PDA

View Full Version : Free MySpace, Facebook, YouTube Proxies!



Pages : [1] 2

szi66qhndgdtk597nhhy@gmail.com
03-06-08, 12:35 PM
Free Proxy Website, Unlock MySpace, Facebook, and all other websites.
Secure, and hides IP address!

<a href=http://www.8bi.org>http://www.8bi.org</a><br>
<a href=http://www.7rz.org>http://www.7rz.org</a><br>
<a href=http://www.4pw.org>http://www.4pw.org</a><br>
<a href=http://www.9rt.org>http://www.9rt.org</a><br>

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
03-06-08, 01:23 PM
szi66qhndgdtk597nhhy@gmail.com wrote:
> Free Proxy Website, Unlock MySpace, Facebook, and all other websites.
> Secure, and hides IP address!

Reveals your credentials to whoever is running the proxy, too.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Chilly8
03-12-08, 10:27 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers" <usenet-2008@planetcobalt.net> wrote in message
news:fqpgbuUdhvL1@news.in-ulm.de...
> szi66qhndgdtk597nhhy@gmail.com wrote:
>> Free Proxy Website, Unlock MySpace, Facebook, and all other websites.
>> Secure, and hides IP address!
>
> Reveals your credentials to whoever is running the proxy, too.


Depends on how often the operators get rid of any logs. On my
proxy, I regularly erase the logs and overwrite the erased space with
Evidence Eliminator, to truly ensure user's privacy. Anyone who
operates a public proxy needs to do this OFTEN.

Jens Hoffmann
03-13-08, 02:29 AM
Hi,

>>> Free Proxy Website, Unlock MySpace, Facebook, and all other websites.
>>> Secure, and hides IP address!
>> Reveals your credentials to whoever is running the proxy, too.
>
>
> Depends on how often the operators get rid of any logs.

Wrong. You can see the credentials. It doesn't matter if you store
them or not.

> Anyone who
> operates a public proxy needs to do this OFTEN.

Anyone who wants to run a public proxy should know what he is doing.

Cheers,
Jens

Chilly8
03-13-08, 02:59 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Jens Hoffmann" <jh@bofh.de> wrote in message
news:fralb9$4e4$1@murphy.mediascape.de...
> Hi,
>
>>>> Free Proxy Website, Unlock MySpace, Facebook, and all other websites.
>>>> Secure, and hides IP address!
>>> Reveals your credentials to whoever is running the proxy, too.
>>
>>
>> Depends on how often the operators get rid of any logs.
>
> Wrong. You can see the credentials. It doesn't matter if you store
> them or not.

Not on my system you can't. There are logs, true, but I take care of those
in short order with software like Evidence Eliminator. You would have
to store credentials before you could view them.

Besides, most authentication systems now use SSL encryption, which makes
it impervious to packet sniffing. Virtually every web site I use, that
requires
authentication, uses SSL to foil packet sniffing.


>
>> Anyone who
>> operates a public proxy needs to do this OFTEN.
>
> Anyone who wants to run a public proxy should know what he is doing.

That is true, which is why I Ghost the HD and run Eviedence Eliminator
on a regular basis, to make sure that what IS private STAYS private.
If EE, a product like it, is run at the maximum level of destruction, there
is no forensic recovery technique in existance that is going to recover it.
The more times EE overwrites the data, the harder it becomes to recover
the data.

Sebastian G.
03-13-08, 05:21 AM
Chilly8 wrote:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Jens Hoffmann" <jh@bofh.de> wrote in message
> news:fralb9$4e4$1@murphy.mediascape.de...
>> Hi,
>>
>>>>> Free Proxy Website, Unlock MySpace, Facebook, and all other websites.
>>>>> Secure, and hides IP address!
>>>> Reveals your credentials to whoever is running the proxy, too.
>>>
>>> Depends on how often the operators get rid of any logs.
>> Wrong. You can see the credentials. It doesn't matter if you store
>> them or not.
>
> Not on my system you can't. There are logs, true, but I take care of those
> in short order with software like Evidence Eliminator.


You have been told multiple times that Evidence Eliminator is totally
inappropriate to reliably delete the logs.

> You would have to store credentials before you could view them.


Nonsense.

> Besides, most authentication systems now use SSL encryption, which makes
> it impervious to packet sniffing. Virtually every web site I use, that
> requires authentication, uses SSL to foil packet sniffing.


Most authentication system only authenticate once to create a token, which
is then passed on in clear.

>> Anyone who wants to run a public proxy should know what he is doing.
>
> That is true, which is why I Ghost the HD and run Eviedence Eliminator
> on a regular basis,


See? You obviously don't know what you're doing.


> If EE, a product like it, is run at the maximum level of destruction, there
> is no forensic recovery technique in existance that is going to recover it.


Wrong. Simply look at the filesystem journal, user journal, free space or
the pagefile.

> The more times EE overwrites the data, the harder it becomes to recover
> the data.


But EE doesn't reliable overwrite data.

bz
03-13-08, 07:31 AM
"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
news:63sdijF28l7orU1@mid.dfncis.de:

> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> "Jens Hoffmann" <jh@bofh.de> wrote in message
>> news:fralb9$4e4$1@murphy.mediascape.de...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>>>> Free Proxy Website, Unlock MySpace, Facebook, and all other
>>>>>> websites. Secure, and hides IP address!
>>>>> Reveals your credentials to whoever is running the proxy, too.
>>>>
.....
>>> Anyone who wants to run a public proxy should know what he is doing.
>> That is true, which is why I Ghost the HD and run Eviedence Eliminator
>> on a regular basis,
>
>
> See? You obviously don't know what you're doing.

HE seems to trust himself, but is oblivious to the question of "why should
anyone else trust him?"

He could be FBI, CIA, a criminal looking for blackmail materials, or just a
voyeur.

Anyone who does not know him personally and well would be a fool to trust
his assurances.

Even if he is totally above board and honest, who is to say that a router
that his packets are passing through is not being monitored?


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Chilly8
03-13-08, 12:33 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"bz" <bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A604CA043999WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
> news:63sdijF28l7orU1@mid.dfncis.de:
>
>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>
>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>
>>> "Jens Hoffmann" <jh@bofh.de> wrote in message
>>> news:fralb9$4e4$1@murphy.mediascape.de...
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>>>> Free Proxy Website, Unlock MySpace, Facebook, and all other
>>>>>>> websites. Secure, and hides IP address!
>>>>>> Reveals your credentials to whoever is running the proxy, too.
>>>>>
> ....
>>>> Anyone who wants to run a public proxy should know what he is doing.
>>> That is true, which is why I Ghost the HD and run Eviedence Eliminator
>>> on a regular basis,
>>
>>
>> See? You obviously don't know what you're doing.
>
> HE seems to trust himself, but is oblivious to the question of "why should
> anyone else trust him?"
>
> He could be FBI, CIA, a criminal looking for blackmail materials, or just
> a
> voyeur.
>
> Anyone who does not know him personally and well would be a fool to trust
> his assurances.
>
> Even if he is totally above board and honest, who is to say that a router
> that his packets are passing through is not being monitored?


My proxy is an entry proxy to Tor. Since Tor has its own encryption,
there is no possible way for me, or anyone else, to monitor the
packets. Tor uses military-grade encryption.

Bascially, my proxy allows the use of Tor, without having to install
the software on the user end. I simply installed Tor on my server,
and configured it to be open to the entire world. This allows someone
from a machine locked down against software installation, to use Tor.
Just change your browser settings to surf through my proxy.

bz
03-13-08, 02:21 PM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frboh0$ndn$1@aioe.org:

>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "bz" <bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A604CA043999WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
>> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in
>> news:63sdijF28l7orU1@mid.dfncis.de:
>>
>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>
>>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>>
>>>> "Jens Hoffmann" <jh@bofh.de> wrote in message
>>>> news:fralb9$4e4$1@murphy.mediascape.de...
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Free Proxy Website, Unlock MySpace, Facebook, and all other
>>>>>>>> websites. Secure, and hides IP address!
>>>>>>> Reveals your credentials to whoever is running the proxy, too.
>>>>>>
>> ....
>>>>> Anyone who wants to run a public proxy should know what he is doing.
>>>> That is true, which is why I Ghost the HD and run Eviedence
>>>> Eliminator on a regular basis,
>>>
>>>
>>> See? You obviously don't know what you're doing.
>>
>> HE seems to trust himself, but is oblivious to the question of "why
>> should anyone else trust him?"
>>
>> He could be FBI, CIA, a criminal looking for blackmail materials, or
>> just a
>> voyeur.
>>
>> Anyone who does not know him personally and well would be a fool to
>> trust his assurances.
>>
>> Even if he is totally above board and honest, who is to say that a
>> router that his packets are passing through is not being monitored?
>
>
> My proxy is an entry proxy to Tor. Since Tor has its own encryption,
> there is no possible way for me, or anyone else, to monitor the
> packets. Tor uses military-grade encryption.
>
> Bascially, my proxy allows the use of Tor, without having to install
> the software on the user end. I simply installed Tor on my server,
> and configured it to be open to the entire world. This allows someone
> from a machine locked down against software installation, to use Tor.
> Just change your browser settings to surf through my proxy.

And we have your word that you are not running some kind of
man-in-the-middle monitor.

If I wanted security, I would run my OWN proxy on another machine. THEN I
could trust it. I can't trust YOUR proxy.






--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

bz
03-13-08, 02:25 PM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frboh0$ndn$1@aioe.org:

> My proxy is an entry proxy to Tor. Since Tor has its own encryption,
> there is no possible way for me, or anyone else, to monitor the
> packets. Tor uses military-grade encryption.

Packets in the clear enter your machine from your 'clients'.

Your machine encrypts them and sends them to Tor.
Tor responds and your machine decrypts them and sends them out in the clear
to your 'clients'.

What, exactly, keeps you from running netshark (or even a fork into a file)
on the data stream between you and your clients?

>
> Bascially, my proxy allows the use of Tor, without having to install
> the software on the user end. I simply installed Tor on my server,
> and configured it to be open to the entire world. This allows someone
> from a machine locked down against software installation, to use Tor.
> Just change your browser settings to surf through my proxy.

Why should anyone trust you with their life?




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Chilly8
03-13-08, 05:39 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"bz" <bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A6092CEC9DDWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frboh0$ndn$1@aioe.org:
>
>> My proxy is an entry proxy to Tor. Since Tor has its own encryption,
>> there is no possible way for me, or anyone else, to monitor the
>> packets. Tor uses military-grade encryption.
>
> Packets in the clear enter your machine from your 'clients'.
>
> Your machine encrypts them and sends them to Tor.
> Tor responds and your machine decrypts them and sends them out in the
> clear
> to your 'clients'.
>
> What, exactly, keeps you from running netshark (or even a fork into a
> file)
> on the data stream between you and your clients?

There is no POSSIBLE way that I could monitor was is being sent, if
if I WANTED to. I periodically purge the logs and overwrite with
Evidence Eliminator so that what is meant to be anonymous STAYS
anonymous. Contrary to popular opinion, If you use EE running the
DOD spec for data destruction, there is NO forensic technique in
existance that is going to recover the data.

Also, the next generation of subscription anonymity services is coming
on line now. I have seen adverts for these. These use 256-bit encryption,
and the purveyors of these new services are telling customers to use their
services from work, to avoid monitoring by the boss. They are basically
saying these services, becuase of the 256-bit proprietary encryption,
cannot be monitored by network admins. and with their own proprietary
encryption schem, the data cannot be intercepted with man in the middle
attacks.

Sebastian G.
03-13-08, 05:47 PM
Chilly8 wrote:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "bz" <bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A6092CEC9DDWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
>> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frboh0$ndn$1@aioe.org:
>>
>>> My proxy is an entry proxy to Tor. Since Tor has its own encryption,
>>> there is no possible way for me, or anyone else, to monitor the
>>> packets. Tor uses military-grade encryption.
>> Packets in the clear enter your machine from your 'clients'.
>>
>> Your machine encrypts them and sends them to Tor.
>> Tor responds and your machine decrypts them and sends them out in the
>> clear
>> to your 'clients'.
>>
>> What, exactly, keeps you from running netshark (or even a fork into a
>> file)
>> on the data stream between you and your clients?
>
> There is no POSSIBLE way that I could monitor was is being sent, if
> if I WANTED to.


Nonsense.

> I periodically purge the logs and overwrite


Which doesn't limit to read the data from memory in any way,

> with Evidence Eliminator


And will you ****ward finally understand the Evidence Eliminator is a
horribly broken piece of **** that leaves a lot of data it's supposed to
overwrite!

> Contrary to popular opinion, If you use EE running the

> DOD spec for data destruction, there is NO forensic technique in
> existance that is going to recover the data.


There is a very trivial forensic technique: dd if=/dev/hdXY | grep "search
term". Because EE doesn't overwrite the data as intended.

> becuase of the 256-bit proprietary encryption,
> cannot be monitored by network admins.


You ****ward really enjoy ignoring everything you're being told. The data
can be monitored in RAm after decryption, can be monitored on screen, can be
monitored on keyboard or mouse input...

> and with their own proprietary
> encryption schem, the data cannot be intercepted with man in the middle
> attacks.


And even that's wrong. And why do you think that proprietarity would stop
anyone? Since the algorithm is implemented, it can be reverse engineered.
Which isn't necessary, since you can simply steer the module's interface.

bz
03-13-08, 07:15 PM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frcaf7$k5b$1@aioe.org:

>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "bz" <bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A6092CEC9DDWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
>> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frboh0$ndn$1@aioe.org:
>>
>>> My proxy is an entry proxy to Tor. Since Tor has its own encryption,
>>> there is no possible way for me, or anyone else, to monitor the
>>> packets. Tor uses military-grade encryption.
>>
>> Packets in the clear enter your machine from your 'clients'.
>>
>> Your machine encrypts them and sends them to Tor.
>> Tor responds and your machine decrypts them and sends them out in the
>> clear
>> to your 'clients'.
>>
>> What, exactly, keeps you from running netshark (or even a fork into a
>> file)
>> on the data stream between you and your clients?
>
> There is no POSSIBLE way that I could monitor was is being sent, if
> if I WANTED to.

That might be true. It might not. There is no way that anyone using your
service can KNOW that it is true.

