The only successful exploits run from a script on a server run from leap
frog access from a list of servers outside of the USA.
Everyone else doing nepharious things is either interesting enough to just
watch or on their way to jail.
Making a dishonest buck just isn't that easy nowadays, but
I miss you guys too! I've yet to find anything quite as good as PLUG here
in Little Rock.
I commented that I am glad to see these proposals opposed from a technical
perspective because from a moral and legal perspective, they are a pretty
clear violation of our rights. Regrettably, I see that
On 11/15/2011 04:37 PM, Lisa Kachold wrote:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/1115_cybersecurity_friedman.aspx
--
I haven't read the proposals (did read the article), but if all they're
doing is changing DNS services, wouldn't (simply) adding entries to the
hosts file of any client
That doesn't always work. Take cases where multiple sites live on a
server with one IP address.
I pinged www.gc.maricopa.edu to get their IP address 140.198.200.163. I
put in firefox and got their site.
I tried the same for www.foxnews.com 24.143.206.89 but got the following
instead.
Adding to /etc/hosts would probably work, though, since then your browser will
be sending the Host: header needed by the server. Just browsing directly to
the IP address won't do that.
alex
On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Derek Trotter wrote:
That doesn't always work. Take cases where
From: Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net
I haven't read the legislation, but since windoze (xp/vista/7) runs its
own resolver (DNS cache), it's conceivable that this might apply to all
windoze hosts, depending on how the word server is defined.
Practically all the machines at work have extensive
I just added the IP addres to my /etc/hosts file, went back to firefox,
tried www.foxnews.com and it worked. Thanks for your comment. I always
wondered how that worked.
On 11/17/2011 12:21 PM, Alex Dean wrote:
Adding to /etc/hosts would probably work, though, since then your browser will
Don't think of anything as too tinfoil hattish anymore. Not too long
ago, we would have thought it foolish to think the government would tell
us what kind of light bulbs we're allowed to buy. Beginning on January
1 it will be illegal to make or import 100 watt incandescent light
bulbs. It
Derek, they are just doing name based Apache Virtual URL's on all the same
server.
The TCP/IP header of the packet provides the information on source and
destination, when not rewritten from NAT, etc. That header information
cross referenced with other packets provides a signature that can
Hi Sam,
We miss you.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Sam Kreimeyer skrei...@gmail.com wrote:
It's good to see an argument against these laws from a purely
technical perspective beyond reemphasizing how easy these protections
are to circumvent. The implementation of these blacklists could
Thank you Lisa for posting the url. It supports notions that I've
believed in for years: The surest way to screw up something is to
involve government. The effects of legislation are more often than not,
the exact opposite of the stated intent.
On 11/15/2011 16:37, Lisa Kachold wrote:
When I read this, there was something I thought of that shows how easy
it would be to get around these bills if they become law. The BBC has
an application they call the iplayer. It lets users catch up on their
favorite shows. Shows the BBC produces are available on the iplayer
soon after
From what I've seen in the article it sounds like some government
bureaucracy would issue a blacklist and network operators would be
required to update their copies of it as often as the blacklist is updated.
I'm also concerned about the freedom of speech issue. It sounds to me
like it would
We are required to implement a blacklist for wire transfers of money very
much like the one proposed. It is constantly having the wrong transfers
blocked. Beauracracies are not good at the details and we're all details.
On Nov 16, 2011 2:37 PM, Derek Trotter expat.arizo...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
The article says:
quote
PROTECT IP applies to every “operator of a non-authoritative domain name
system server,” including local ISPs and even small businesses that run
their own networks.
/quote
I haven't read the legislation, but since windoze (xp/vista/7) runs its
own resolver (DNS
Derek,
To your point about VPNs, you should take a look at this article.
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/hidemyass-anonymity-service-exposes-alleged-lulzsec-hackers-40663
If your activities are deemed serious enough, VPNs will usually
cooperate with law enforcement. There are likely offshore
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/1115_cybersecurity_friedman.aspx
--
(602) 791-8002 Android
(623) 239-3392 Skype
(623) 688-3392 Google Voice
**
HomeSmartInternational.com
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To
It's good to see an argument against these laws from a purely
technical perspective beyond reemphasizing how easy these protections
are to circumvent. The implementation of these blacklists could
inadvertently provide a vector to alter DNS behavior, especially if
they are required to obtain and
18 matches
Mail list logo
