Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

bind-address mysql multiple, sanibleone xxxx, ftp://192.168.100.100/, www.xxxcon, which comes first ob_start or session, wwwxxx/58/2010, xxxxdup, xxxxdup, mailx informatii, should producers of software-based services, such as atms, be held liable for economic injuries suffered when their systems fail?

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-23 14:27:50 by jimonight

http://groups.google.com/group/daily_ip
http://www.assban.com
http://www.aplusproxy.com
http://www.btwproxy.com
http://www.afastway.com
http://www.myspaceproxyindex.com

Report this message

#2: Re: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-23 21:36:13 by Leythos

In article <98cc8ccc-7ba1-482a-a359-
ebaeae2f378f@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, jimonight@gmail.com says...
> http://groups.google.com/group/daily_ip
> http://www.assban.com
> http://www.aplusproxy.com
> http://www.btwproxy.com
> http://www.afastway.com
> http://www.myspaceproxyindex.com

None of them work from any of my networks or customers network, and we
didn't have to do anything to block them....

--
- 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)

Report this message

#3: Re: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-23 22:45:20 by chilly8

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.227959b7aea8024c98970d@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <98cc8ccc-7ba1-482a-a359-
> ebaeae2f378f@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, jimonight@gmail.com says...
>> http://groups.google.com/group/daily_ip
>> http://www.assban.com
>> http://www.aplusproxy.com
>> http://www.btwproxy.com
>> http://www.afastway.com
>> http://www.myspaceproxyindex.com
>
> None of them work from any of my networks or customers network, and we
> didn't have to do anything to block them....

Most businesses are reliant on commercial filtering products that will
not have these proxies in their filter lists for a few days. That is what
one guy hawking 8e6's proxy dectector says. He says that without
his product on your network, you are NEVER going to keep up
with the flood of new php, cgi, and other public proxies appearing
on the net every day.

This is why I see traffic to my web sites coming from different proxies
every day. Existing proxies are blocked, and new ones come in to
take their place.
..

Report this message

#4: Re: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-23 23:22:54 by Sebastian Gottschalk

Chilly8 wrote:


> Most businesses are reliant on commercial filtering products that will
> not have these proxies in their filter lists for a few days. That is what
> one guy hawking 8e6's proxy dectector says. He says that without
> his product on your network, you are NEVER going to keep up
> with the flood of new php, cgi, and other public proxies appearing
> on the net every day.
>
> This is why I see traffic to my web sites coming from different proxies
> every day. Existing proxies are blocked, and new ones come in to
> take their place.


Hey idiot, it's called "whitelist"...

Report this message

#5: Re: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-23 23:28:38 by Leythos

In article <fuo75b$in3$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Existing proxies are blocked, and new ones come in to
> take their place.

And on a properly secured network no proxies are available, not new
ones, not old ones, not any, on a properly secured network. No
additional work is needed to block access to them as more are made, it's
blocked by default on properly secured networks.

--
- 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)

Report this message

#6: Re: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-24 00:11:19 by Flash Gordon

Chilly8 wrote, On 23/04/08 21:45:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.227959b7aea8024c98970d@adfree.usenet.com...

<snip>

>> None of them work from any of my networks or customers network, and we
>> didn't have to do anything to block them....
>
> Most businesses are reliant on commercial filtering products that will
> not have these proxies in their filter lists for a few days. That is what
> one guy hawking 8e6's proxy dectector says. He says that without
> his product on your network, you are NEVER going to keep up
> with the flood of new php, cgi, and other public proxies appearing
> on the net every day.

Even on the cheapo Draytek Vigor 2950 load balancer all I had to do was
check the box to say we were using a URL white list and people could
*only* access the web sites we had explicitly allowed and then there was
no need to update it to block the new proxies. Oh, and I also check the
box telling it to forbid browsing by IP address.

Alternatively if I want to filter based on site categorisations I tell
it to block sites which are not categorised.

This is with a *cheap* device I can set it up in 5 minutes so that it
*never* needs updating to block new proxies since it does not allow
people to access anything they are not explicitly allowed to access.

With higher end devices I can do a lot more or exactly the same thing.

> This is why I see traffic to my web sites coming from different proxies
> every day. Existing proxies are blocked, and new ones come in to
> take their place.