It is certainly not necessarily true of someone _claiming_ to do what you
_claim_ to be doing.

> I periodically purge the logs and overwrite with
> Evidence Eliminator so that what is meant to be anonymous STAYS
> anonymous. Contrary to popular opinion, If you use EE running the
> DOD spec for data destruction, there is NO forensic technique in
> existance that is going to recover the data.

Those require something to run on the client's end so that ALL traffic
over the network is encrypted. You, on the other hand, have all data
between you and the client sent 'in the clear'.

YOU or anyone along the way can intercept THAT data at any time.

>
> Also, the next generation of subscription anonymity services is coming
> on line now. I have seen adverts for these. These use 256-bit
> encryption, and the purveyors of these new services are telling
> customers to use their services from work, to avoid monitoring by the
> boss.

The boss has the LEGAL right to monitor.
The boss can fire them for using these services.

> They are basically
> saying these services, becuase of the 256-bit proprietary encryption,
> cannot be monitored by network admins.

They can be DETECTED. That can be enough to get them fired.

> and with their own proprietary
> encryption schem, the data cannot be intercepted with man in the middle
> attacks.
>

Nothing is truely immune from 'man in the middle' attacks, if all the
packets pass through my equipment.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
03-13-08, 09:09 PM
> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> There is no POSSIBLE way that I could monitor was is being sent, if
>> if I WANTED to.

Just in case you were wondering: you just admitted to being the most
incompetent server admin in the world. But don't worry. We already knew.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Chilly8
03-13-08, 09:41 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:63tp90F28tb3rU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>
>> "bz" <bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A6092CEC9DDWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
>>> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frboh0$ndn$1@aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> My proxy is an entry proxy to Tor. Since Tor has its own encryption,
>>>> there is no possible way for me, or anyone else, to monitor the
>>>> packets. Tor uses military-grade encryption.
>>> Packets in the clear enter your machine from your 'clients'.
>>>
>>> Your machine encrypts them and sends them to Tor.
>>> Tor responds and your machine decrypts them and sends them out in the
>>> clear
>>> to your 'clients'.
>>>
>>> What, exactly, keeps you from running netshark (or even a fork into a
>>> file)
>>> on the data stream between you and your clients?
>>
>> There is no POSSIBLE way that I could monitor was is being sent, if
>> if I WANTED to.
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
>> I periodically purge the logs and overwrite
>
>
> Which doesn't limit to read the data from memory in any way,
>
>> with Evidence Eliminator
>
>
> And will you ****ward finally understand the Evidence Eliminator is a
> horribly broken piece of **** that leaves a lot of data it's supposed to
> overwrite!
>
> > Contrary to popular opinion, If you use EE running the
>
>> DOD spec for data destruction, there is NO forensic technique in
>> existance that is going to recover the data.
>
>
> There is a very trivial forensic technique: dd if=/dev/hdXY | grep "search
> term". Because EE doesn't overwrite the data as intended.
>
>> becuase of the 256-bit proprietary encryption,
>> cannot be monitored by network admins.
>
>
> You ****ward really enjoy ignoring everything you're being told. The data
> can be monitored in RAm after decryption, can be monitored on screen, can
> be monitored on keyboard or mouse input...

Such software, though, can be defeated. There are programs that will scan
for and destroy and keystroke monitors. Such software is LEGAL to buy,
sell, and use, so the makers of anti-keylogging software cannot be
prosecuted
for selling their wares, nor can anyone be prosecuted for using them. I
could
probably walk into any local computer store and buy a programme that can
hunt down and destroy keylooging software.

And there have been cases where prosecutors have been forced to decline
prosecution, because EE, and programs like it, overwrite the data enough,
where nothing can be recovered that would be credible evidence in court.

Vogin investigative services, in Britain, once had an article saying that if
EE was used, they found themselves unable to recover anuthing in the way
of evidence (at least that would stand up in court, anyway). Vogon has been
pushing, for years, for Parliament to make the sale of Evidence Eliminator,
and programs like it illegal in Britain. If an investigative services firm
says
that EE is effective at eliminating evience, then it must be so.

Chilly8
03-13-08, 10:21 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"bz" <bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A60C3FC3ACF1WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frcaf7$k5b$1@aioe.org:
>
>>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>
>> "bz" <bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A6092CEC9DDWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
>>> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frboh0$ndn$1@aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> My proxy is an entry proxy to Tor. Since Tor has its own encryption,
>>>> there is no possible way for me, or anyone else, to monitor the
>>>> packets. Tor uses military-grade encryption.
>>>
>>> Packets in the clear enter your machine from your 'clients'.
>>>
>>> Your machine encrypts them and sends them to Tor.
>>> Tor responds and your machine decrypts them and sends them out in the
>>> clear
>>> to your 'clients'.
>>>
>>> What, exactly, keeps you from running netshark (or even a fork into a
>>> file)
>>> on the data stream between you and your clients?
>>
>> There is no POSSIBLE way that I could monitor was is being sent, if
>> if I WANTED to.
>
> That might be true. It might not. There is no way that anyone using your
> service can KNOW that it is true.
>
> It is certainly not necessarily true of someone _claiming_ to do what you
> _claim_ to be doing.
>
>> I periodically purge the logs and overwrite with
>> Evidence Eliminator so that what is meant to be anonymous STAYS
>> anonymous. Contrary to popular opinion, If you use EE running the
>> DOD spec for data destruction, there is NO forensic technique in
>> existance that is going to recover the data.
>
> Those require something to run on the client's end so that ALL traffic
> over the network is encrypted. You, on the other hand, have all data
> between you and the client sent 'in the clear'.
>
> YOU or anyone along the way can intercept THAT data at any time.
>
>>
>> Also, the next generation of subscription anonymity services is coming
>> on line now. I have seen adverts for these. These use 256-bit
>> encryption, and the purveyors of these new services are telling
>> customers to use their services from work, to avoid monitoring by the
>> boss.
>
> The boss has the LEGAL right to monitor.
> The boss can fire them for using these services.

However, as a provider of anonymity services, it is LEGAL
in Australia, where my online media business is located. I am
NOT breaking ANY Australian laws by providing proxy
services. I operate an online radio station, as well as a
web site, message boards, and a Wiki site, as an
Australian business. As such, my business is ONLY subject
to the laws of AUSTRALIA.

And remember, there in the one friend of one skater that
got injured at 2007 Four Continents, that I gave access to
my proxy to, so she could follow the news on what was
happening to her firend, while she was at work. You see,
my message boards, that include figure skating forums,
were not, and still are not, in any filtering lists. She wanted
to go through my proxy, so that she could access Figure Skating
Universe and Golden Skate, from work, and I was more than
happy to help a fellow figure skating fan out, by giving her the
access. Even though SHE was in Canada, my SERVERS, at
the time, were in GERMANY. As a result, I, as the server admin,
was NOT SUBJECT to prosecution in Canada, for allowing her
to use MY proxy to access Figure Skating Universe, and Golden
Skate, becuase NONE of my servers are in Canada, nor have they
ever BEEN in Canada, so that made her access to FSU,. via
MY proxy, NOT SUBJECT to ANY Canadian laws.


>
>> They are basically
>> saying these services, becuase of the 256-bit proprietary encryption,
>> cannot be monitored by network admins.
>
> They can be DETECTED. That can be enough to get them fired.

In most jurisdictions, you don't have to have a reason to fire them,
but if you not have the actual content of what was being downloaded,
you better say that they worked there, but that you decline to say
anything else beyond that, good or bad.

Sebastian G.
03-14-08, 12:15 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


>> You ****ward really enjoy ignoring everything you're being told. The data
>> can be monitored in RAm after decryption, can be monitored on screen, can
>> be monitored on keyboard or mouse input...
>
> Such software, though, can be defeated. There are programs that will scan
> for and destroy and keystroke monitors.


On any well administrated system the user cannot run arbitrary programs, but
is limited to a whitelist of applications for his daily tasks. Even further,
how do you think he as an unprivileged user could defeat a logger running
as a privileged service or even as a driver?

> And there have been cases where prosecutors have been forced to decline
> prosecution, because EE, and programs like it, overwrite the data enough,
> where nothing can be recovered that would be credible evidence in court.


You really don't get it? Almost any such program, including EE, is horribly
broken.

> Vogin investigative services, in Britain, once had an article saying that if
> EE was used, they found themselves unable to recover anuthing in the way
> of evidence


And I'm not even counting any more how often I've told you that this
statement was made under the assumption that EE would work as supposed -
which it doesn't.

> Vogon has been pushing, for years, for Parliament to make the sale of
> Evidence Eliminator, and programs like it illegal in Britain.

Technically incompetent politicians make all kind of stupid unworkable
suggestions.

> If an investigative services firm says

> that EE is effective at eliminating evience, then it must be so.


Or the firm is incompetent. But then again, no one has ever said any such
thing so far.

Leythos
03-14-08, 06:07 AM
In article <frcaf7$k5b$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "bz" <bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A6092CEC9DDWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> > "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frboh0$ndn$1@aioe.org:
> >
> >> My proxy is an entry proxy to Tor. Since Tor has its own encryption,
> >> there is no possible way for me, or anyone else, to monitor the
> >> packets. Tor uses military-grade encryption.
> >
> > Packets in the clear enter your machine from your 'clients'.
> >
> > Your machine encrypts them and sends them to Tor.
> > Tor responds and your machine decrypts them and sends them out in the
> > clear
> > to your 'clients'.
> >
> > What, exactly, keeps you from running netshark (or even a fork into a
> > file)
> > on the data stream between you and your clients?
>
> There is no POSSIBLE way that I could monitor was is being sent, if
> if I WANTED to. I periodically purge the logs and overwrite with
> Evidence Eliminator so that what is meant to be anonymous STAYS
> anonymous.

HA HA HA - So, until you purge the logs you do keep and monitor the
traffic, even when you say you don't.



--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
03-14-08, 06:14 AM
In article <frcqvm$4gt$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Even though SHE was in Canada, my SERVERS, at
> the time, were in GERMANY. As a result, I, as the server admin,
> was NOT SUBJECT to prosecution in Canada, for allowing her
> to use MY proxy to access Figure Skating Universe, and Golden
> Skate, becuase NONE of my servers are in Canada, nor have they
> ever BEEN in Canada, so that made her access to FSU,. via
> MY proxy, NOT SUBJECT to ANY Canadian laws.

And she was in violation of her company policy and could be fired for
it, and your bad advice about how she could not be detected would make
you liable - so you really need to stay out of the countries that you
scam that on people.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
03-14-08, 09:27 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

On Mar 14, 4:07*am, Leythos <v...@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> In article <frcaf7$k5...@aioe.org>, chil...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9A6092CEC9DDWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> > > "Chilly8" <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:frboh0$ndn$1@aioe.org:
>
> > >> My proxy is an entry proxy to Tor. Since Tor has its own encryption,
> > >> there is no possible way for me, or anyone else, to monitor the
> > >> packets. Tor uses military-grade encryption.
>
> > > Packets in the clear enter your machine from your 'clients'.
>
> > > Your machine encrypts them and sends them to Tor.
> > > Tor responds and your machine decrypts them and sends them out in the
> > > clear
> > > to your 'clients'.
>
> > > What, exactly, keeps you from running netshark (or even a fork into a
> > > file)
> > > on the data stream between you and your clients?
>
> > There is no POSSIBLE way that I could monitor was is being sent, if
> > if I WANTED to. I periodically purge the logs and overwrite with
> > Evidence Eliminator so that what is meant to be anonymous STAYS
> > anonymous.
>
> HA HA HA - So, until you purge the logs you do keep and monitor the
> traffic, even when you say you don't.

Well, there is no way, wiht the particular proxy application I use, I
can completely turn off logs. The firewall software creates logs
whether I want them or not. So, I eradicate them, every few days, with
Evidence Eliminator.

bz
03-14-08, 09:53 AM
Chilly8 <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:43d4b364-298d-4ce6-a9db-
0602168fb3a5@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> Well, there is no way, wiht the particular proxy application I use, I
> can completely turn off logs. The firewall software creates logs
> whether I want them or not. So, I eradicate them, every few days, with
> Evidence Eliminator.

Even if you were to claim to have a scheduled task or cron job that ran EE
every hour [which you certainly COULD do if you so desired],
there would still be the question:

Why should anyone trust YOU with their life, job, etc.?????


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Jens Hoffmann
03-14-08, 03:47 PM
> There is no POSSIBLE way that I could monitor was is being sent, if
> if I WANTED to.

That is wrong.

>
>These use 256-bit encryption,

Meaningless metric without naming the algorithm..

> becuase of the 256-bit proprietary encryption,

proprietary encryption is stupid and usually much worse
then an amateurs implementation of a well known algorithm.

Leythos
03-14-08, 08:30 PM
In article <43d4b364-298d-4ce6-a9db-0602168fb3a5
@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Well, there is no way, wiht the particular proxy application I use, I
> can completely turn off logs. The firewall software creates logs
> whether I want them or not. So, I eradicate them, every few days, with
> Evidence Eliminator.

And there you go, you have and can see and can be doing anything with
the logs you want - you do not offer anonymous connections that are not
tracked. You are tracking your visitors.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
03-15-08, 09:11 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.22442815e8b8758c989689@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <frcqvm$4gt$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Even though SHE was in Canada, my SERVERS, at
>> the time, were in GERMANY. As a result, I, as the server admin,
>> was NOT SUBJECT to prosecution in Canada, for allowing her
>> to use MY proxy to access Figure Skating Universe, and Golden
>> Skate, becuase NONE of my servers are in Canada, nor have they
>> ever BEEN in Canada, so that made her access to FSU,. via
>> MY proxy, NOT SUBJECT to ANY Canadian laws.
>
> And she was in violation of her company policy and could be fired for
> it, and your bad advice about how she could not be detected would make
> you liable - so you really need to stay out of the countries that you
> scam that on people.


IN this case, she came to me BEGGING for access to my proxy.
I was doing a broadcast, at the time, and I got a telephone call
from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy. It was
HER idea to find a way around the company firewall, and
I was more than happy to do this for a fellow figure skating fan
in this situation. This skater was also one of her relatives, though
I will not say WHICH relation she was. When something
happens like that, in your FAMILY, I feel the boss has
NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to keep such information
from you, so I was perfectly WILLING to grant her the
access to my proxy, so I had quickly created an account
for her on my proxy, and then sent all the information on
how to connect, in a private message, or "PM", in the lingo
of users of phpBB and vBulletin.

