eventually settles and re-establishes the connection despite getting the raw end of the deal.
What generally happens is that these tier 1 ISPs start off with equal amount of traffic that is being routed on behalf of the other ISP so they're both giving each other equal value. But that balance shifts over the years and you might have one ISP giving back 1/8th of what they're taking but the larger ISP is afraid of bad PR if they sever the connection. What might be needed is some sort of arbitrator who will look in to the facts without blaming one side or the other and just examine the facts and issue a recommendation. During that period of arbitration, the peering should continue so that customers aren't affected. If one ISP is found to be unworthy of a settlement peering arrangement because they're not holding up their end of the bargain, then they should be ordered to pay. If they refuse to pay, they deserve the blame for not paying for their Internet backbone.
Plenty of ISPs pay for their peering arrangements if they're not able to build some backbones of equal value. There's no reason some ISPs should get a settlement free peering if they're not willing to upgrade the Internet's backbone infrastructure.
This is NOT a Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) specific attack; it's for any authentication scheme that relies on PSK or Password complexity which affects many VPN solutions as well. If anything, WPA probably has one of the more resilient PSK schemes in use because it was deliberately designed with 100 rounds of SHA-1 hashing to make brute force attacks much more expensive. This affects some VPN and some WPA wireless security implementations.
It generally affects home users who use the home implementation of WPA which uses pre-shared keys (PSK) which are just longer passwords. Some businesses also use WPA in PSK mode so they're affected to. Some VPN authentication mechanisms like PPTP VPN and some IPSEC VPN implementations that rely on passwords or PSKs are also at higher risk.
It has zero affect enterprise mode WPA deployments which use TLS protected authentication such as PEAP or EAP-TLS. Internal LAN authentication schemes such as NTLM and LDAP are also significantly weakened. SSL authentication schemes are not vulnerable to this particular attack.
Roughly 1 out 10 young men in high school qualify to play varsity football (chances are that you'd probably get smashed in high school football). Roughly 1 out of 1,000 men qualify to play college football. Roughly 1 out of 150,000 men are qualified to play in the NFL. It's simply a matter of fact that very few people can run a 4.2 second 40 yard dash, bench press 600 lbs, rifle a football 60 yards down field through a truck tire, or weigh 280 lbs in lean muscle. I am not one of those people and I peaked in high school football, but I'm not going to hate somenoe because they can do things and make the kind of money I can't. You sir should take a breather out of your tin foil hat.
EMP by no means would be victimless. The difference in casualties however is probably 1000-fold higher if that 1.4 megaton explosive went off at the optimum height above a major city. This is why I hope terrorists are so stupid that they would "waste" their nuclear devices like this. It's not that I hope any attack will happen, but I'm not going to put them on the same scale like so many silly geeks that value their computers before human lives. You read the other guy that replied to me who said that he would rather see a blast over a city than an EMP and you have to wonder what kind of values these people have.
Lastly, I still don't even think the EMP will be nearly as bad as you make it out to be. It won't be nearly as bad as the annual hurricanes we get which are the real threats that we need to be dealing with.
"If a terrorist org had a 1MT nuke, they'd probably have a better chance of killing 20m people using the emp option"
Please, please, PLEASE let the terrorists be this stupid. PLEASE waste that nuke on an EMP, please. I guess you've never heard of a low tech option called a blanket. Some of us growing up were too poor to use the heater.
Given the choice between losing a few cars and lamps over 20 million people in New York or some other major city, I say take the cars and electronics. I really hope terrorists or any other enemy are that stupid to use a thermal nuclear device as an EMP bomb.
The thing about EMPs is that you need to answer this question. Would a terrorist use a thermal nuclear bomb to murder 20 million people in New York City, or would they use it to blow out 10,000 street lamps and maybe 10,000 car ignitions? If a terrorist was that stupid, I'd say PLEASE EMP US.
A 1.4 megaton thermonuclear weapon detonated 250 miles above Johnston Island in the Pacific affected street lamps, circuit breakers, cars and radio stations in Hawaiian, 800 miles to the north. Starfish Prime was a thermonuclear device with a yield over a hundred times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Minimal damage 800 miles away. 1% of street lights and some fused ignitions in cars.
That's why you shut off autopwn, I mean autorun with a global group policy throughout your whole active directory. Consumers should turn it off globally with a local group policy. Microsoft should be shot for leaving this feature on by default.
I don't care if you set up 300 football teams; you go join one of those teams and no one will pay to watch you. If you somehow got a chance to play against the NFL, they'd snap you in half and you'll have cleat marks running from your feet up to your face. People in the NFL or any professional sports get paid well because they're the best at what they do and because millions of people pay to watch them. If you've got some sort of talent that can get a million people to watch you, you'd be a millionaire too.
The reason European cars typically get better mileage is because the market demands it over there with gas costing 2-3 times more than in the US. They achieve better mileage with smaller engines. You can have the exact same Model and Make but the US version will typically have the bigger engine because the US market isn't as sensitive to fuel economy.
You're suggesting the equivalent of picking yourself up off the ground by your shoe laces.
First of all, you don't have a big enough antenna nor do you have enough transmit power in the cell phone to be a base station. Second, even if you did, are you going to tether a wire to uplink to the telephone network?
Huh, what are you talking about? I said you need to build a lot more Access Points in to your infrastructure. I did not say you need a separate channel for each access point.
Designing a proper wireless network means you need to put nearby APs on a separate channel with sufficient isolation. You do not need a separate channel for each AP. There's 80 MHz of spectrum in the 2.4 GHz range and 480 MHz of spectrum in the 5 GHz range. Even the largest cell phone providers only have around 100 MHz of spectrum they purchased from the FCC and they make do with it.
P.S. You could run your stuff through a free spell checker in Mozilla Firefox or something.
You either spend the money on the Access Points and limit the number of users to a few people per AP or you deal with over crowding on a few APs. If you want the performance, you need to pay for good infrastructure. You can't expect good performance when 100 people are sharing 24 Mbps of bandwidth on an unmanaged wireless hub with a single collision domain.
Cellular systems use even LARGER cell sizes than Wi-Fi. Hell, it's not even in the same ball park. Cellular providers generally have even less spectrum than Wi-Fi and even the biggest companies only have around 100 MHz. The 2.4 GHz band alone has 80 MHz and the 5 GHz band has 480 MHz of total unlicensed spectrum. The difference here is that the cell providers have exclusive access to that spectrum and they're extremely careful about how they ration the resources.
You're exactly right, very few people understand wireless. Heck, many people in IT probably don't understand the difference between a switch and a hub. An 802.11n wireless AP is essentially a 100 Mbps hub under IDEAL conditions since the hub doesn't really have to deal with signal strength, interference from other hubs.
I couldn't believe the article suggested that it would be a good idea to use 160 Mbps 2.4 GHz 802.11n. That would effectively cut your capacity down to half because you'd be using 40 MHz channels. We only have 60 MHz in the 2.4 GHz band total (80 MHz if we include the guard bands between the channels).
It's also weird that they would complain about 5 GHz not penetrating walls as easily. The whole beauty of 5 GHz is that you can't penetrate walls as easily so you can put an AP in every room and not have to worry about as much interference between the APs. The scalability issues go away if you do one AP per room. Heck, they use 24 802.11a access points on every possible channel on the trading floor of the NY stock exchange to maximize performance.
I recall the CEO of Seagate saying that his company help people store a bunch of crap like smut. Obviously, a lot of that smut, movies, anime, games, etc come from P2P for "free".
Well, you could probably classify me as a professional athlete carrying very little fat at the time and I took up an IT job and got a wife that fed me 2 meals + what I got at lunch. I gained 50 lbs but I still didn't realy look *that* fat and people actually thought I was lifting weights or something but I wasn't. Now I'm "only" 30 lbs over my lean weight and I look like a normal person.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why would Cogent have to disconnect from Sprint? Why wouldn't Sprint just turn down the links after the trial period?"
That's what they should have done. But they were afraid that Cogent will scream to the media and their customers that there was a settlement free contract in place and Sprint is breaking the Internet. Basically this is a high stakes version of a bad tenant that moved in to your rental and refused to pay its bills. If you throw them out and cut off their customers, it still ends up looking bad for you and you get a bunch of folks in the media and here in slashdot blaming Sprint for rupturing the Internet.
If Sprint is right and Cogent really lied about the existence of a settlement free peering arrangement to the media, the SEC should investigate them.
That's one of the better explanations I've heard.
This isn't about Sprint charging Cogent for the 3-month trial; it's about Cogent freeloading for nearly a year AFTER the trial expired despite repeated warnings of a disconnection.