Doesn't help with companies where the admin chooses to do things
properly. It only works from some places because the people running the
networks don't do things properly.
--
Flash Gordon

Report this message

#7: Re: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-24 01:09:13 by Sebastian Gottschalk

Flash Gordon wrote:


> Even on the cheapo Draytek Vigor 2950 load balancer all I had to do was
> check the box to say we were using a URL white list and people could
> *only* access the web sites we had explicitly allowed and then there was
> no need to update it to block the new proxies. Oh, and I also check the
> box telling it to forbid browsing by IP address.


I hope you made sure that all clients only use HTTP 1.1 or you force PROXY
CONNECT or a Socks proxy onto them. At any rate, resolving hostnames to IP
addresses on a regular basis shouldn't be that hard either.

> This is with a *cheap* device I can set it up in 5 minutes so that it
> *never* needs updating to block new proxies since it does not allow
> people to access anything they are not explicitly allowed to access.


Your argument still fails to address Chilly8's pure denial of reality. But
don't mind, I don't think there's any way to do this.

Report this message

#8: Re: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-24 07:16:34 by chilly8

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:679nm3F2na1u4U1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> Most businesses are reliant on commercial filtering products that will
>> not have these proxies in their filter lists for a few days. That is what
>> one guy hawking 8e6's proxy dectector says. He says that without
>> his product on your network, you are NEVER going to keep up
>> with the flood of new php, cgi, and other public proxies appearing
>> on the net every day.
>>
>> This is why I see traffic to my web sites coming from different proxies
>> every day. Existing proxies are blocked, and new ones come in to
>> take their place.
>
>
> Hey idiot, it's called "whitelist"...

Whitelisting, however, requires expensive, and I mean EXPENSIVE
filtering software. CyBlock can do whitelisting, but it is the ONLY
product on the market that makes whitelisting feasible.

Report this message

#9: Re: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-24 08:46:08 by Flash Gordon

Chilly8 wrote, On 24/04/08 06:16:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
> news:679nm3F2na1u4U1@mid.dfncis.de...
>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Most businesses are reliant on commercial filtering products that will
>>> not have these proxies in their filter lists for a few days. That is what
>>> one guy hawking 8e6's proxy dectector says. He says that without
>>> his product on your network, you are NEVER going to keep up
>>> with the flood of new php, cgi, and other public proxies appearing
>>> on the net every day.
>>>
>>> This is why I see traffic to my web sites coming from different proxies
>>> every day. Existing proxies are blocked, and new ones come in to
>>> take their place.
>>
>> Hey idiot, it's called "whitelist"...
>
> Whitelisting, however, requires expensive, and I mean EXPENSIVE
> filtering software. CyBlock can do whitelisting, but it is the ONLY
> product on the market that makes whitelisting feasible.

No it does NOT require expensive filtering software. My 100UKP home
router can do it for me. The cheap (in company terms) router used by my
company for our small office can do it. The proxy that is available for
free for Linux (which your free Linux firewall can redirect all the
connections from your Windows PCs to) can do it (and, indeed, it is what
a number of companies *do* use for free).

For wone example of a *cheap* router doing whitelisting see
http://www.draytek.com/product/Dual_Wan_Security_Router/Vigo r2910i.php
I think all of the Draytek routers do it, even the ones that cost far
less than this.

Of course, you have been told about all the other SW that allows
whitelisting before.
--
Flash Gordon

Report this message

#10: Re: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-24 09:01:41 by Flash Gordon

Sebastian G. wrote, On 24/04/08 00:09:
> Flash Gordon wrote:
>
>> Even on the cheapo Draytek Vigor 2950 load balancer all I had to do
>> was check the box to say we were using a URL white list and people
>> could *only* access the web sites we had explicitly allowed and then
>> there was no need to update it to block the new proxies. Oh, and I
>> also check the box telling it to forbid browsing by IP address.
>
> I hope you made sure that all clients only use HTTP 1.1 or you force
> PROXY CONNECT or a Socks proxy onto them. At any rate, resolving
> hostnames to IP addresses on a regular basis shouldn't be that hard either.

The client machines are pretty well locked down and the user community
is pretty ignorant.

Also the manager often looks over peoples shoulders or remote connects
to their desktops to see what they are doing (especially when he is not
in the office). