Haha, does anyone really believe that an 'Anonymous DDOS' could take down Facebook globally?
1540 posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
Haha, does anyone really believe that an 'Anonymous DDOS' could take down Facebook globally?
" I went for an interview a while back...."
""Is this where we're working?" I asked, "
"Carlsberg don't do cocky confidence, but if they did...."
" Here's the thing, pretty much every company that has surpassed a single shop and an old fashioned till is dependent to some degree on tech (be it internal, outsourced or hosted) as such you can classify every company as a tech company if you want"
errr, yeah. Wasn't that what the article said?
" It's frightening how easily a government can order the complete shutdown of the Internet in a country. A network that is so essential to so many people in their daily lives should not be so vulnerable."
I agree with you, but it seems the other commentards don't agree..
Ah, so armed uprising means it's OK to close the internet, like that's going to make any difference.
Bloody hell, you've all been complaining about censorship, yet this is OK? NIMBY's?
The internet is used by paedophiles so should we close that down?
I feel you are all hypocrites who wouldn't stand for it here, but because it doesn't affect you, you've all turned into Matt Bryants.
Really? It was said that during their more active times, Al Queda used the internet to communicate, and recruitment and propaganda web sites exist. Should the government have therefore attempted to close the internet in the UK?
How about banning mobile phones too? Surely that's the next logical step.
You know, cars and roads make it easier for criminals to escape...... Ban them too!
" I hear that Nasa is suing Apple - because ISS sounds a bit like iOS"
Don't be silly........
It's Apple suing NASA! :-)
A web-based accounts management system versus a digital TV service?
What do they have in common other than they both use this internet thingie?
" Blighty intelligence and security bods at GCHQ will share classified information on cyber threats with organisations running the UK’s critical national infrastructure"
Huh? See subject.
As for sharing with us things they've invented with our money, well, how nice of them.
To be fair, that's one thing a lot of American departments have been good at (NASA and its photos,documents; Darpa and the internet etc.)
What does Uk.gov ever give back?
Nice one, Don!
And good luck in your critical mission!
Drew, I think you must have pissed off someone with all the Huawei articles!
My domains are not blocked! Yay inoffensive, politically correct me (with blank websites!)
" Let's say I have a dedicated server (or VPS?) somewhere that has IPv6:
* is it possible to set up a vpn (Linux-based) so that my local IPv6 traffic goes out over that link with a specific IPv6 address?
* would I be able to use the same tunnel and some config on the remote server to assign specific IPv6 addresses to, eg, my local toaster, fridge, etc.?
My local ISP d1oesn't support IPv6, so I'm trying to figure out how to dip my toe into IPv6 waters, so to speak...
If I understand you correctly, you have a server with native ipv6, and you want to use it to give your home network ipv6 via an ipv4 tunnel from home to server.
Yes, ip6 in ip4 capability exists in linux, and yes, you can configure the server to route some of your ip address range down the tunnel to your home lan.
Your home lan simply becomes an ipv6 subnet of your server.
However it's much easier, and cleaner to get a free tunnel from an ipv6 provider. You won't need to rely on the server for connectivity, and you will get your own ip6 /64 dedicated to your lan (and all 2↑64 devices you own!)
He.net is quick, free, reliable, so much so that I have my home router (he.net allows more than one independent tunnel - i have one set up at home, and another on the uk server) set to prefer ipv6 over ipv4 if the remote site supports it.
I personally find the he.net broker and setup to be the best, and fastest.
he.net have endpoints in the UK, USA. and own the links between them, and as under utilised, I find them faster for international links than ipv4!