Using your newly defined metric, I get to start my own tiny network and peer with all of the tier 1 providers for free right? Heck, I demand free peering with my broadband provider and my home network today!
Cogent is the one behind the story in link and it's obviously one-sided. Most of the time, ISPs get de-peered because they deserve it. However, the smaller ISP almost always gets away with it because they play the part of the victim who got severed and they usually win on the PR front. Pressure mounts and the larger ISP eventually settles and re-establishes the connection despite getting the raw end of the deal.
What generally happens is that these tier 1 ISPs start off with equal amount of traffic that is being routed on behalf of the other ISP so they're both giving each other equal value. But that balance shifts over the years and you might have one ISP giving back 1/8th of what they're taking but the larger ISP is afraid of bad PR if they sever the connection. What might be needed is some sort of arbitrator who will look in to the facts without blaming one side or the other and just examine the facts and issue a recommendation. During that period of arbitration, the peering should continue so that customers aren't affected. If one ISP is found to be unworthy of a settlement peering arrangement because they're not holding up their end of the bargain, then they should be ordered to pay. If they refuse to pay, they deserve the blame for not paying for their Internet backbone.
Plenty of ISPs pay for their peering arrangements if they're not able to build some backbones of equal value. There's no reason some ISPs should get a settlement free peering if they're not willing to upgrade the Internet's backbone infrastructure.
This is NOT a Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) specific attack; it's for any authentication scheme that relies on PSK or Password complexity which affects many VPN solutions as well. If anything, WPA probably has one of the more resilient PSK schemes in use because it was deliberately designed with 100 rounds of SHA-1 hashing to make brute force attacks much more expensive. This affects some VPN and some WPA wireless security implementations.
It generally affects home users who use the home implementation of WPA which uses pre-shared keys (PSK) which are just longer passwords. Some businesses also use WPA in PSK mode so they're affected to. Some VPN authentication mechanisms like PPTP VPN and some IPSEC VPN implementations that rely on passwords or PSKs are also at higher risk.
It has zero affect enterprise mode WPA deployments which use TLS protected authentication such as PEAP or EAP-TLS. Internal LAN authentication schemes such as NTLM and LDAP are also significantly weakened. SSL authentication schemes are not vulnerable to this particular attack.
http://www.formortals.com/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/119/Default.aspx
Roughly 1 out 10 young men in high school qualify to play varsity football (chances are that you'd probably get smashed in high school football). Roughly 1 out of 1,000 men qualify to play college football. Roughly 1 out of 150,000 men are qualified to play in the NFL. It's simply a matter of fact that very few people can run a 4.2 second 40 yard dash, bench press 600 lbs, rifle a football 60 yards down field through a truck tire, or weigh 280 lbs in lean muscle. I am not one of those people and I peaked in high school football, but I'm not going to hate somenoe because they can do things and make the kind of money I can't. You sir should take a breather out of your tin foil hat.
EMP by no means would be victimless. The difference in casualties however is probably 1000-fold higher if that 1.4 megaton explosive went off at the optimum height above a major city. This is why I hope terrorists are so stupid that they would "waste" their nuclear devices like this. It's not that I hope any attack will happen, but I'm not going to put them on the same scale like so many silly geeks that value their computers before human lives. You read the other guy that replied to me who said that he would rather see a blast over a city than an EMP and you have to wonder what kind of values these people have.
Lastly, I still don't even think the EMP will be nearly as bad as you make it out to be. It won't be nearly as bad as the annual hurricanes we get which are the real threats that we need to be dealing with.
"If a terrorist org had a 1MT nuke, they'd probably have a better chance of killing 20m people using the emp option"
Please, please, PLEASE let the terrorists be this stupid. PLEASE waste that nuke on an EMP, please. I guess you've never heard of a low tech option called a blanket. Some of us growing up were too poor to use the heater.
Given the choice between losing a few cars and lamps over 20 million people in New York or some other major city, I say take the cars and electronics. I really hope terrorists or any other enemy are that stupid to use a thermal nuclear device as an EMP bomb.
The thing about EMPs is that you need to answer this question. Would a terrorist use a thermal nuclear bomb to murder 20 million people in New York City, or would they use it to blow out 10,000 street lamps and maybe 10,000 car ignitions? If a terrorist was that stupid, I'd say PLEASE EMP US.
