Folks,
Thought you might be interested...
Techtarget has just published an article I've authored for them,
entitled How to avoid security issues with VPN leaks on dual-stack
networks.
The article is available at:
Overnight BGPmon reports that 3356 was adjacent to our AS, but it is
not. Only plausible situation I can think of is Level(3) absorbing the
3549 GlobalCrossing AS.
Is this going on? Or am I suffering from insufficient caffeination?
-cjp
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:20:07PM +0100, . wrote:
CAPTCHAS are a defense in depth that reduce the number of spam
incidents to a number manageable by humans.
No, they do not. If you had actually bothered to read the links that
I provided, or simply to pay attention over the last several
Yep,
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog56/presentations/Monday/mon.lightning.siegel.pdf
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington c...@0x1.netwrote:
Overnight BGPmon reports that 3356 was adjacent to our AS, but it is
not. Only plausible situation I can think of is Level(3)
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:20:07PM +0100, . wrote:
CAPTCHAS are a defense in depth that reduce the number of spam
incidents to a number manageable by humans.
No, they do not. If you had actually bothered to read the links that
I provided, or simply to pay attention over the last several
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
A CAPTCHA doesn't need to be successful against every possible threat,
it merely needs to be effective against some types of threats. For
example, web pages that protect resources with a CAPTCHA are great at
making it much more
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:00:50AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
A CAPTCHA doesn't need to be successful against every possible threat,
it merely needs to be effective against some types of threats. For
example, web pages that
Well, yes and no. Lately, AFAICT, most CAPTCHAs have been so
successfully attacked by wgetters that they're quite easy for machines
I wasn't aware that there was now a -breakCAPTCHA flag to wget.
The point I was making is that it's a defense against casual copying
of certain types of
This assumes that your ILOs aren't on their own VLAN, which they
really ought to be; mine were...
Cheers,
-- jra
- Original Message -
From: Michael Loftis mlof...@wgops.com
To: Erik Levinson erik.levin...@uberflip.com
Cc: nanog nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013
--- On Thu, 1/24/13, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
Lately, AFAICT, most CAPTCHAs have
been so
successfully attacked by wgetters that they're quite easy
for machines
to break, but difficult for humans to use. For
example, I can testify
that I now fail about 25% of the
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:20:07PM +0100, . wrote:
CAPTCHAS are a defense in depth that reduce the number of spam
incidents to a number manageable by humans.
No, they do not. If you had actually bothered to read the links
On 13-01-24 13:52, George Herbert wrote:
It's true that relying on the laziness of attackers is statistically
useful, but as soon as one becomes an interesting enough target that
the professionals aim, then professional grade tools (which walz
through captchas more effectively than normal
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 04:43:47PM -0500, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
It is better to have a tent with holes in the screen door than no screen
door. If the damaged screen door still prevents 90% of mosquitoes from
getting in, it does let you chase down and kill those that do get in.
I get this
To resort to plain language instead of overworked metaphor, the
problem with CAPTCHAs is that they're increasingly easier for
computers to solve than they are for humans. This is perverse,
because the whole reason they were introduced was that they were
_hard_ for computers but _easy_ for
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
(Yes, yes, I'm well aware that many people will claim that *their* captchas
work. They're wrong, of course: their captchas are just as worthless
as everyone else's. They simply haven't been competently attacked yet.
And
On 1/23/13, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 02:23:53AM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Once again: captchas have zero security value. They either defend
(a) resources worth attacking or (b) resources not worth attacking. If
it's (a) then they can and will be defeated as
16 matches
Mail list logo