When something like that happens to someone in your FAMILY,
the boss has NO BUSINESS keeping information from you
on what is happening to said relative, so I was more than EAGER
to grant her the access to allow her to circumvent the firewall of her
Canadian employer, and be able to log on to Figure Skating Universe
and GoldenSkate. With the proxy application I was using at the time,
All she had to do was download a small EXE of about 630K, start
that program, enter the IP for my server, enter her login and password,
and then just change the proxy settings in her browser, and she was
on Figure Skating Universe and Golden Skate, in less than 5 minutes.

In short, it was HER asked for the access, and I GAVE it
to her, and it was HER idea to circumvent the company filters,
to get to Figure Skating Universe and Golden Skate, and NOT
mine. I just merly gave her the tools to do it. While SHE might
have been liable, *I* would NOT have been liable, becuase my
server is NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN in Canada, so I am
NOT SUBJECT to prosecution on ANY Canadian laws, for
conent coming off my server. Since my server, at the time, was
in GERMANY, and my business is in AUSTRALIA, I was
ONLY subject to AUSTRALIAN and GERMAN laws.
Since my server was NOT in Canada, at that time, *I* was
NOT SUBJECT to ANY Canadian laws.

Leythos
03-15-08, 04:45 PM
In article <frgleg$qg4$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> I got a telephone call
> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.

There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her country
and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
03-16-08, 01:29 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <frgleg$qg4$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> I got a telephone call
>> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
>> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
>> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
>> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
>
> There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her country
> and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.

Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
since my radio station is how I make my living. And she was NOT
committing ANY criminal act, under either Canadian, Australian,
German, or United States laws (I was broadcasting a figure skating event
in Colorado at that time). Laws in these countries regarding
unauthorised access to a computer ONLY apply if you BREAK
someone's PASSWORD. In short, the filters/firewalls on her
office network FAILED to block access to MY network, she
was NOT subject to ANY criminal prosecution.

In short, I was NOT facilitating ANY crime, becuase she was NOT
COMMITTING any crime. The firewalls failed to block my network,
hence the laws regarding unauthorised access DID NOT APPLY
in this case, because she was NOT breaking any PASSWORDS,
and second, becuase I had given her PERMISSION, in the form
of a login and password to my machine.

Sebastian G.
03-16-08, 02:33 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


> In short, I was NOT facilitating ANY crime, becuase she was NOT
> COMMITTING any crime.


Mind you, it's still a civil offense.

> The firewalls failed to block my network,

> hence the laws regarding unauthorised access DID NOT APPLY
> in this case,


Wrong. Just because a technical measure fails doesn't make the legal
measures fail.

> because she was NOT breaking any PASSWORDS,
> and second, becuase I had given her PERMISSION, in the form
> of a login and password to my machine.


However she had not been given permission by the administrator of her
company's network.

Leythos
03-16-08, 04:12 AM
In article <frieo5$9ul$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <frgleg$qg4$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> I got a telephone call
> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
> >
> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her country
> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
>
> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,

That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now you
claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe even
laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
03-16-08, 04:56 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2246ae83f7aa853098968d@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <frieo5$9ul$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com...
>> > In article <frgleg$qg4$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >> I got a telephone call
>> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
>> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
>> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
>> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
>> >
>> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her country
>> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
>>
>> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
>> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
>
> That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now you
> claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe even
> laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.

She was NOT committing ANY *CRIMINAL* act. The laws in Canada, just
like in Australia and America, regarding unauthorised access to a computer
ONLY apply if you BREAK someone's PASSWORD. If there is NO
password or authentication system that says "Keep Out!", then the laws
regarding unauthorised access to a computer DO NOT APPLY. If its
not protected by a password, or some other kind of authentication system,
then it is LEGAL to access, so NO crime was committed on her part.

Leythos
03-16-08, 02:53 PM
In article <friqro$dsh$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2246ae83f7aa853098968d@adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <frieo5$9ul$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com...
> >> > In article <frgleg$qg4$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> >> I got a telephone call
> >> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
> >> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
> >> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
> >> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
> >> >
> >> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her country
> >> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
> >>
> >> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
> >> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
> >
> > That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now you
> > claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe even
> > laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.
>
> She was NOT committing ANY *CRIMINAL* act. The laws in Canada, just
> like in Australia and America, regarding unauthorised access to a computer
> ONLY apply if you BREAK someone's PASSWORD. If there is NO
> password or authentication system that says "Keep Out!", then the laws
> regarding unauthorised access to a computer DO NOT APPLY. If its
> not protected by a password, or some other kind of authentication system,
> then it is LEGAL to access, so NO crime was committed on her part.

You keep saying that it's not illegal, but when she gets fired for
breaking company policy, because you enabled her, you are liable for her
being fired, since it can be shown that you knew it was wrong at the
time she asked.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
03-17-08, 12:40 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.224744c591bc834698968e@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <friqro$dsh$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2246ae83f7aa853098968d@adfree.usenet.com...
>> > In article <frieo5$9ul$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com...
>> >> > In article <frgleg$qg4$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >> >> I got a telephone call
>> >> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
>> >> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
>> >> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
>> >> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
>> >> >
>> >> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her
>> >> > country
>> >> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
>> >>
>> >> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
>> >> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
>> >
>> > That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now
>> > you
>> > claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe
>> > even
>> > laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.
>>
>> She was NOT committing ANY *CRIMINAL* act. The laws in Canada, just
>> like in Australia and America, regarding unauthorised access to a
>> computer
>> ONLY apply if you BREAK someone's PASSWORD. If there is NO
>> password or authentication system that says "Keep Out!", then the laws
>> regarding unauthorised access to a computer DO NOT APPLY. If its
>> not protected by a password, or some other kind of authentication system,
>> then it is LEGAL to access, so NO crime was committed on her part.
>
> You keep saying that it's not illegal, but when she gets fired for
> breaking company policy, because you enabled her, you are liable for her

If the filters FAIL to block it, then she could have been accused
of violating company policy, had anybody known what was going
on.

That is why my figure skating message boards are picking up a following
among people surfing from work. Becuase my board is NOT in any
filtering lists, it can be accessed from most workplaces, and as long
as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
accused of violating company policy. It is the same as with
unauthorised computer access, if t here is nothing coming on the
screen saying they are attempting to access a site that violates
company policy, then it is NOT a violation of company policy.

Sebastian G.
03-17-08, 03:03 AM
Chilly8 wrote:

> and as long
> as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
> accused of violating company policy.


Will you idiot finally recognize that a normal policy looks like "No
surfing, except for work duties" and even when the filter does not block it
(or no filter is in place at all), you can still violate this policy and be
hold responsible? Get a ****ing clue before starting to talk about things
you don't understand!

bz
03-17-08, 03:28 AM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:frl08e$a67$1@aioe.org:

> If the filters FAIL to block it, then she could have been accused
> of violating company policy, had anybody known what was going
> on.
>
> That is why my figure skating message boards are picking up a following
> among people surfing from work. Becuase my board is NOT in any
> filtering lists, it can be accessed from most workplaces, and as long
> as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
> accused of violating company policy. It is the same as with
> unauthorised computer access, if t here is nothing coming on the
> screen saying they are attempting to access a site that violates
> company policy, then it is NOT a violation of company policy.

If you engineered a new form of Crack that didn't show up on standard drug
tests and started pushing that, it would not violate the law or company
policy either, but it would still be as bad for people to use and you would
still be morally and ethically wrong.

You would also be legally liable when one of your users was killed while
driving under the influence of the drug.
All your rationalizations are just that, excuses for doing something you
know to be wrong.

Leaving my wallet in my office and failing to lock the office door does NOT
give you a legal right to go into my office and take money from my wallet.
Real-time video feeds, Internet radio, and large downloads eat network
resources. The company pays for the network bandwidth used.
Your users leave a 'fingerprint' behind: excessive network traffic.
Violating the company policy by 'side stepping' blocked ports and sites is
still a violation of their policy.

You still have not answered my main question:
Why should anyone trust you to do what you claim to be doing?

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Leythos
03-17-08, 08:32 PM
In article <frl08e$a67$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> as long
> as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
> accused of violating company policy. It is the same as with
> unauthorised computer access, if t here is nothing coming on the
> screen saying they are attempting to access a site that violates
> company policy, then it is NOT a violation of company policy.

Wrong, the company Policy does not require ANY blocking to be in place
for it to be in effect. Violating the company policy is factual without
or with filtering in place.

You are still an unethical hack and you are liable in many countries for
your bad advice that can get people fired.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
03-20-08, 01:01 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:frl08e$a67$1@aioe.org...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.224744c591bc834698968e@adfree.usenet.com...
>> In article <friqro$dsh$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>
>>>
>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.2246ae83f7aa853098968d@adfree.usenet.com...
>>> > In article <frieo5$9ul$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>> >> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>> >> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com...
>>> >> > In article <frgleg$qg4$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>> >> >> I got a telephone call
>>> >> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
>>> >> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
>>> >> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
>>> >> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her
>>> >> > country
>>> >> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
>>> >>
>>> >> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
>>> >> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
>>> >
>>> > That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now
>>> > you
>>> > claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe
>>> > even
>>> > laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.
>>>
>>> She was NOT committing ANY *CRIMINAL* act. The laws in Canada, just
>>> like in Australia and America, regarding unauthorised access to a
>>> computer
>>> ONLY apply if you BREAK someone's PASSWORD. If there is NO
>>> password or authentication system that says "Keep Out!", then the laws
>>> regarding unauthorised access to a computer DO NOT APPLY. If its
>>> not protected by a password, or some other kind of authentication
>>> system,
>>> then it is LEGAL to access, so NO crime was committed on her part.
>>
>> You keep saying that it's not illegal, but when she gets fired for
>> breaking company policy, because you enabled her, you are liable for her
>
> If the filters FAIL to block it, then she could have been accused
> of violating company policy, had anybody known what was going
> on.
>
> That is why my figure skating message boards are picking up a following
> among people surfing from work. Becuase my board is NOT in any
> filtering lists, it can be accessed from most workplaces, and as long
> as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
> accused of violating company policy. It is the same as with
> unauthorised computer access, if t here is nothing coming on the
> screen saying they are attempting to access a site that violates
> company policy, then it is NOT a violation of company policy.
>
>
>

I know that becuase we now have a Shoutcast feed for talk and sports
programming, there is more a lot more workplace listening. There has
been someoene, in Leeds, England, listening to our figure skating
coverage from work, with connections of 2 hours or more at a time.
Becuase my Shoutcast server is not in any filter lists, people have
NO trouble tuning in from work.

In fact, since implementing a Shoutcast feed, I have been getting a lot
more traffic from office networks all over Europe, because my server
is not in any filtering lists.

Chilly8
03-26-08, 02:17 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2244f0cbc14e7cf098968a@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <43d4b364-298d-4ce6-a9db-0602168fb3a5
> @i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Well, there is no way, wiht the particular proxy application I use, I
>> can completely turn off logs. The firewall software creates logs
>> whether I want them or not. So, I eradicate them, every few days, with
>> Evidence Eliminator.
>
> And there you go, you have and can see and can be doing anything with
> the logs you want - you do not offer anonymous connections that are not
> tracked. You are tracking your visitors.

Here is an article that saying that Evidence Eliminator actually works, and
says that "even someone with a microsocope" will not be able to recover
the data.


http://www.pr-inside.com/now-that-spyware-has-far-exceeded-r503869.htm

Sebastian G.
03-26-08, 02:19 PM
Chilly8 wrote:


> Here is an article that saying that Evidence Eliminator actually works, and
> says that "even someone with a microsocope" will not be able to recover
> the data.
>
>
> http://www.pr-inside.com/now-that-spyware-has-far-exceeded-r503869.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And they even claim that they're a website for free PR.


Aside from this, there're still three major problems:

- Deleting logfiles from disk doesn't do anything about stopping the
operator from logging data in RAM.

- You're using Outlook Express, so you have obviously no clue about security.

- You're a well known idiot here.

Chilly8
03-26-08, 07:00 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:64vm00F2d3066U1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> Here is an article that saying that Evidence Eliminator actually works,
>> and
>> says that "even someone with a microsocope" will not be able to recover
>> the data.
>>
>>
>> http://www.pr-inside.com/now-that-spyware-has-far-exceeded-r503869.htm
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> And they even claim that they're a website for free PR.
>
>
> Aside from this, there're still three major problems:
>
> - Deleting logfiles from disk doesn't do anything about stopping the
> operator from logging data in RAM.
>
> - You're using Outlook Express, so you have obviously no clue about
> security.

Outlook express it the standard for Windows Newsreaders. When I was
at university in America, the professors drummed it into us that Bill Gates
is God, when it comes to computing.

>
> - You're a well known idiot here.

I just switched my radio station to a streaming service that is more
proxy-friendly, and does not require Winamp, Sonique, or other
extra MP3 players to be installed, it works with IE. So all one has
to do is change thier proxy settings, and just plug into the feed.
And it works on Windows Media Player, so its just a matter
of changing the proxy settings and then connecting to the radio
stream.

I also changed to it becuase it is more Firefox friendly. I have been
catching HELL, ever since Live 365 change their setup to where
Firefox users can no longer listen to my Live 365 feed. Why, oh WHY
do these people have such VITRIOL and HATRED towards Internet
Explorer? Listeners were NOT very happy at ALL, about having
to use Internet Explorer to listen. And this just does not many ANY
sense to me.

Sebastian G.
03-26-08, 11:00 PM
Chilly8 wrote:


>> - You're using Outlook Express, so you have obviously no clue about
>> security.
>
> Outlook express it the standard for Windows Newsreaders.


I wouldn't even call it a newsreader... but that doesn't stop people from
abusing it as such.

> I just switched my radio station to a streaming service that is more
> proxy-friendly, and does not require Winamp, Sonique, or other
> extra MP3 players to be installed, it works with IE. So all one has
> to do is change thier proxy settings, and just plug into the feed.
> And it works on Windows Media Player, so its just a matter
> of changing the proxy settings and then connecting to the radio
> stream.


