On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:48PM +0200, Martin Schr??der wrote: > 2014-10-17 10:24 GMT+02:00 Bret Lambert <bret.lamb...@gmail.com>: > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:48:22PM +0200, Martin Schr??der wrote: > >> The impossibility to scan for services - which the NSA/GHCQ/... do. > > > > It's a good thing that traffic analysis isn't a thing, then. Otherwise > > they'd be able to check if traffic purporting to go to port 80/443 > > doesn't look like HTTP traffic, or something. > > That's not the scenario here. The scenario is defense against port scans. > > You look like a fool who hasn't read the original paper. >
Quoting the OP a few emails back: > The idea is that the existence of this entire 'ultranet' is > undetectable by even someone snooping all national traffic. So a TCP > port 80 connection looks to the snooper _exactly_ like an HTTP > connection handshake. Only the ISN and the source address mark the > connection as 'ultra' and take it into a back room where it connects > to the real network. Just sayin'.
