>Host A sends a UDP packet from port 1234 to NAT B port 1234.
Sorry, this wouldn't work reliably.
Host A might send from his local port 1234, but the NAT device will probably remap the port to a new outgoing port. This has to be done when more than one hosts behind the NAT device want to access the same target.
You will have to have hosts A and B sending the first UDP packets to a third host C without NAT. Host C will provide them with the info how to spoof the communication between A and B in the way that both NAT devices think that A and B are still talking to host C.
And even that will only work with the most simple NAT devices.
The innovation is that the good old software you are running does not automatically profit from cpu upgrades any more. So you need some new which is a good thing for me, cause Im a software developer.
Critics are arguing that studies about standby mode on electronics are completely unnecessary. Who are they to tell me what use of my gadgets is necessary and what not?
Quit wasting money on stupid studies and let the price of energy decide if a use is worth it.
I could explain you why your "nerdity by obscurity" concept is not working at all. But this is l33t wizdom and 1 c4n n01 r15k t0 l0053 mY 1337 p0w3z...
Where's the problem for the phishing site to take your login/pwd and get the correct image from the original bank site?
It's named "Man in the middle attack". PINs/TANs/etc are not save against real phishers. If you want secure online banking, why not have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinTS
No math can proofe that you can "extrapolate the method to other types of cancer". This can only done by good old empirical research. Sure enough is math the importend part in developing the model, but a model is not a cure.
So if it sounds as if we're all at the mercy of hackers just looking for some new challenge, that's partially true
Yes, but thats a good thing! The more hackers checking our software the marrier. What did he expect? That one can get away with a such a crap like ActiveX in IE??
Slashdot Mirror
Ever spend a week without internet access???
From time to time I find TP very useful. What do use instead?
Cfx
Cfx
Sorry, this wouldn't work reliably.
Host A might send from his local port 1234, but the NAT device will probably remap the port to a new outgoing port. This has to be done when more than one hosts behind the NAT device want to access the same target.
You will have to have hosts A and B sending the first UDP packets to a third host C without NAT. Host C will provide them with the info how to spoof the communication between A and B in the way that both NAT devices think that A and B are still talking to host C.
And even that will only work with the most simple NAT devices.
Cfx
Cfx
Cfx
Cfx
So did SUN with their UltraSparc platform. But for the consumer market this really was something new.
Cfx
Cfx
Cfx
1. Go To http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
2. Repeat step one a thousend times
3. Repeat step twho a thousend times
4. Finally *PROFIT*
Cfx
Cfx
Cfx
PS: Sorry for beeing such a Gentoo Portage Nazi... cnr!
In Soviet Russia you can find only old mammals!
or
I for one welcome our new beowulf cluster mammal!
Cfx
PS: Please don't kill dead jokes!
Cfx
You misspelled the word terrorists.
scnr,
Cfx
Ehem... 4 cents is really cute. /me is paying 18ct/KWh (and thats Euro-Cents)...
Cfx
It's named "Man in the middle attack". PINs/TANs/etc are not save against real phishers. If you want secure online banking, why not have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinTS
Cfx
No math can proofe that you can "extrapolate the method to other types of cancer". This can only done by good old empirical research. Sure enough is math the importend part in developing the model, but a model is not a cure.
Cfx
Yes, but thats a good thing! The more hackers checking our software the marrier. What did he expect? That one can get away with a such a crap like ActiveX in IE??
Cfx
Who is this Mc Fly guy anyway???