Any sane user has disabled the execution of IE and WMP, for obvious reasons.

> Why, oh WHY do these people have such VITRIOL and HATRED towards Internet
> Explorer?


Because it doesn't even understand simple HTML? Because it is trivially
insecure, but heavily advertises the contrary?

> Listeners were NOT very happy at ALL, about having
> to use Internet Explorer to listen. And this just does not many ANY
> sense to me.

Because a standard conforming implementation of the website would trivially
work on almost every webbrowser? So someone must have deliberately broken
something?

Volker Birk
03-27-08, 04:20 AM
Chilly8 <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Outlook express it the standard for Windows Newsreaders.

Fortunately not.

Yours,
VB.
--
The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately
followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading
zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would
have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X

Chilly8
03-27-08, 04:32 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:650kgaF2e2t8jU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>>> - You're using Outlook Express, so you have obviously no clue about
>>> security.
>>
>> Outlook express it the standard for Windows Newsreaders.
>
>
> I wouldn't even call it a newsreader... but that doesn't stop people from
> abusing it as such.
>
>> I just switched my radio station to a streaming service that is more
>> proxy-friendly, and does not require Winamp, Sonique, or other
>> extra MP3 players to be installed, it works with IE. So all one has
>> to do is change thier proxy settings, and just plug into the feed.
>> And it works on Windows Media Player, so its just a matter
>> of changing the proxy settings and then connecting to the radio
>> stream.
>
>
> Any sane user has disabled the execution of IE and WMP, for obvious
> reasons.


Actually, there is one option where WMP does not even have to be
opened. It can be played directly from the web page, itself.. Just change
the proxy settings in whatever browser you are going, connect to the
stream, and enjoy. The web browser itself acts as a player, using
certain resources from WMP, without actually executing WMP, so
disabling WMP is one the silver bullet you think it is, so stop streaming
of radio stations.

Sebastian G.
03-27-08, 07:50 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


> Actually, there is one option where WMP does not even have to be
> opened.


It still invokes the Windows Media components, and the plugin does support
scripting.


> The web browser itself acts as a player, using
> certain resources from WMP, without actually executing WMP, so
> disabling WMP is one the silver bullet you think it is, so stop streaming
> of radio stations.


Nonsense. There are a lot of serious multimedia players out there, and some
also ship with plugins. In fact, Seamonkey and VLC work pretty well here.

Chilly8
03-27-08, 09:47 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:651jiiF2dclscU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, there is one option where WMP does not even have to be
>> opened.
>
>
> It still invokes the Windows Media components, and the plugin does support
> scripting.

Nevertheless, the new service I use is more friendly towards
office-listening,
and, frankly, a lot of listeners of the music programming I air are at-work
listeners who do use phpProxy sites. Before Live 365 upgraded their
software, the listener stats were showing an excessive amount of listening
coming from Chicago and New York. I found out that a lot of that are coming
from phpProxy sites, and the the site owners are using a business-oriented
server colocation service known as FDC Servers, with colocation facilities
in
Chicago and New York. A lot of the operators of proxies specifically meant
for public use house their servers there, because they can get ummetered 100
megabit service for about 619 USD per month. T1, T3, etc, etc, do not
have unmetered service.

Prior to the Live 365 software change, last August, the stats were showing
INCREDIBLE amounts of traffic coming from Chicago and New York, and
it was people listening through php and CGI based web proxies, hosted on
servers in that colocation facility. And I could tell by when the traffic
was the
heaviest, that there was a LOT of people listening to me in workplaces.
I basically had listeners from all over the world tuning in without the boss
knowing about it. They would see the connection going to some machine in FDC
colocation centers in either New York or Chicago, but wold not know
anything beyond that.

I just hope to get back the at-work listeners I lost when Live 365 mucked
with their software configuration last August. While I still get VERY good
listener numbers, they are not what they were before the software changes.
While it is still possible to listen to Live 365, you REALLY have to be a
techo-wizard to get it to work. Using the new service, people will not have
to be techo-geeks to listen to the station. So once listeners discover my
new feed, I should start seeing an increase in at-work listening.

Jens Hoffmann
03-27-08, 12:48 PM
> T1, T3, etc, etc, do not
> have unmetered service.

Wrong. Of course you can buy unmetered service for almost any accesss line
imaginable.

Sebastian G.
03-28-08, 08:00 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


>> It still invokes the Windows Media components, and the plugin does support
>> scripting.
>
> Nevertheless, the new service I use is more friendly towards
> office-listening,


Who the **** cares for this service?

Chilly8
03-30-08, 09:46 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:6548fnF2dkmhrU3@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>>> It still invokes the Windows Media components, and the plugin does
>>> support scripting.
>>
>> Nevertheless, the new service I use is more friendly towards
>> office-listening,
>
>
> Who the [BLEEP] cares for this service?

More people than you think. A few other broadcasters have made the
jump to this service, and on the comments section of another
broadcaster, one guy admits to listening all day from the office, using
a php or CGI proxy server, which is much easier to do, than with
anything from Live 365, and the streams work on a wider variety
of proxy and anonymity services.

This guy tunes into THAT station when he comes in, in the
morning, and stays connected all day during his 8 hour shift,
and the boss has no CLUE what he is up to, based on what
this one bloke said.

Sebastian G.
03-30-08, 10:32 AM
Chilly8 wrote:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
> news:6548fnF2dkmhrU3@mid.dfncis.de...
>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It still invokes the Windows Media components, and the plugin does
>>>> support scripting.
>>> Nevertheless, the new service I use is more friendly towards
>>> office-listening,
>>
>> Who the [BLEEP] cares for this service?
>
> More people than you think.


But not here, and not on this discussion topic.

Leythos
04-01-08, 05:10 AM
In article <fseo24$7l5$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Outlook express it the standard for Windows Newsreaders. When I was
> at university in America, the professors drummed it into us that Bill Gates
> is God, when it comes to computing.

OE is not the standard and any prof that tells you that BG is a god is
an idiot and you need to stop taking classes from that prof.

Your two statements, about OE and BG, show what we've all know for a
long time about you Chilly - that you believe BS from people you think
are an authority because you are a blind follower.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
04-07-08, 07:37 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


The switch just flipped on the Live 365 feed to 96K, and within
a few minutes, I am picking up listeners, to the new subcription
feed from office networks throughout the Eastern USA, as
the workday is begiinnign in America, at this time. From
today, I run two feeds, over two different services, the
sunscription 96K feed on Live 365, and a free feed on
another service, a lot of people on office networks are
tuning in to the subscription 96K feed, so there will be a
LOT of network admins who will be wondering why
people are gobbling down 96K a pop. And with
Mp3Pro stereo, the sound quality is DAMN GOOD.
That should give a few admins a bout of indegstion
today.

Chilly8
04-10-08, 12:06 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:frsukp$dag$1@aioe.org...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:frl08e$a67$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.224744c591bc834698968e@adfree.usenet.com...
>>> In article <friqro$dsh$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.2246ae83f7aa853098968d@adfree.usenet.com...
>>>> > In article <frieo5$9ul$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>>> >> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com...
>>>> >> > In article <frgleg$qg4$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>>> >> >> I got a telephone call
>>>> >> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
>>>> >> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
>>>> >> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
>>>> >> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her
>>>> >> > country
>>>> >> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
>>>> >> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
>>>> >
>>>> > That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now
>>>> > you
>>>> > claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe
>>>> > even
>>>> > laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.
>>>>
>>>> She was NOT committing ANY *CRIMINAL* act. The laws in Canada, just
>>>> like in Australia and America, regarding unauthorised access to a
>>>> computer
>>>> ONLY apply if you BREAK someone's PASSWORD. If there is NO
>>>> password or authentication system that says "Keep Out!", then the laws
>>>> regarding unauthorised access to a computer DO NOT APPLY. If its
>>>> not protected by a password, or some other kind of authentication
>>>> system,
>>>> then it is LEGAL to access, so NO crime was committed on her part.
>>>
>>> You keep saying that it's not illegal, but when she gets fired for
>>> breaking company policy, because you enabled her, you are liable for her
>>
>> If the filters FAIL to block it, then she could have been accused
>> of violating company policy, had anybody known what was going
>> on.
>>
>> That is why my figure skating message boards are picking up a following
>> among people surfing from work. Becuase my board is NOT in any
>> filtering lists, it can be accessed from most workplaces, and as long
>> as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
>> accused of violating company policy. It is the same as with
>> unauthorised computer access, if t here is nothing coming on the
>> screen saying they are attempting to access a site that violates
>> company policy, then it is NOT a violation of company policy.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I know that becuase we now have a Shoutcast feed for talk and sports
> programming, there is more a lot more workplace listening. There has
> been someoene, in Leeds, England, listening to our figure skating
> coverage from work, with connections of 2 hours or more at a time.
> Becuase my Shoutcast server is not in any filter lists, people have
> NO trouble tuning in from work.
>
> In fact, since implementing a Shoutcast feed, I have been getting a lot
> more traffic from office networks all over Europe, because my server
> is not in any filtering lists.
>

There is a new kind of public proxy coming out, now that uses VPN.
A little known Windows feature is now being used more. It turns out
that Windows XP SP2, 2003, and Vista, in their professional versions,
have a built-in VPN server. I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
all the traffic. Its encrypted. And best of all, there is no need to install
extra software, or fiddle with your browser settings. All one has to
do is to go into Network Connections, and create a VPN connection
to my site, and then log on to it. The Windows VPN/PPTN server uses
168-bit encryption, which would cannot be cracked, sniffed, or
monitored.

A couple of commercial companies offering for-pay access, via
the Windows VPN client, are telling people that if they use their
EXPENSIVE (59 USD/month) service, that ones employer will
not be able to monitor the connection through packet sniffing,
becuase of the 168-bit encryption. There are at least several
commercial public VPN services advocating people use their
service from work.

And these servers are actually quite fast. I use one, myself, to listen
to Pandora, when I am outside the United States, and it seems
to be able to handle the 150K connection fairly well, unlike a lot
of the misconfigured proxy servers out there, which are mostly
on residential cable modems, and don't have a lot of outbound
bandwidth.

Sebastian G.
04-10-08, 05:26 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


> There is a new kind of public proxy coming out, now that uses VPN.
> A little known Windows feature is now being used more. It turns out
> that Windows XP SP2, 2003, and Vista, in their professional versions,
> have a built-in VPN server.


Windows 2000 as well, and XP Home as well. It's called IPsec and its primary
use is not just VPN. Or are you referring to PPTP? Or L2TP? Wow, that's
really news. Wow, they have the same as almost any other modern OS has!

> The Windows VPN/PPTN server uses

> 168-bit encryption, which would cannot be cracked, sniffed, or
> monitored.


At first, 3DES in EDE-Mode has only 112 bit of effective security even
though the key has a formal length of 168 bit.

Second, in most setups it can be attacked due to a simple MITM attack, since
you don't deploy strong authentication with the necessary PKI.

Third, it can obviously be sniffed, but that's very useful since it is
encrypted.

Forth, PPTP has some known weaknesses which, depending on the setup, might
be exploitable in your scenario.

Fifth, in many cases it's not applicable without L2TP tunneling, doesn't
work so well behind NAT...

> A couple of commercial companies offering for-pay access, via
> the Windows VPN client, are telling people that if they use their
> EXPENSIVE (59 USD/month) service, that ones employer will
> not be able to monitor the connection through packet sniffing,
> becuase of the 168-bit encryption.


But they can detect, block and hold responsible. Even further, proper
policies won't allow the user to create arbitrary RAS connections.


But then again, we all know that you're an incompetent fool. Just look at
your headers, they're telling pretty clearly that you can't even differ an
Exchange Communication Client from a newsreader.

Chilly8
04-10-08, 06:23 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:6668amF2irc3iU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> There is a new kind of public proxy coming out, now that uses VPN.
>> A little known Windows feature is now being used more. It turns out
>> that Windows XP SP2, 2003, and Vista, in their professional versions,
>> have a built-in VPN server.
>
>
> Windows 2000 as well, and XP Home as well. It's called IPsec and its
> primary use is not just VPN. Or are you referring to PPTP? Or L2TP? Wow,
> that's really news. Wow, they have the same as almost any other modern OS
> has!
>
> > The Windows VPN/PPTN server uses
>
>> 168-bit encryption, which would cannot be cracked, sniffed, or
>> monitored.
>
>
> At first, 3DES in EDE-Mode has only 112 bit of effective security even
> though the key has a formal length of 168 bit.
>
> Second, in most setups it can be attacked due to a simple MITM attack,
> since you don't deploy strong authentication with the necessary PKI.
>
> Third, it can obviously be sniffed, but that's very useful since it is
> encrypted.
>
> Forth, PPTP has some known weaknesses which, depending on the setup, might
> be exploitable in your scenario.
>
> Fifth, in many cases it's not applicable without L2TP tunneling, doesn't
> work so well behind NAT...
>
>> A couple of commercial companies offering for-pay access, via
>> the Windows VPN client, are telling people that if they use their
>> EXPENSIVE (59 USD/month) service, that ones employer will
>> not be able to monitor the connection through packet sniffing,
>> becuase of the 168-bit encryption.
>
>
> But they can detect, block and hold responsible. Even further, proper


They can't hold the company providing the proxy service responsible.
The company is merely providing service, and are effectively an ISP,
since, when you connect with the VPN connection, you assume an
IP from that network's pool of IP addresses. It is no different than
somone connecting a modem and using dial-up ISP. The VPN
server is handling the all your Internet traffic.

Leythos
04-10-08, 06:24 AM
In article <ftk796$2vg$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
> all the traffic.

And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
easier to spot than a proxy connection.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Sebastian G.
04-10-08, 06:29 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


>> But they can detect, block and hold responsible. Even further, proper
>
> They can't hold the company providing the proxy service responsible.


And I never claimed that. They can hold the employee responsible.

And it's your moral responsibility if you suggest them to violate their
company's policies and drive themselves into trouble. But your blatant
ignorance of this fact makes the defense of your actions just more laughable.

Chilly8
04-10-08, 07:04 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2267c2dc32c964d9896b8@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <ftk796$2vg$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
>> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
>> all the traffic.
>
> And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
> easier to spot than a proxy connection.