Compare my ipv4 traceroute from my UK server to my US-West server with the ipv6 equivalent (uk using free he.net london pop - us-west has native ipv6)
Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1. DyslexicFish-1.tunnel.tserv5.lon1.ipv6.he.net 0.0% 38 10.9 11.2 10.3 13.1 0.4
2. v316.core1.lon1.he.net 0.0% 38 15.7 10.1 5.9 23.8 4.5
3. 10ge3-1.core1.lon2.he.net 0.0% 38 7.6 9.3 5.9 17.9 3.8
4. 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 38 73.0 75.2 71.5 84.5 4.2
5. 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.net 0.0% 38 140.3 137.5 133.0 146.3 4.4
6. 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 0.0% 38 132.4 135.9 132.4 153.1 4.4
7. ge-0-7-0-24.r04.lsanca03.us.ce.gin.ntt.net 0.0% 38 133.8 134.2 133.0 142.3 1.7
8. catnip.dyslexicfish.net 0.0% 37 134.4 135.2 134.1 147.0 2.2
Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1. 18.104.22.168 0.0% 53 0.8 1.6 0.4 26.2 4.3
2. ldc5-cr5.core.webfusion.com 0.0% 53 1.5 2.6 0.5 65.5 8.8
3. 22.214.171.124 0.0% 53 6.7 10.7 5.9 158.9 22.6
4. ldn-b5-link.telia.net 0.0% 53 6.4 7.3 5.8 51.9 6.3
5. ldn-bb2-link.telia.net 0.0% 53 6.1 9.8 5.5 91.6 13.3
6. ash-bb4-link.telia.net 0.0% 53 80.7 82.2 79.9 122.0 7.3
7. las-bb1-link.telia.net 0.0% 53 143.3 143.6 142.7 153.4 1.8
8. las-b3-link.telia.net 0.0% 53 153.4 156.3 152.5 203.8 9.3
9. 126.96.36.199 0.0% 52 153.3 153.1 152.2 161.0 1.1
10. v107.r6.lax2.trit.net 0.0% 52 143.3 143.3 142.8 143.8 0.0
11. arpnetworks-lax2-gw.cust.trit.net 0.0% 52 154.0 156.2 153.4 192.1 6.5
12. catnip.dyslexicfish.net 0.0% 52 153.9 154.0 153.3 156.5 0.4
I did a B.Eng at university, but even so, I don't see why a piece of paper is a requirement.
There are many people without degrees who could quite rightly be called a boffin - and there are many with relevant degrees who can't..
It's obvious that it was the threat of a sarcastic comment that got you to issue this apology and correction..
Them be fightin' words!
That is the crappiest argument I've ever seen in El Reg.
You must be new here!
... he thinks it's akin to creating a new telephone exchange (although even that just causes an allocation of an exchange code, and the freeing up of numbers beneath it, rather than 'creating' new numbers....)
Lol, NomNomNom, is the regular El Reg commentard teaser (I don't use the word 'troll' as Nomey is cleverer and more amusing, not simply being provocative)
Haha, you beat me to it. Don't use just love it when a poster takes on an obnoxious and condescending tone when 'correcting' someone with a reply that is full of bollocks?
I'm disappointed you didn't comment on this gem though: " generally through a MX record"
Ahhh, memories of the anguish when finally having to start quoting my domain backwards for email etc.
My uk.ac.lut uk.ac.ed and uk.ac.cf addresses actually meant something..
Eek. Just realised I've fallen into another concept no longer with us: short/long form domains.
I should have written the above as:
uk.ac.loughborough, uk.ac.edinburgh and uk.ac.cardiff
... depends upon how much you trust the TV makers (through either intentional maneuvering or buggy code)
If I had a home network I considered secure, I'd sandbox/firewall any foreign device that uses it. If it was just a consumer network, then meh - most potential abuses I see are going to be distributed attacks/spamming the internet not the local network. Besides, I use ssh and secure setup on my local lan too!
.....And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you!
Great post, Mike.
I just say you're brave - prepare to be downvoted by the large number of linux-cultists on El Reg who will downvote any critisism of GPL/GNU/Linux however accurate and well reasoned it is
He/she said second *option* !
" Two kids?
Not all that shy, then."
" The money would be better spent being sent to the BSD folks to do LibreSSL right IMHO. Theo may come off as dick at times but the guy (and his posse) understands securing code."
I agree on all points
" The test is that the provided code must compile and be binary identical to the publicly available deployed files."
Doh. I'd have realised that if I had a brain...
I mean, in the context of security auditing etc.
