3. Aug 2015 21:38 by b...@debmi.com:
The WiFi jammers have an interesting MO. They don't throw up static on the
frequency, that would also block their own wifi. They spoof
de-authentication packets. I've been looking for a way to detect this kind
of jamming because my WiFi sucks and I live
3. Aug 2015 03:54 by rdobb...@arbor.net:
On 3 Aug 2015, at 6:16, tqr2813d376cjozqa...@tutanota.com wrote:
DDoS = multiple IPs
DoS = single IP
It seems most people colloquially use DDoS for both, and reserve DoS for
magic-packet blocking exploits like the latest BIND CVE, FYI.
3. Aug 2015 04:20 by valdis.kletni...@vt.edu:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 03:58:31 -, tqr2813d376cjozqa...@tutanota.com said:
It seems most people colloquially use DDoS for both, and reserve DoS for
magic-packet blocking exploits like the latest BIND CVE, FYI.
Then they are mistaken,
- Tell user that they're nearly out of storage. Specify how much they've used
and how much they have total. Perhaps include a percentage
- Mention that they could delete email that isn't needed to recover space.
- (optional but nice) Show the subject and sender of the biggest
messages
- (optional
2. Aug 2015 19:59 by jason.lebl...@infusionsoft.com:
My company is being DDoS'd by a single IP from a GoDaddy customer.
DDoS = multiple IPs
DoS = single IP
1. Aug 2015 10:05 by n...@foobar.org:
On 01/08/2015 03:27, Keith Medcalf wrote:
It just means that you cannot use the crappy apps or the crappy app store.
which is fine until Microsoft ties in future software upgrades to the app
store and you find that you can't upgrade without tying
17. Jul 2015 21:06 by will.mcderm...@sjsu.edu:
Load balancers can also be used like this, while maintaining redundancy
(assuming HA LB config). Terminate SSL/TLS on the LB and run plain-text to
the application/appliance. As long as the load balancer is in an acceptable
part of the
Weak ciphers? Old (insecure) protocol versions? Open security issues? Vendor
will never provide a patch? Trash goes in the trash bin, no exceptions.
15. Jul 2015 01:33 by cmaur...@xyonet.com:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to
understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on
the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the
clients get everything
27. Jun 2015 22:53 by j...@baylink.com:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7568.txt
Finally. Now for the many years of websites supporting it anyways because
windows xp.
27. Jun 2015 03:06 by j...@baylink.com:
And that's the ballgame.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/3b5p3i/arin_just_subdivided_their_last_1718192021_and_22
And here's to another eternity of shitty ISPs not implementing IPv6 because
'they have enough v4 already'.
24. Jun 2015 02:06 by j...@baylink.com:
Falsehoods programers believe about time:
and More Falsehoods programmers believe about time:
Great links! If only every programmer would take heed... :)
Their airMAX line recently got UNII approval but not their UniFi line to my
knowledge:
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Updates-Blog/airMAX-FCC-UNII-Updates-Lower-Band-Activation-Process/ba-p/1265946
20. Jun 2015 03:36 by fai...@snappytelecom.net:
FCC Cert claims different.
:)
13 matches
Mail list logo