One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,
very handy when I go to China, or Cuba, an average of once
a year to broadcast figure skating events. I completely bypass
the local censors, since the connection cannot be analysed,
cracked, monitored, or sniffed. If, say, Hotmail, is blocked,
I can VPN to my server,. and log on to Hotmail that way,
and the local government censors will NEVER know what I
am up to.

If I want to read certain blocked Western news sources, while
in China, such as the BBC, or CNN, or a few Australian
news outlets, I can do that, and there is no POSSIBLE way
the censors in China would know what I was up to, becuase
of the encrypted connection to my server. So I can do pretty
much what I want, no matter what part of the world I go to,
and local censors cannot monitor me.

Sebastian G.
04-10-08, 07:12 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
> encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,


But it can be simply censored by not allowing any such connection in first
place. D'oh, that's exactly what China does!

> since the connection cannot be analysed,

> cracked, monitored, or sniffed.


It can be analyzed, trivially. Both by the headers as well as by the
statistical significant pseudorandomness of the paylod.

bz
04-10-08, 08:16 AM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftkvo0$3ev$1@aioe.org:

>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2267c2dc32c964d9896b8@adfree.usenet.com...
>> In article <ftk796$2vg$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
>>> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
>>> all the traffic.
>>
>> And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
>> easier to spot than a proxy connection.
>
> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
> encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,
> very handy when I go to China, or Cuba, an average of once
> a year to broadcast figure skating events. I completely bypass
> the local censors, since the connection cannot be analysed,
> cracked, monitored, or sniffed. If, say, Hotmail, is blocked,
> I can VPN to my server,. and log on to Hotmail that way,
> and the local government censors will NEVER know what I
> am up to.
>
> If I want to read certain blocked Western news sources, while
> in China, such as the BBC, or CNN, or a few Australian
> news outlets, I can do that, and there is no POSSIBLE way
> the censors in China would know what I was up to, becuase
> of the encrypted connection to my server. So I can do pretty
> much what I want, no matter what part of the world I go to,
> and local censors cannot monitor me.

You could get someone jailed or killed.

Back in the 60's, I had a friend in Cuba that I used to play chess with via
amateur radio using Morse code.

American amateurs and Cuban amateur radio operators were allowed to
communicate but we had to avoid politically hot topics.

One day, we were in the middle of a chess game when he told me to wait...
someone was knocking on his door.

He never came back to finish the game.
I never heard him on the radio again.

I suspect that Cuban radio monitors thought that our chess moves were
encrypted messages.

I don't know if he just lost his license or his life.

As I said, you could be in danger yourself and those that use your service
could be in danger.

It doesn't matter WHAT the content is, the fact that the authorities can
not read it could be enough to get someone killed. You need to realize that
you are 'playing with fire' and think carefully about the possible
consequences and the fact that you may have to live with never knowing what
happened to someone.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Chilly8
04-10-08, 12:17 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:666ei3F2i8u0nU2@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
>> encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,
>
>
> But it can be simply censored by not allowing any such connection in first
> place. D'oh, that's exactly what China does!

However, I have my server in a server farm, and not on any of
the blocking lists, in China or Cuba. I test this, often, by connecting
to my web site, also running on the same server, through open proxies
in China and Cuba, and my web site is currently accessible from
China and Cuba.

The way China does it, is by fiddling with their DNS services,
so a particular name, will not resolve. This could by bypassed by
using the raw IP number for my server.
>
> > since the connection cannot be analysed,
>
>> cracked, monitored, or sniffed.
>
>
> It can be analyzed, trivially. Both by the headers as well as by the
> statistical significant pseudorandomness of the paylod.

But with the connection encrypted, and going through my
server, they cannot find out that I am accessing banned sites,
while in the country.

Chilly8
04-10-08, 12:29 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"bz" <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7C5418EC349WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftkvo0$3ev$1@aioe.org:
>
>>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2267c2dc32c964d9896b8@adfree.usenet.com...
>>> In article <ftk796$2vg$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>>> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
>>>> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
>>>> all the traffic.
>>>
>>> And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
>>> easier to spot than a proxy connection.
>>
>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
>> encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,
>> very handy when I go to China, or Cuba, an average of once
>> a year to broadcast figure skating events. I completely bypass
>> the local censors, since the connection cannot be analysed,
>> cracked, monitored, or sniffed. If, say, Hotmail, is blocked,
>> I can VPN to my server,. and log on to Hotmail that way,
>> and the local government censors will NEVER know what I
>> am up to.
>>
>> If I want to read certain blocked Western news sources, while
>> in China, such as the BBC, or CNN, or a few Australian
>> news outlets, I can do that, and there is no POSSIBLE way
>> the censors in China would know what I was up to, becuase
>> of the encrypted connection to my server. So I can do pretty
>> much what I want, no matter what part of the world I go to,
>> and local censors cannot monitor me.
>
> You could get someone jailed or killed.

> As I said, you could be in danger yourself and those that use your service
> could be in danger.

Not me, I would not be in danger. A local person, maybe, but not me,
as a foreigner. With an encrypted connection, whether I am in
China, Cuba, or censorious Middle Eastern countires, there is
no POSSIBLE way I can be monitored, becuase of the encryption.

Since Live 365 is blocked in Iran, I use my VPN, if I go there,
to log in and check on the Live 365 feed for my station, and
the Mullahs in Iran have no CLUE as to WHAT I am up to.
Both Live 365 and LoudCity are blocked, in Iran, but I use
my VPN connection to bypass the Mullahs, and check on
my station.

I also use it in Britan and the U.S., becuase of the warrantless
monitoring of communications in both countries, that is apparently
even more than the afforentioned censorious regimes in Cuba,
China, etc. By using an enrypted connection, Mi-6 in Britain,
or Homeland Security in America cannot snoop on my
communications, becusae of the heavy crypto. The government
spooks in America and Britain cannot monitor me, when I use
my VPN connection. All Mi-6 and Homeland Security know
is that I am making an encrypted connection to my server, via
a VPN link, but that is ALL either DHS or MI-6 would
know.

Chilly8
04-10-08, 12:49 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftliqm$umj$1@aioe.org...
>


>
> I also use it in Britan and the U.S., becuase of the warrantless
> monitoring of communications in both countries, that is apparently
> even more than the afforentioned censorious regimes in Cuba,
> China, etc. By using an enrypted connection, Mi-6 in Britain,
> or Homeland Security in America cannot snoop on my
> communications, becusae of the heavy crypto. The government
> spooks in America and Britain cannot monitor me, when I use
> my VPN connection. All Mi-6 and Homeland Security know
> is that I am making an encrypted connection to my server, via
> a VPN link, but that is ALL either DHS or MI-6 would
> know.
>
>

One other footnote is the being a USA/Australia dual
national, some DHS folks might consider me subject to the
travel restrictions on Cuba, even though I do not live in the
U.S. By encrypting my communications, especially when
covering sporting events in Cuba. DHS and the Office of
Foregin Assets Control (OFAC) cannot find out I ever
was in Cuba. Any CIA/DHS/OFAC monitoring of the outbound
connection from Cuba, towards my server, is neutralised,
and there is no POSSIBLE way the government of the United
States can monitor what I am up to.

I feel that because I live in Australia, as a USA/Oz dual,
and travel to Cuba on an Aussie passport, that I should only
be subject to Australian regulations, which currently permit
travel to Cuba, and should not be subject to getting an
OFAC licence, from the U.S., to travel there. So by
encrypting the outbound connection from Cuba, any
spooks from DHS, OFAC, or the CIA cannot eavesdrop
on the connection. All that would the American government
would know is that someone was making a heavily encrypted
outbound connection from Cuba, but would not be able to
decipher what was being sent from Cuba.

I also scrub the hard disks on any computer equipment that
has been in Cuba, with Evidence Eliminator, before it is ever
taken to, or through the U.S., so that Customs cannot recover
anything to indicate I was in Cuba. Cuban authorites, believe
it or not, will not stamp your passport, if you ask. You just put
a slip of paper in your passport, and the Cuban authorities
will stamp that instead. Betweent that, and scrubbing the disks
with Evidence Eliminator, I can travel to Cuba, without getting
an OFAC licence, and the United States government is never
the wiser. If U.S. Customs decided to examine the hard disks,
they wold not get anything.

Leythos
04-10-08, 02:36 PM
In article <ftkvo0$3ev$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2267c2dc32c964d9896b8@adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <ftk796$2vg$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
> >> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
> >> all the traffic.
> >
> > And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
> > easier to spot than a proxy connection.
>
> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere.

You are really stupid Chilly.

First, if they are going to censor the internet they are going to block
VPN's to the same areas, most filtering does not permit VPN's out of an
area - it's a real threat to allow outbound VPN connections.

Second, a IPSec tunnel or any other tunnel sticks out like a red flare
in a monitored network, so, you can claim you're getting away with xyz,
but the fact is that you just made your connection easier to spot and to
eliminate.

It doesn't matter what you are doing/passing through the VPN, it's that
a VPN is going to be spotted and then flagged and then terminated if
it's even permitted to pass - in most secure networks there are NO VPN
connections permitted to leave the networks except those setup by IT
Administrators.


--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
04-10-08, 02:37 PM
In article <ftliqm$umj$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Not me, I would not be in danger. A local person, maybe, but not me,
> as a foreigner.

You are bound by the laws of any country you are in - so, if you are in
China breaking their laws you would be liable.


--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
04-10-08, 03:25 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2268366eb3fad2159896bb@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <ftliqm$umj$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Not me, I would not be in danger. A local person, maybe, but not me,
>> as a foreigner.
>
> You are bound by the laws of any country you are in - so, if you are in
> China breaking their laws you would be liable.


However, when I go to Cuba, being a USA/Australia dual, I feel that
I should not have to get a travel licence from the United States
government, as long as I use my Australian passport. By running an
outbound VPN connection to my server, from Cuba, the United
States government. This way, the USA would never know that I,
as an American citizen, was in Cuba, in violation of the ban on
travel to Cubn. All DHS would ever know was that someone was
making a heavily encrypted outbound connection from Cuba, which,
contrary to popular opinion, cannot be cracked, monitored, analysed,
or sniffed by any spooks in America who may try and eavesdrop
on it.

I feel that since I live in Australia, that the United States regulatoins
regarding travel to Cuba do not, and should not, apply to me, so
by running an outbound VPN connection, when broadcasting from
Cuba, the United States government would not know what was going
on. All the spooks in the United States government will see is some
heavily encrypted traffic coming out of Cuba, and that is ALL the
authorities in America will know.

Leythos
04-10-08, 03:32 PM
In article <ftlt31$9f8$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> However, when I go to Cuba, being a USA/Australia dual, I feel that
> I should not have to get a travel licence from the United States
> government, as long as I use my Australian passport. By running an
> outbound VPN connection to my server, from Cuba, the United
> States government. This way, the USA would never know that I,
> as an American citizen, was in Cuba, in violation of the ban on
> travel to Cubn. All DHS would ever know was that someone was
> making a heavily encrypted outbound connection from Cuba, which,
> contrary to popular opinion, cannot be cracked, monitored, analysed,
> or sniffed by any spooks in America who may try and eavesdrop
> on it.

And you seem to miss the point - it doesn't matter WHAT IS "in" your
tunnel, it's that it's easy to tell you've made it, where from/to, and
track it to your location.

You are exposed as another snake-oil salesman.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
04-10-08, 03:56 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2268437f67fb5dde9896be@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <ftlt31$9f8$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> However, when I go to Cuba, being a USA/Australia dual, I feel that
>> I should not have to get a travel licence from the United States
>> government, as long as I use my Australian passport. By running an
>> outbound VPN connection to my server, from Cuba, the United
>> States government. This way, the USA would never know that I,
>> as an American citizen, was in Cuba, in violation of the ban on
>> travel to Cubn. All DHS would ever know was that someone was
>> making a heavily encrypted outbound connection from Cuba, which,
>> contrary to popular opinion, cannot be cracked, monitored, analysed,
>> or sniffed by any spooks in America who may try and eavesdrop
>> on it.
>
> And you seem to miss the point - it doesn't matter WHAT IS "in" your
> tunnel, it's that it's easy to tell you've made it, where from/to, and
> track it to your location.
>

However, as far as the travelr restrictions go, there is nothing that
DHS or OFAC could ever gather in the way of evidence, since
the outbound transmission from Cuba, so there is nothing usable
against me that the United States government could ever gather,
as far as any violations of the travel restrictions on Cuba go.

All they would know is that the transmission is going to an IP
in France, where my server is, and a computer is France is
NOT SUBJECT to ANY United States laws, and the contents
of said computer is not subject to the jurisdiction of ANY
United States court.

And I foil the U.S. government even more by using any unsecured
WiFi access point close to the arena or stadium. The spooks in
the United States government would know that something was
coming from a WiFi access point in Cuba, so there is NOTHING
the United States government could ever trace to me. I scrub
my hard drives with Evidence Eliminator, before attempting to take
any computer equipment that has been in Cuba, through U.S.
Customs, so that if Customs/DHS decides to do a forensic examination
on any of the station's equipment, they won't get anything.

They would see the encrypted transmission eminating from a
WiFi router in Cuba, but the United States government could
not POSSIBLY find out WHO was using that link, if the
transmission, outbound from that point, is heavily encrypted.