It's still MS that releases the binary only distributions that get used - how can a company/government etc. know if they have a sanitised copy?
.... never had a problem with talk talk - always get the full 18Mbs with good latency and no peak traffic jams.
As I understand it, they are to stop sniffing data (which they claim was never their intention anyway) but they do still record MACs
That made me chuckle on a gloomy Wednesday morning...
The problem with a lot of veggie food, is that some is good, and some just doesn't cut it. And you can't go by brands alone, either.
Linda McCartney pies are perfect. Not so the sausages.
Quorn sausages USED to be perfect, but they've changed.. (Quorn, if as Joe says, you are reading, take note!)
All 'bacon' I've tried has been awful - though I've not tried the Quorn brand.
Best thing in the world? Quorn Cheese and Brocoli Escalopes. I could live off them!
Burgers? Meh, again Quorn used to be good but not so much now. I've just had one of the Quorn quarter pounder burgers, and they are an improvement.
Quorn 'chicken burgers' and 'chicken dippers' are good.
Tescos Kievs aren't too bad either.
"It's a weird experience, Jamie, but I've been there too."
Thanks! I'm glad I'm not the only weird one :-)
"Jamie, you wrote that as if it were a bad thing."
I was tempted to reply: "Well, since the explosion at work, I get haunted by the memories. Still, I can't complain - at least I was one of the few to survive."
... But even I'm not that evil! :-)
I know I'll get downvoted, but..
Before I went veggie, I loved the smell of bacon, and I thought that's what I'd miss most...
However, the smell of it now makes me gag - it just smells to me like burning flesh.
Yeah. replace 'mainly' with 'wildly'. My vocabulary was out of sync with what I meant.
Cheers, Matt ;-)
".....Why the downvote?....." Because you want to pretend Truecrypt and other tools are not also used by terrorists, criminals and the like. And all the stories you hear about Truecrypt are not about innocent businessmen protecting industry secrets or Joe Average using Truecrypt and being victimised by The Man, they are always about criminals using Truecrypt in an attempt to avoid prosecution."
Not at all. I fully agree that they are probably mainly used for dodgy and illegal purposes.
My issue was that *you* keep implying that that is their *only* use.
The problem is, do you ban/break something because terrorists can use them?
Do we ban social gatherings, because terrorists can use them to recruit? Do we track and store the movements of every vehicle because criminals use cars as getaway vehicles? Do we stop selling fertilizer because it can be used to make bombs? etc.
".... It's true you never call..you never text..." Stop it, you'll make Boring Green jealous. He is my flock-designated, rabid, stalker sheep, doncha know."
Sorry, not sure who that is, but I don't want to upset your designated stalker! I'll suffer in silence from now on instead!
P.s. For what it's worth, I didn't downvote you
Hmmmm. weren't they pleased about the audit then?
I'd assumed they'd welcome someone independent validating their work.... Unless they did have something to hide.....
As for my more personal theories, I haven't really given it much thought - I don't use encryption for much, other than ssh sessions, and that's mainly to protect the passwords, not my drivel.
It's funny - I agree with you that most people are overly paranoid that somone wants to read their personal emails. Where we disagree, though, is that I think it's somones right NOT to be spied on without proper due process. I also resent the constant bollocks from governments using the terrorost excuse for this overreach.
Remember the Bush administration? If you disagreed with them on just about any topic, you were a terrorist!
P.s; Why the downvote? It's true you never call..you never text...
"Apologies if you were waiting for me to reply, I was too busy laughing at the sheeple getting in a state over this."
I was getting anxious.... You never phone, you never text.... :-(
But, apology accepted - I'm glad you're in a good mood!
"If you seriously think the NSA did this then you really are beyond delusional, I suggest you consider a few more likely options:"
I hope you are adressing the commentards generally - I don't think that at all, and I though it pretty obvious that Sir Spoon didn't either - even before he posted his clarification followup.
