begin DaZZa quotation:
> 1) The chance of a combination of binary code coming out in the exact
> format of "+++ath0" is literally staggering. Winning lotto, by comparison,
> would be an every day event.
Um, no, it's not. Or, at least, it would seem that you don't transfer
very much data, if that is your experience. And, besides, I believe
the Chicken Little who posted earlier was in fact claiming that "+++" by
itself was evil nasty sinister villainous stuff.
By the way, I hope you're collecting reports of all those (ahem!) hordes
getting their modems dropped off every time I (or you) type "+++ath".
Fun conjuring up imaginary conspiracies to destroy the world, isn't it?
> 2) IP transfers are, by design, inherently unencrypted.
That's vague enough to be arguably correct, yes.
> Which means that if the text "+++ath0" is sent, that's exactly what you
> see.
I assume you mean in a telnet session, http transfer, or the like. Yes.
But our resident Chicken Little alleges that this triggers hang-ups on
some unspecified (possibly hypothetical) modems that he's terribly,
terribly worried about.
> Exceptions to this are, of course, things like ssh, IPSec etc, which
> perform some 3des encryption on the enclosed text/data.
Yes, but what was your point? You didn't actually state one. (Further,
of course, the _encrypted_ data streams can and do work out to resemble
arbitrary random data streams, including the likes of "+++" and such.)
> I'll run my sniffer on all my modem traffic for as long as it has buffer
> space for. If you can find one instance of "+++ath0" in the capture
> _except where it's specifically intended to be there_, like in this
> message, I'll give you my modem.
I don't want your modem, but you're certainly free to do that. But you
appear to be rather confused about this matter, since what you're
looking for wouldn't demonstrate anything of interest.
> These days, no. Most modern modem manufacturers actually pay Hayes an
> appropriate licenseing fee, and avoid the bug.
I hate to have to tell you this, but there is no Hayes, any more.
And the patented pause, +++, pause method was _hardly_ the only possible
method of performing command escapes.
> However, there are still modem manufacturers who don't - and for whom
> this bug is still very real.
Please feel free to send details. Their customers must have a really
busy time, dealing with randomly encountered "+++" and 'ath" sequences.
> It's not as hard as you think. In fact, I undertook just this exercise not
> so long ago as a result of having exactly your argument with someone
> elsewhere - and found myself red faced and with my foot in my mouth at the
> percentage of modems which actually _do_ respond.
Well, feel free to shovel your data over here. It might be interesting
reading. Or not.
--
Cheers, Everything is gone;
Rick Moen Your life's work has been destroyed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Squeeze trigger (yes/no)?
-- David Carlson (winner, haiku error message contest)
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