EMP threat is way exaggerated
http://www.alternet.org/story/25738/
A 1.4 megaton thermonuclear weapon detonated 250 miles above Johnston Island in the Pacific affected street lamps, circuit breakers, cars and radio stations in Hawaiian, 800 miles to the north. Starfish Prime was a thermonuclear device with a yield over a hundred times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Minimal damage 800 miles away. 1% of street lights and some fused ignitions in cars.
That's why you shut off autopwn, I mean autorun with a global group policy throughout your whole active directory. Consumers should turn it off globally with a local group policy. Microsoft should be shot for leaving this feature on by default.
I don't care if you set up 300 football teams; you go join one of those teams and no one will pay to watch you. If you somehow got a chance to play against the NFL, they'd snap you in half and you'll have cleat marks running from your feet up to your face. People in the NFL or any professional sports get paid well because they're the best at what they do and because millions of people pay to watch them. If you've got some sort of talent that can get a million people to watch you, you'd be a millionaire too.
Yup, you're right, you're not a car person.
The reason European cars typically get better mileage is because the market demands it over there with gas costing 2-3 times more than in the US. They achieve better mileage with smaller engines. You can have the exact same Model and Make but the US version will typically have the bigger engine because the US market isn't as sensitive to fuel economy.
Here's some painful lessons for you
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=981
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=777
You're suggesting the equivalent of picking yourself up off the ground by your shoe laces.
First of all, you don't have a big enough antenna nor do you have enough transmit power in the cell phone to be a base station. Second, even if you did, are you going to tether a wire to uplink to the telephone network?
1 for a server and one for each kid.
Huh, what are you talking about? I said you need to build a lot more Access Points in to your infrastructure. I did not say you need a separate channel for each access point.
Designing a proper wireless network means you need to put nearby APs on a separate channel with sufficient isolation. You do not need a separate channel for each AP. There's 80 MHz of spectrum in the 2.4 GHz range and 480 MHz of spectrum in the 5 GHz range. Even the largest cell phone providers only have around 100 MHz of spectrum they purchased from the FCC and they make do with it.
P.S. You could run your stuff through a free spell checker in Mozilla Firefox or something.
Why do you assume it's the poor causing crime? Poverty doesn't cause crime; crime causes poverty.
You either spend the money on the Access Points and limit the number of users to a few people per AP or you deal with over crowding on a few APs. If you want the performance, you need to pay for good infrastructure. You can't expect good performance when 100 people are sharing 24 Mbps of bandwidth on an unmanaged wireless hub with a single collision domain.
Cellular systems use even LARGER cell sizes than Wi-Fi. Hell, it's not even in the same ball park. Cellular providers generally have even less spectrum than Wi-Fi and even the biggest companies only have around 100 MHz. The 2.4 GHz band alone has 80 MHz and the 5 GHz band has 480 MHz of total unlicensed spectrum. The difference here is that the cell providers have exclusive access to that spectrum and they're extremely careful about how they ration the resources.
You're exactly right, very few people understand wireless. Heck, many people in IT probably don't understand the difference between a switch and a hub. An 802.11n wireless AP is essentially a 100 Mbps hub under IDEAL conditions since the hub doesn't really have to deal with signal strength, interference from other hubs.
I couldn't believe the article suggested that it would be a good idea to use 160 Mbps 2.4 GHz 802.11n. That would effectively cut your capacity down to half because you'd be using 40 MHz channels. We only have 60 MHz in the 2.4 GHz band total (80 MHz if we include the guard bands between the channels).
It's also weird that they would complain about 5 GHz not penetrating walls as easily. The whole beauty of 5 GHz is that you can't penetrate walls as easily so you can put an AP in every room and not have to worry about as much interference between the APs. The scalability issues go away if you do one AP per room. Heck, they use 24 802.11a access points on every possible channel on the trading floor of the NY stock exchange to maximize performance.
I recall the CEO of Seagate saying that his company help people store a bunch of crap like smut. Obviously, a lot of that smut, movies, anime, games, etc come from P2P for "free".
Well, you could probably classify me as a professional athlete carrying very little fat at the time and I took up an IT job and got a wife that fed me 2 meals + what I got at lunch. I gained 50 lbs but I still didn't realy look *that* fat and people actually thought I was lifting weights or something but I wasn't. Now I'm "only" 30 lbs over my lean weight and I look like a normal person.