Leythos
04-10-08, 08:02 PM
In article <ftluu8$gmt$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2268437f67fb5dde9896be@adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <ftlt31$9f8$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> However, when I go to Cuba, being a USA/Australia dual, I feel that
> >> I should not have to get a travel licence from the United States
> >> government, as long as I use my Australian passport. By running an
> >> outbound VPN connection to my server, from Cuba, the United
> >> States government. This way, the USA would never know that I,
> >> as an American citizen, was in Cuba, in violation of the ban on
> >> travel to Cubn. All DHS would ever know was that someone was
> >> making a heavily encrypted outbound connection from Cuba, which,
> >> contrary to popular opinion, cannot be cracked, monitored, analysed,
> >> or sniffed by any spooks in America who may try and eavesdrop
> >> on it.
> >
> > And you seem to miss the point - it doesn't matter WHAT IS "in" your
> > tunnel, it's that it's easy to tell you've made it, where from/to, and
> > track it to your location.
> >
>
> However, as far as the travelr restrictions go, there is nothing that
> DHS or OFAC could ever gather in the way of evidence, since
> the outbound transmission from Cuba, so there is nothing usable
> against me that the United States government could ever gather,
> as far as any violations of the travel restrictions on Cuba go.
>
> All they would know is that the transmission is going to an IP
> in France, where my server is, and a computer is France is
> NOT SUBJECT to ANY United States laws, and the contents
> of said computer is not subject to the jurisdiction of ANY
> United States court.
>
> And I foil the U.S. government even more by using any unsecured
> WiFi access point close to the arena or stadium. The spooks in
> the United States government would know that something was
> coming from a WiFi access point in Cuba, so there is NOTHING
> the United States government could ever trace to me. I scrub
> my hard drives with Evidence Eliminator, before attempting to take
> any computer equipment that has been in Cuba, through U.S.
> Customs, so that if Customs/DHS decides to do a forensic examination
> on any of the station's equipment, they won't get anything.
>
> They would see the encrypted transmission eminating from a
> WiFi router in Cuba, but the United States government could
> not POSSIBLY find out WHO was using that link, if the
> transmission, outbound from that point, is heavily encrypted.

With every post you show yourself to be unethical and dishonest.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
04-10-08, 09:33 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.226882b7cf133c1a9896c2@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <ftluu8$gmt$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2268437f67fb5dde9896be@adfree.usenet.com...
>> > In article <ftlt31$9f8$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >> However, when I go to Cuba, being a USA/Australia dual, I feel that
>> >> I should not have to get a travel licence from the United States
>> >> government, as long as I use my Australian passport. By running an
>> >> outbound VPN connection to my server, from Cuba, the United
>> >> States government. This way, the USA would never know that I,
>> >> as an American citizen, was in Cuba, in violation of the ban on
>> >> travel to Cubn. All DHS would ever know was that someone was
>> >> making a heavily encrypted outbound connection from Cuba, which,
>> >> contrary to popular opinion, cannot be cracked, monitored, analysed,
>> >> or sniffed by any spooks in America who may try and eavesdrop
>> >> on it.
>> >
>> > And you seem to miss the point - it doesn't matter WHAT IS "in" your
>> > tunnel, it's that it's easy to tell you've made it, where from/to, and
>> > track it to your location.
>> >
>>
>> However, as far as the travelr restrictions go, there is nothing that
>> DHS or OFAC could ever gather in the way of evidence, since
>> the outbound transmission from Cuba, so there is nothing usable
>> against me that the United States government could ever gather,
>> as far as any violations of the travel restrictions on Cuba go.
>>
>> All they would know is that the transmission is going to an IP
>> in France, where my server is, and a computer is France is
>> NOT SUBJECT to ANY United States laws, and the contents
>> of said computer is not subject to the jurisdiction of ANY
>> United States court.
>>
>> And I foil the U.S. government even more by using any unsecured
>> WiFi access point close to the arena or stadium. The spooks in
>> the United States government would know that something was
>> coming from a WiFi access point in Cuba, so there is NOTHING
>> the United States government could ever trace to me. I scrub
>> my hard drives with Evidence Eliminator, before attempting to take
>> any computer equipment that has been in Cuba, through U.S.
>> Customs, so that if Customs/DHS decides to do a forensic examination
>> on any of the station's equipment, they won't get anything.
>>
>> They would see the encrypted transmission eminating from a
>> WiFi router in Cuba, but the United States government could
>> not POSSIBLY find out WHO was using that link, if the
>> transmission, outbound from that point, is heavily encrypted.
>
> With every post you show yourself to be unethical and dishonest.

However, in Cuba, like in many countries, it is ONLY illegal to
use someone's WiFi router if you BREAK somebody's
PASSWORD. Simply put, if its is out there, and not been
secured, then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and LEGAL
to use. It is the same in America and in Australia. Unless there
is some kind of password on encryption system sayng "Keep
Out!", then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and it is LEGAL
for you to use it.

Chilly8
04-11-08, 02:44 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftmimc$n23$1@aioe.org...
>
>


Since starting a subscription 96K feed on my station, my listenership
is going up again. And with three different proxy options, it allows people
to be able to listen from work, with their destination being masked by
my proxy. Users can either use my Tor gateway, using the normal
high speed web proxy, or they can use the new subscription VPN
service I put on my machine. I put the VPN service on, so that
listeners can get my 96K live 365 feed from work.

Since I added a LoudCity feed, which works better with proxies,
I am getting a lot of the at-work listeners I lost when Live 365
mucked with their system in August of last year. LoudCity
stations can be listened to more easier with proxies, especially
the phpProxy and CGI variety of proxies.

I am pretty sure there are a few network admins that are
wondering about the 96K outbound connections to strange
addresses in places like Ukraine, where a lot of the phoProxy
sites are.

Leythos
04-11-08, 07:45 AM
In article <ftn4st$m65$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> I am pretty sure there are a few network admins that are
> wondering about the 96K outbound connections to strange
> addresses in places like Ukraine, where a lot of the phoProxy
> sites are.

No, in fact, most Security admins won't be wondering as you won't have
connections from their networks.

The only time you'll get a connection from a business network is when
the firewall has not properly been locked down.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

bz
04-11-08, 08:41 AM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftmimc$n23$1@aioe.org:

> However, in Cuba, like in many countries, it is ONLY illegal to
> use someone's WiFi router if you BREAK somebody's
> PASSWORD.

Not true.
http://www.crn.com/security/26806554
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/24/ethical_wireless_hacker_is_innocent
/
notice that the JURY found him innocent BECAUSE he was warning about the
network being open.
Had he been just USING the network without permission, he could have been
in serious trouble.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10138



> Simply put, if its is out there, and not been
> secured, then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and LEGAL
> to use. It is the same in America and in Australia.

and such news as "Singapore Teen Faces Three Years in Jail for Wireless
Piggybacking"
should tell you that your ideas of 'unprotected means open to public' is
wrong.


> Unless there
> is some kind of password on encryption system sayng "Keep
> Out!", then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and it is LEGAL
> for you to use it.

Keep it up and YOU will end up in gaol.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
04-11-08, 10:27 AM
Since you obviously won't stop feeding that troll: welcome to my
killfile.

*plonk*

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Chilly8
04-11-08, 01:33 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"bz" <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7D587FDF73BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftmimc$n23$1@aioe.org:
>
>> However, in Cuba, like in many countries, it is ONLY illegal to
>> use someone's WiFi router if you BREAK somebody's
>> PASSWORD.
>
> Not true.
> http://www.crn.com/security/26806554
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/24/ethical_wireless_hacker_is_innocent
>

> notice that the JURY found him innocent BECAUSE he was warning about the
> network being open.
> Had he been just USING the network without permission, he could have been
> in serious trouble.
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10138

..


Well, if he had been using a Pringles can antenna, and been much
further out, that would likely have never happend. As a smaller
radio outlet, we out open WiFi hotspots, when broadcasting
sporting events. So the open networks we use are quite a ways
out, well beyond the normal 300 feet limit. A SuperCantenna
can hit an unmodified WiFi hotspot. up to a mile away,
even farther if the power output of the WiFi card has
been increased.

Since we are quite a ways from any unsecured WiFi network
that really does not matter. We use several wireless options. I hold
an Australian flying licence, and a few days before an event
begins and flying restrictions come into effect, I take a rented
plane up and scan the area for unsecured wireless networks
within 2 miles of the event venue. Our techno-geeks have
installed amplifiers in the equipment to kick up both the send
and receive, so, with a SuperCantenna, we can hit any open
WiFi AP up to 2 miles away. We also do this because the
walls inside an arena can hamper reception. From about
1500 to 2000 feet above the level of the ground, lots
of open APs can be found in about 20 minutes of
scanning.

I also saw one on Figure Skating Universe, at Trophee De
France, back in 2005, that was reporedly doing this, and
live blogging the event to FSU. Using a SuperCantenna,
an modified WiFi card, with the power kicked way up
on both send and receive, this person was live-blogging
the event, until their battery ran down. Thats the one
downside to kicking up the power, your batteries
run down faster.


This is why we have to run the equipment off a sroage battery that
hooked to an inverter (it also solves the problem of differing
Ac power aronnd th world). Our modified WiFi card puts out
about 85 watts of effective radiated power, when the power
amplification, and the SupeerCantenna are combined.

>
>
>
>> Simply put, if its is out there, and not been
>> secured, then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and LEGAL
>> to use. It is the same in America and in Australia.
>
> and such news as "Singapore Teen Faces Three Years in Jail for Wireless
> Piggybacking"
> should tell you that your ideas of 'unprotected means open to public' is
> wrong.
>
>
>> Unless there
>> is some kind of password on encryption system sayng "Keep
>> Out!", then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and it is LEGAL
>> for you to use it.
>
> Keep it up and YOU will end up in gaol.

That is why I use Evidence Eliminator, so there is nothing on
the station's equipment that can be used to prosecute either me,
or the radio station. As I said, I also use it after I have been in
Cuba, so that the next time I travel to America, I won't get
nicked for travelling to Cuba (despite living in Australia),
without obtaining an OFAC licence. I chatted in my chat room
with another USA/Australia dual national who does this with
any computer equiipment he takes from Australia, on trips
to Cuba. If it becomes necessary to change planes in the USA
coming from Cuba, he scrubs the hard disks with Evidence
Eliminator, before they are taken through U.S. Customs, so
they will not be able to recover any evidence he was in
Cuba, from off his hard disl, should U.S. Customs decide to
do forensic examination of any of his computer eqiipment.
He just simply scrubs the hard disks with EE, before he
leaves Cuba, and when going through Customs at LAX,
they don't get anything off his hard disk, if they decide to
examine the machine.

bz
04-11-08, 02:15 PM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftoau0$kc8$1@aioe.org:

.....
>
> Well, if he had been using a Pringles can antenna, and been much
> further out, that would likely have never happend. As a smaller
> radio outlet, we out open WiFi hotspots, when broadcasting
> sporting events. So the open networks we use are quite a ways
> out, well beyond the normal 300 feet limit. A SuperCantenna
> can hit an unmodified WiFi hotspot. up to a mile away,
> even farther if the power output of the WiFi card has
> been increased.
.....[confessions to multiple crimes snipped].....

The jails are full of people that thought they were smart enough to get
away with 'it'. Each of them was sure that they had everything figured out.

Most of them even got away with 'it', for a while.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Chilly8
04-11-08, 09:40 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"bz" <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7D90FC19B5DWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftoau0$kc8$1@aioe.org:
>
> ....
>>
>> Well, if he had been using a Pringles can antenna, and been much
>> further out, that would likely have never happend. As a smaller
>> radio outlet, we out open WiFi hotspots, when broadcasting
>> sporting events. So the open networks we use are quite a ways
>> out, well beyond the normal 300 feet limit. A SuperCantenna
>> can hit an unmodified WiFi hotspot. up to a mile away,
>> even farther if the power output of the WiFi card has
>> been increased.
> ....[confessions to multiple crimes snipped].....
>
> The jails are full of people that thought they were smart enough to get
> away with 'it'. Each of them was sure that they had everything figured
> out.
>
> Most of them even got away with 'it', for a while.


Using a SuperCantenna, itself, is NOT illegal in ANY
of the countries where we oftne broadcast figure skating
events from during the northern winter. SuperCantennas
are LEGAL in Australia, China, Cuba, France, Germany,
England, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Finland, and the
United States.

Besides people's unsecured WiFi networks, we can also
use WiFi networks at any Internet cafe that is within
the extended range. We just simply find one, if it is
close enough, and buy enough time to handle a days
worth of coverage.

When I scan for WiFi signals from an airplane flying
around the area of the arena, I also scan for any
Intenret cafes, coffee houses, or fast food outlets,
even the local libarries hat might have WiFi as well.
Thats the advantage of having an Australian flying
licence, I can take an airplane up and scan the area.

For Skate America, last sesaon, the local libary,
and its WiFi hotspot was close enough to the area
where our equipment, outfitted with a Super
Cantenna, was able to use that. My scan for
hotspots from an airplane picked that one up.
And using an WiFi card, with an effective
radidated power of 85 watts is LEGAL
under both Pennsylvania state law, and
US federal law. The one we use amplifies
the signal to 5 watts, and then Cantenna
boosts that to about 85 watts of effective
radidated power (ERP). All I had to do was
sign up for a library card, so that I could use the WiFi
network. And such amplifiers are LEGAL, since you
can BUY them online with ANY major credit card,
and they will ship them to you, to any part of the world.
no questions asked.

And scanning for WiFi hotspots from an airplane
is LEGAL, provided you follow all the other local
laws, regarding operating an aircraft. Flying over
the area at about 2000 feet above the level of
the ground and scanning for both unsecurd WiFi
hotspots as well as public hotspots from places like
McDonalds, Borders, Kinkos, Starbucks, etc, etc,
is LEGAL. In the United States, for example, as
long as I followed Federal Aviation Adminstration
(FAA) rules, scanning for WiFi hotspots from
the air did NOT violate ANY federal laws, or
those of the State Of Pennsylvania, when scanning
for hotspots to use to broadcast Skate America.

The ideal speed for scannig an area is about 100 to 120
knots indicated airspeed (KIAS).

Chilly8
04-11-08, 11:19 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.22692766b1ef78679896c4@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <ftn4st$m65$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> I am pretty sure there are a few network admins that are
>> wondering about the 96K outbound connections to strange
>> addresses in places like Ukraine, where a lot of the phoProxy
>> sites are.
>
> No, in fact, most Security admins won't be wondering as you won't have
> connections from their networks.
>
> The only time you'll get a connection from a business network is when
> the firewall has not properly been locked down.


Speaking of China, I may soon be airing a musical programme aimed
at ethnic Chinese communities in the United States, England, and
Canada. One producer in Shenzen, China, is interested in running
his show of "Canto-Pop" tunes on my station, becuase he KNOWS
that I do everything POSSIBLE to make it heard in workplaces.
This would give ethnic Chinese in places like London, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or in Vancover access to Chinese-
language music programming for up to 2 hours a day while
they are at work. The procuder has even set up his own
public proxy server, in China, so that workplace firewalls
can be circumvented. It will be a phoProxy, in encrypted
mode, so the boss, where anyone is lstening, won't know
what is happening

So if you have any ethnic Chinese in your workplace, get ready
for a lot of them listening to this Chinese-language music
programme, once it does start airing on my station. Network
admins will probably wonder what is going on when a whole
bunch of encrypted connections to a strange proxy in China
start showing up in the logs.