As for your 3 points, you may be surprised (and dissapointed?) to know that I basically agree with you... (Though of course, you had to make the aggreived person a pædo rather than someone who was the victim of corporate espionage, or fraud, or someone who just wants to keep his/her personal life.....errr...personal... You were doing so well up until then [I even overlooked your use of 'sheeple'] - do you write for the Daily Mail per-chance?)
"/Pointing and laughing and ROFLMAO."
I told them at the time that this would happen - but they went ahead and gave you that full length mirror anyway *rimshot*
Still, I'm glad you're having a good time! :-)
cd /usr/ports/security/truecrypt && make install clean
"Downloaded 7 Apr 2014
fciv "TrueCrypt Setup 7.1a.exe" -sha1
// File Checksum Integrity Verifier version 2.05.
7689d038c76bd1df695d295c026961e50e4a62ea truecrypt setup 7.1a.exe"
No (You are using SHA1!)
As per this page ( http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/security/truecrypt/distinfo?revision=290882&view=markup ) , checked into the FreeBSD ports tree on 10th February 2012:
Revision 290882 - (show annotations) (download)
Fri Feb 10 22:09:24 2012 UTC (2 years, 3 months ago) by zi
File size: 623 byte(s)
SHA256 (TrueCrypt_7.1a_Source.tar.gz) = e6214e911d0bbededba274a2f8f8d7b3f6f6951e20f1c3a598fc7a23af81c8dc
SIZE (TrueCrypt_7.1a_Source.tar.gz) = 1949303
You can easily get a version that passes both the above criteria by googling 'TrueCrypt_7.1a_Source.tar.gz'
Sir Spoon, you pinko commie terrorist loving liberal socislist unpatriotic pædo!
"Before the serial NSA apologist gets in to swing, "
*snigger* You know he will be!
I have to agree with Charlie here. The OpenBSD folk are likely to now be the defacto guardians of this codebase, as they are with SSH.
I'm too puzzled by the motives of the Linux folk not getting behind a group with a proven security track record.
In additon to that (dunno why you were voted down, BTW), libreSSL is intended to be an API compatible (even when it pains them to do so) drop in replacement for OpenSSL.
Well said, anon.
It's the inept who are used to bluffing their way through life that naturally turn to spin and bullshit.
Those who actually have a clue are quite open to admit when there's been a cockup, as their reputation isn't based on smoke and mirrors.
Oh bugger, I've just notice I've slipped into a topic that's 2 weeks old...
How did that happen?
Strangely, *all* drivers must be able to drive, hold a valid license, insurance, and have a safe and roadworthy vehicle.
If not, they are breaking the law, so there is already regulation to deal with that.
It seems that the taxi PR firms pulled a blinder when people keep assuming the opposite to a licensed taxi driver is automatically a mad psychotic maniac driving a death trap.
I regularly take my mum out shopping, and my young nieces and nephews out in the car, but... shock horror! I'm not a licensed cabbie! Oh, the (in)humanity!
Cabby perks.... Who says cabbies don't have power...
In most cities, a large proportion of traffic lanes are only allowed to be used by buses....... and taxis.
We were told to use buses to save the environment, and avoid congestion on our roads. Bus lanes were said to be to promote this way of thinking.
A taxi ride from A to B, and back again uses more fuel than a car journey would. They are *worse* for congestion and polutions than cars, so why do they get to own such a large part of the roads that WE pay for?
-- Yes, I know buses are generally private companies, but there's the 'green' factor, and the fact bus cokpanies have to cover non-profitable routes.
-- Yes, taxi drivers pay tax too, but not enough to warrant their own roads!
"Using TrueCrypt requires you to take a leap of faith that you can trust those anonymous individuals to be creating a quality product. "
Do you know personally the life history of everyone who has written software you use?
Can you name even one person who contributed to the browser you are using now?
I'm not going to be one of these who says "it must be safe, the souce code is available", but the fact is you *can* get it professionally audited if you want - it make no difference if you know the authors name or not.
Besides, don't you think that if it was some goverment project they could have created personas with fake personal cover stories?
I'd sooner trust VISIBLE source from someone anonymous than a binary from someone called 'Frank' - you keep banging on about this issue without anything to substantiate your worries