Jens Hoffmann
04-12-08, 05:33 AM
> My scan for
> hotspots from an airplane picked that one up.
> And using an WiFi card, with an effective
> radidated power of 85 watts is LEGAL
> under both Pennsylvania state law, and
> US federal law.

Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?

We are allowed to operate at an ERP of 100mW (2,4GHz) resp. 500mW (5,4GHz) maximum.

Or are you reading the decimal point wrongly?

Cheers,
Jens

Chilly8
04-12-08, 08:07 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Jens Hoffmann" <jh@bofh.de> wrote in message
news:ftq3dr$42q$1@murphy.mediascape.de...
>> My scan for
>> hotspots from an airplane picked that one up.
>> And using an WiFi card, with an effective
>> radidated power of 85 watts is LEGAL
>> under both Pennsylvania state law, and
>> US federal law.
>
> Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?

"fry birds"? What is that crack supposed to mean?
>
> We are allowed to operate at an ERP of 100mW (2,4GHz) resp. 500mW (5,4GHz)
> maximum.
>
> Or are you reading the decimal point wrongly?

There are 10w amplfiers, which, with a Cantenna, can boost
the ERP quite a bit. Both the amplfiers and the Cantennas are
LEGAL to buy, LEGAL to own, LEGAL to use, at least
in the countries where I have used them. That's a 10W
signal, BEFORE it goes into a Cantenna.

Jens Hoffmann
04-12-08, 12:53 PM
Hi,

>> Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?
>
> "fry birds"? What is that crack supposed to mean?

FCC in the US allows a maximum of 4W ERP.
http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/dbm_to_watt_conversion.cfm
http://www.topatec.com/pwr_db.htm

The amount of energy you supposedly use is dangerous.

I still think, you cannot calculate a pringles antenna correctly.

Pretty consistent with the rest of your fantasies, though.

Cheers,
Jens

Chilly8
04-12-08, 03:43 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Jens Hoffmann" <jh@bofh.de> wrote in message
news:ftqt6e$biq$1@murphy.mediascape.de...
> Hi,
>
>>> Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?
>>
>> "fry birds"? What is that crack supposed to mean?
>
> FCC in the US allows a maximum of 4W ERP.
> http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/dbm_to_watt_conversion.cfm
> http://www.topatec.com/pwr_db.htm
>

However, using a Cantenna, itsself, which boosts the ERP,
without any amplication, to around 15W ERP is LEGAL. You
can BUY a Cantenna in many computer stores. And the Fry;s
electronics guy who sold it to be SAID that the SuperCantenna
is LEGAL to use. I have heard the same from the folks are
Radio Shack, Circuit City, and Compusa, tht such atennnas
are LEGAL to use.

> The amount of energy you supposedly use is dangerous.

Not at 85 watts ERP.
>
> I still think, you cannot calculate a pringles antenna correctly.
>

You don't have to. You can BUY a Cantenna, which is actually
more efficient than a homemade Pringles can antenna. They
are optimised to get the best gain

Also scanning for open WiFi routers, using an airplane does
NOT violate ANY laws, as long as I follow all instructions
from Air Traffic Control (ATC).

Jens Hoffmann
04-12-08, 03:54 PM
> However, using a Cantenna, itsself, which boosts the ERP,
> without any amplication, to around 15W ERP is LEGAL.

>> FCC in the US allows a maximum of 4W ERP.

> You
> can BUY a Cantenna in many computer stores. And the Fry;s
> electronics guy who sold it to be SAID that the SuperCantenna
> is LEGAL to use.

Wow, I am awed. So he makes the FCC rules?


> You don't have to.
That is what you seem to be thining about a lot of things.



>You can BUY a Cantenna,

Tell news.

Todd H.
04-12-08, 03:55 PM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> writes:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Jens Hoffmann" <jh@bofh.de> wrote in message
> news:ftqt6e$biq$1@murphy.mediascape.de...
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?
>>>
>>> "fry birds"? What is that crack supposed to mean?
>>
>> FCC in the US allows a maximum of 4W ERP.
>> http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/dbm_to_watt_conversion.cfm
>> http://www.topatec.com/pwr_db.htm
>>
>
> However, using a Cantenna, itsself, which boosts the ERP,
> without any amplication, to around 15W ERP is LEGAL. You
> can BUY a Cantenna in many computer stores. And the Fry;s
> electronics guy who sold it to be SAID that the SuperCantenna
> is LEGAL to use. I have heard the same from the folks are
> Radio Shack, Circuit City, and Compusa, tht such atennnas
> are LEGAL to use.

And by god I'd take anything those guys said to the bank. Especially
legal advice!

Chilly, so which diagnosable neurosis do you suffer from?

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Chilly8
04-12-08, 07:21 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere.


Here is another good use for VPN. Some in-flight Internet service
block Skype (because they want you to use their EXPENSIVE
"airfone" service). If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
extra to use the entertainment system on the plane. Just plug
in my headphones, VPN into my server, connect to Vongo,
sit back, relax, and enjoy. I use this, and other for-pay
online movie services, to have my own choice of movies,
often better than the airlines provide. Becuase of the
secure connection, the airline would never know that I was
watching my own choice of movies.

The same thing in hotels, with in-room Internet. Some hotels
block Skype, becuase they want you do make calls from
the in-room phone, and pay hotel telephone surchages. I can
VPN into my server, and launch Skype through there, and the
hotel would NEVER know that I was bypassing their filtering
of Skype, becuase the connection to my server is secure and
cannot be eavesdropped upon by the hotel. Since a lot of
business travellers also use VPN to connect to the office
networks back home, the hotels don't DARE block VPN,
unless they want to lose business travellers, which do make
up a lot of their business.

Sebastian G.
04-12-08, 08:11 PM
Chilly8 wrote:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere.
>
>
> Here is another good use for VPN. Some in-flight Internet service
> block Skype (because they want you to use their EXPENSIVE
> "airfone" service). If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
> into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
> would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
> connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
> flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
> sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
> decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
> and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
> extra to use the entertainment system on the plane.


Are you really so stupid? This is exactly the reason why they block
everything that looks pseudorandom, including compressed and encrypted data.

> I can VPN into my server, and launch Skype through there, and the

> hotel would NEVER know that I was bypassing their filtering
> of Skype, becuase the connection to my server is secure and
> cannot be eavesdropped upon by the hotel.


Actually it's very trivial: Since you're abusing MSOE as a newsreader and
probably as a mail client, as well as MSIE as a webbrowser, they can simply
inject arbitrary code onto your computer, and then read everything outside
of the encrypted communication channel.
(And you couldn't even hold them responsible, since they're simply using the
access you're actively offering to them.)

Chilly8
04-12-08, 10:22 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes



However, one point in the posts that got lost, is that I use VPN
to avoid being detected by U.S. authorities, when I go to Cuba.
I do feel, that since I live in Australia, I should NOT be compelled
to comply with U.S. travel restrictions on Cuba, despite being a
U.S./Australia dual national. By encrypted the outbound connection
from Cuba, with a VPN tunnel, the spooks in Washington cannot
eavesdrop on my communications, which allows me to cover my
tracks, if I to go Cuba to broadcast sporting events.

bz
04-12-08, 10:40 PM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftrjmr$o0v$1@aioe.org:

> If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
> into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
> would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
> connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
> flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
> sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
> decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
> and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
> extra to use the entertainment system on the plane.

Now you are admitting to violating FCC and FAA regulations by operating a
computer with wireless turned on while in the air.

There is a reason that devices that emit radio signals are not allowed to
be used in flight.

Do you realize that you may interfere with navigational instruments and
cause the plane to crash?

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Chilly8
04-13-08, 02:07 AM
"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:66d4uvF2j67jjU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>>>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>>>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> Here is another good use for VPN. Some in-flight Internet service
>> block Skype (because they want you to use their EXPENSIVE
>> "airfone" service). If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
>> into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
>> would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
>> connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
>> flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
>> sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
>> decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
>> and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
>> extra to use the entertainment system on the plane.
>
>
> Are you really so stupid? This is exactly the reason why they block
> everything that looks pseudorandom, including compressed and encrypted
> data.
>
> > I can VPN into my server, and launch Skype through there, and the
>
>> hotel would NEVER know that I was bypassing their filtering
>> of Skype, becuase the connection to my server is secure and
>> cannot be eavesdropped upon by the hotel.
>
>
> Actually it's very trivial: Since you're abusing MSOE as a newsreader and
> probably as a mail client, as well as MSIE as a webbrowser, they can
> simply

MSOE is THE mail client for Windows, other than using Web-based
systems from Hotmail, or for-pay webmail services from some ISPs.

Flash Gordon
04-13-08, 03:17 AM
Chilly8 wrote, On 13/04/08 08:07:
> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message

<snip>

>> Actually it's very trivial: Since you're abusing MSOE as a newsreader and
>> probably as a mail client, as well as MSIE as a webbrowser, they can
>> simply
>
> MSOE is THE mail client for Windows, other than using Web-based
> systems from Hotmail, or for-pay webmail services from some ISPs.

Ah, that would explain why almost all businesses use something other
than MSOE for email on their Windows machines.

MSOE is merely one email client that MS provide, MS provide others and
so do other SW companies and some of the alternatives are free.
--
Flash Gordon

Chilly8
04-13-08, 03:30 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"bz" <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7EE6AE03D6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftrjmr$o0v$1@aioe.org:
>
>> If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
>> into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
>> would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
>> connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
>> flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
>> sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
>> decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
>> and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
>> extra to use the entertainment system on the plane.
>
> Now you are admitting to violating FCC and FAA regulations by operating a
> computer with wireless turned on while in the air.

Nope, this is in-flight Internet provided by the AIRLINE that I am
using, read the post. I am using VPN to circumvent the airline's
firewall on their internet service, so I can aceess Skype. A
number of airlines DO block Skype on their in-flight Internet,
I am merely saying that I use a VPN tunnel into MY server,
so I can get around the firewall and use Skype. The service
I use is a LEGAL service provide by the airline, I just merely
use my VPN system to thwart filtering, blocking, and
monitoring, by the airline's IT staff.

Now was far as LIGHT aircraft go (I do hold an Australian
flying licence), it is NOT illegal for me to rent, say, a Cessna
aircraft and take it up and scan the area for any open wireless
networks, if I am going to be broadcasting a sporting event.

Cessna 172 and 182 aircraft are actually the best light
aircraft, that I have flown, for scanning an area for
various kinds of wireless hotspots. It can be flown a
fairly slow speed, and the optimum airspeed when
scanning for WiFi networks as around 100 KIAS.
The flaps-up stall speed is around 60KIAS, so
I fly over the area around any arena or stadium
holding the sporting event we want to broadcast,
and fly at 80 to 100 KIAS airspeed. With
a SuperCantenna, all kinds of WiFi hotspots,
be they an unsecured router at a business or
resident, of the various public hotspots at places
like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc, etc,. can be
found and logged rather quickly. And doing this
from a light aircraft, such as a Cessna 172 or
182 is LEGAL, as long as I follow whatever
instructions are given by local air traffic control.

Volker Birk
04-13-08, 04:27 AM
bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> There is a reason that devices that emit radio signals are not allowed to
> be used in flight.
> Do you realize that you may interfere with navigational instruments and
> cause the plane to crash?

To be honest: these regulations are ********.

Not only once I forgot to switch off my mobile phone, because it was in
my jacket. And I think, many people have the same problem.

I don't think, that this ever will crash the plane - fortunately, people
who are designing planes are not too dumb to implement appropriate
shielding.

These regulations are as dumb as the regulations, that you may not bring
a tube of toothpaste into the plane.

Yours,
VB.
--
The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately
followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading
zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would
have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X

bz
04-13-08, 04:30 AM
Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> wrote in news:4801c40a@news.uni-ulm.de:

> bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>> There is a reason that devices that emit radio signals are not allowed
>> to be used in flight.
>> Do you realize that you may interfere with navigational instruments and
>> cause the plane to crash?
>
> To be honest: these regulations are ********.
>
> Not only once I forgot to switch off my mobile phone, because it was in
> my jacket. And I think, many people have the same problem.
>
> I don't think, that this ever will crash the plane - fortunately, people
> who are designing planes are not too dumb to implement appropriate
> shielding.
>

It is not a matter of shielding. It is impossible to completely shield the
passenger compartment so that no radio signals of any frequency can escape
the box. Any signal that escapes could overpower an important signal that
the aircraft depends on.

> These regulations are as dumb as the regulations, that you may not bring
> a tube of toothpaste into the plane.

You are not qualified to determine if a particular device may cause a
problem at a critical moment, even if you are an electronics engineer. It
takes extensive testing to make sure that nothing a particular device
radiates can interfere with the reception of any vital signals by any of
the navigation devices.

Imagine, for example, that the aircraft is landing under IFR (instrument
flight rules) conditions when the ground can not be seen and the pilot is
following the indicators that show the aircraft is following the glide
path signals and some idiot fires up a cell phone. The interference causes
the indicator to show that the aircraft is 50 feet higher than it actually
is. The pilot corrects his approach and is now 50 feet below the
glide-path.

Makes a terrible mess in a field just short of the runway.

It take thousands of hours of testing to 'clear' a specific device.
Then what happens when the device malfunctions and radiates a signal on a
different frequency?

It is better to follow the rules. When you don't you are playing Russian
roulette with the lives of everyone on the aircraft and people on the
ground also.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

bz
04-13-08, 04:48 AM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftsgah$mu5$1@aioe.org:

>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "bz" <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A7EE6AE03D6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
>> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftrjmr$o0v$1@aioe.org:
>>
>>> If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
>>> into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
>>> would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
>>> connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
>>> flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
>>> sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
>>> decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
>>> and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
>>> extra to use the entertainment system on the plane.
>>
>> Now you are admitting to violating FCC and FAA regulations by operating
>> a computer with wireless turned on while in the air.
>
> Nope, this is in-flight Internet provided by the AIRLINE that I am
> using, read the post.

You said NOTHING about using the aircraft's wired network connection to
connect to the VPN. You just implied that the aircraft people's monopoly
on communications made it expensive to use a cell phone. Sounded to me
like you were bragging about using YOUR wireless from the aircraft. It
WOULD be FREE and you would have tremendous range. ALL things you were
crowing about.

Since you pay for the in-flight network connectivity, by the minute, when
you use the wired internet connection, you can use that any way you want,
legally, provided that the material you are accessing is legal. They don't
care if you skype via their broadband.

> I am using VPN to circumvent the airline's
> firewall on their internet service, so I can aceess Skype. A
> number of airlines DO block Skype on their in-flight Internet,
> I am merely saying that I use a VPN tunnel into MY server,
> so I can get around the firewall and use Skype. The service
> I use is a LEGAL service provide by the airline, I just merely
> use my VPN system to thwart filtering, blocking, and
> monitoring, by the airline's IT staff.
>
> Now was far as LIGHT aircraft go (I do hold an Australian
> flying licence), it is NOT illegal for me to rent, say, a Cessna
> aircraft and take it up and scan the area for any open wireless
> networks, if I am going to be broadcasting a sporting event.

When you are the pilot, you can LISTEN all you like, as long as you don't
listen on cell phone frequencies or certain other frequencies. And as the
pilot of the aircraft, you can even operate any legal transmitting
equipment for which you have the proper license, or give someone else
permission to operate it.


.....




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Sebastian G.
04-13-08, 06:31 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


>>> I can VPN into my server, and launch Skype through there, and the
>>> hotel would NEVER know that I was bypassing their filtering
>>> of Skype, becuase the connection to my server is secure and
>>> cannot be eavesdropped upon by the hotel.
>>
>> Actually it's very trivial: Since you're abusing MSOE as a newsreader and
>> probably as a mail client, as well as MSIE as a webbrowser, they can
>> simply
>
> MSOE is THE mail client for Windows,


Aside from the fact that it's even properly support the RFC from the Mail
Message format, there're a dozen of real mail clients for Windows. Neither
did your statement bring any accuse for the inherent security flaws which
make it unsuitable for usage in almost any scenario; much less does it stop
anyone from simply exploiting it.

> other than using Web-based

> systems from Hotmail, or for-pay webmail services from some ISPs.


And you don't even know GMX. How stupid.

Sebastian G.
04-13-08, 06:34 AM
Volker Birk wrote:


> These regulations are as dumb as the regulations, that you may not bring
> a tube of toothpaste into the plane.


The latest recurse on this topic: You're allowed to bring methanol cell
based accumulators for your laptop onto the plane. And the lighter as well.

bz
04-13-08, 09:21 AM
Jens Hoffmann <jh@bofh.de> wrote in
news:ftqt6e$biq$1@murphy.mediascape.de:

> Hi,
>
>>> Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?
>>
>> "fry birds"? What is that crack supposed to mean?
>
> FCC in the US allows a maximum of 4W ERP.
> http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/dbm_to_watt_conversion.cfm
> http://www.topatec.com/pwr_db.htm
>
> The amount of energy you supposedly use is dangerous.

Yes. I worked on radars for a living and I would never expose myself to the
power levels he is citing.

>
> I still think, you cannot calculate a pringles antenna correctly.
>
> Pretty consistent with the rest of your fantasies, though.

Yes. And he is mistaken in his statements. The power amps that I see for
sale are 'for export and sale to licensed amateur radio operators and
military ONLY'. They are NOT allowed for domestic use.

The FCC also has RF exposure limits based on safety studies.
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html
and this gives important guideline formula:
http://mrtmag.com/mag/radio_predicting_power_density/

Luckily, the pringle can antenna has a NEGATIVE gain of about -9 db over
a 1/4 wave antenna.
http://www.csvhfs.org/ant/CSANT02.HTML.

If our troll were really knowledgeable, he would get rid of the pringle
can antenna and use a 12" x 12" pyramidal horn. Then he could throw away
his power amplifier too.

Of course, the pringle can antenna IS better than the typical 'built in'
antenna in your laptop or wireless card.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

goarilla
04-13-08, 12:30 PM
Chilly8 wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "bz" <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A7C5418EC349WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
>> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftkvo0$3ev$1@aioe.org:
>>
>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>
>>>
>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.2267c2dc32c964d9896b8@adfree.usenet.com...
>>>> In article <ftk796$2vg$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>>>> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
>>>>> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
>>>>> all the traffic.
>>>> And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
>>>> easier to spot than a proxy connection.
>>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
>>> encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,
>>> very handy when I go to China, or Cuba, an average of once
>>> a year to broadcast figure skating events. I completely bypass
>>> the local censors, since the connection cannot be analysed,
>>> cracked, monitored, or sniffed. If, say, Hotmail, is blocked,
>>> I can VPN to my server,. and log on to Hotmail that way,
>>> and the local government censors will NEVER know what I
>>> am up to.
>>>
>>> If I want to read certain blocked Western news sources, while
>>> in China, such as the BBC, or CNN, or a few Australian
>>> news outlets, I can do that, and there is no POSSIBLE way
>>> the censors in China would know what I was up to, becuase
>>> of the encrypted connection to my server. So I can do pretty
>>> much what I want, no matter what part of the world I go to,
>>> and local censors cannot monitor me.
>> You could get someone jailed or killed.
>
>> As I said, you could be in danger yourself and those that use your service
>> could be in danger.
>
> Not me, I would not be in danger. A local person, maybe, but not me,
> as a foreigner. With an encrypted connection, whether I am in
> China, Cuba, or censorious Middle Eastern countires, there is
> no POSSIBLE way I can be monitored, becuase of the encryption.
>
> Since Live 365 is blocked in Iran, I use my VPN, if I go there,
> to log in and check on the Live 365 feed for my station, and
> the Mullahs in Iran have no CLUE as to WHAT I am up to.
> Both Live 365 and LoudCity are blocked, in Iran, but I use
> my VPN connection to bypass the Mullahs, and check on
> my station.
>
> I also use it in Britan and the U.S., becuase of the warrantless
> monitoring of communications in both countries, that is apparently
> even more than the afforentioned censorious regimes in Cuba,
> China, etc. By using an enrypted connection, Mi-6 in Britain,
> or Homeland Security in America cannot snoop on my
> communications, becusae of the heavy crypto. The government
> spooks in America and Britain cannot monitor me, when I use
> my VPN connection. All Mi-6 and Homeland Security know
> is that I am making an encrypted connection to my server, via
> a VPN link, but that is ALL either DHS or MI-6 would
> know.
>
>
MI-6 ???
it's MI-5
MI-6 is ian flemings' creation

Chilly8
04-13-08, 09:07 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftrjmr$o0v$1@aioe.org...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere.
>
>
> Here is another good use for VPN.

And then there is other kinds of filtering. Becuase of pressure
from rights-holders, some ISPs, including in Austtralia, are
blocking P2P television networks (PPLive, TVants, etc, etc),
based out of China. I can get around such blocks by running
a VPN into my server, at a colocation centre which does not
block any kind of P2P, and be able to watch any kind of sports
event, when I am home and not travelling. The connection to
my server, located outside of Australia, is secure, and what I am
doing cannot be monitored by my ISP through packet-sniffing.
All they would know is that I am making a heavily encrypted
connection to my server, but the contents are encrypted, so I
can, say, watch prime time TV from America, on channels are
are rebroadcast through these networks, and my Australian
ISP will NEVER know WHAT I am up to.

I watch major league baseball games from America, via
P2P television networks, and my ISP, in Australia, would
NEVER know what I was up to.

Volker Birk
04-13-08, 11:56 PM
bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>> These regulations are as dumb as the regulations, that you may not bring
>> a tube of toothpaste into the plane.
> You are not qualified to determine if a particular device may cause a
> problem at a critical moment, even if you are an electronics engineer. It
> takes extensive testing to make sure that nothing a particular device
> radiates can interfere with the reception of any vital signals by any of
> the navigation devices.

How can you ensure, that all electronic devices in passengers' area are
switched off?

You can't.

And does that mean, that plane crashes increased dramatically with the
real dramatic increase of portable electronic devices in the last years?

Fortunately, planes seem not to be build as dumb as you're suggesting.

> Imagine, for example, that the aircraft is landing under IFR (instrument
> flight rules) conditions when the ground can not be seen and the pilot is
> following the indicators that show the aircraft is following the glide
> path signals and some idiot fires up a cell phone. The interference causes
> the indicator to show that the aircraft is 50 feet higher than it actually
> is. The pilot corrects his approach and is now 50 feet below the
> glide-path.

Then IFR would be unusable now, because I bet, that in every plane
at least one mobile phone was forgotten to be switched off. And any
of these mobile phones are sending at the time of landing, because
they're connecting to the cell there.

> It is better to follow the rules.

Yes. This is just the same thing as with the toothpaste. Follow the
rules. This is what we all do, hoping that we're wrong and people are
not implementing rules, which are just crazy.

Yours,
VB.
--
The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately
followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading
zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would
have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X

Raven
04-14-08, 01:06 AM
"goarilla <"kevin<punt>paulus|"@|skynet" <"punt> wrote in message
news:480242bc$0$2984$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
>> I also use it in Britan and the U.S., becuase of the warrantless
>> monitoring of communications in both countries, that is apparently
>> even more than the afforentioned censorious regimes in Cuba,
>> China, etc. By using an enrypted connection, Mi-6 in Britain,
>> or Homeland Security in America cannot snoop on my
>> communications, becusae of the heavy crypto. The government
>> spooks in America and Britain cannot monitor me, when I use
>> my VPN connection. All Mi-6 and Homeland Security know
>> is that I am making an encrypted connection to my server, via
>> a VPN link, but that is ALL either DHS or MI-6 would
>> know.
>>
>>
> MI-6 ???
> it's MI-5
> MI-6 is ian flemings' creation

Oh really?
http://www.mi6.gov.uk/output/Page50.html

Chilly8
04-14-08, 05:04 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"bz" <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7F5F40442BCWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
> Jens Hoffmann <jh@bofh.de> wrote in
> news:ftqt6e$biq$1@murphy.mediascape.de:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?
>>>
>>> "fry birds"? What is that crack supposed to mean?
>>
>> FCC in the US allows a maximum of 4W ERP.
>> http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/dbm_to_watt_conversion.cfm
>> http://www.topatec.com/pwr_db.htm
>>
>> The amount of energy you supposedly use is dangerous.
>
> Yes. I worked on radars for a living and I would never expose myself to
> the
> power levels he is citing.
>
>>
>> I still think, you cannot calculate a pringles antenna correctly.
>>
>> Pretty consistent with the rest of your fantasies, though.
>
> Yes. And he is mistaken in his statements. The power amps that I see for
> sale are 'for export and sale to licensed amateur radio operators and
> military ONLY'. They are NOT allowed for domestic use.

well, I have a power amp that is desguised, and I have no problem
with Customs when travelling to America. You see, I am a
borderline diabetic, and have to check my blood sugar at times,
so I have the power amp concealed inside my blood glucose
monitor. To Customs, it will appear to be a glucose monitor
that can check your blood suger level, but the power amp
is concealed inside the glucose monitor. Customs is NEVER the wiser,
and I have NO problem with Customs, whenever I enter the
United States.

That is how you get a device into the U.S., you desguise it
as something else. I even have a GPS jammer, deguised as
an Walkman casette stereo. It will even play tapes and pick
up the local radio stations, but there is a GPS jammer
concealed inside the unit (GPS jammers are illegal in Britain).
I use it to jam the GPS-based tracking units in rental cars.
The British authorites have no CLUE that I am bringing a
GPS jammer. GPS jammers are also illegal under state
laws in 3 U.S. states (California, Georgia, and Florida)

GPS jammers are also handy when going to Mexico. I
did cover a figure skating event in Ensenada, Mexico,
about 6 years ago. So the hire company would not know
that I took the car into Mexico, and this charge me
$1/mile (ouch!!) surcharge for every mile driven in
Mexico, I simply used the GPS jammer to prevent the
tracking device from getting the GPS signal, and, thus,
it was unable to report back the coordinates of where
it was. The only way to Ensenada is to fly to either
LAX or San Diego, and then drive the rest of the way.
Desguising the GPS jammer also helps if I am ever stopped
by a police officer in California. That cop will NEVER know
I have a GPS jammer, in violation of California State Law,
becuase it is deguised as a cheap Walkman stereo that can
play tapes and pick up the local radio stations.

The laws in California and Geogia have to do with the
"anklets" that probationers and people on bail awaiting
trial often have to wear. Because a GPS jammer can interfere
with such devices, it has been declared illegal in California
and Georgia, and the Florida law has to do with stricter
laws regarding unlicensed radio transmitters,

Chilly8
04-14-08, 05:15 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftue9q$al0$1@aioe.org...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ftrjmr$o0v$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>>>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>>>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> Here is another good use for VPN.
>
> And then there is other kinds of filtering. Becuase of pressure
> from rights-holders, some ISPs, including in Austtralia, are
> blocking P2P television networks (PPLive, TVants, etc, etc),
> based out of China. I can get around such blocks by running
> a VPN into my server, at a colocation centre which does not
> block any kind of P2P, and be able to watch any kind of sports


Speaking of P2P television, VPN is also wise to use, when in
England, becuase you don't know if the establishment is a
scofflaw that has in-room tellies with a TV Licence, and
changes to the law in 2004 requite a TV Licence to watch
online television as well. In the time of the pound and Euro
rising against virtually every other worldwide currency,
I find that B&B inns a better value when in England. To
avoid being fined, in the event a particular B&B I am staying
in does not have a TV Licence, I VPN into my server, whenever
I want to watch any online TV, so that the authorities in Britain
cannot monitor what I am doing. The encryption keeps me
from incurring what would be a fine of about 2200 AUD,
at current exchange rates, for watching online TV without
a TV Licence. So I I want to watch programming, from,
say, 9 Network (which is sometimes available on some
P2P TV Networks) from back home in Australia, or if
I want to watch a baseball game from America, on the
Internet, the British authorties will NEVER know what
I am up to

The are some scofflaws, among B&B inns, that offer
TV without a TV Licence. Using an encrypted connection
to my server ouside of Britain keeps ME from incurring
any liability, should the particular establishment I am
staying at ever be busted my TV Licensing for not
having a TV Licence.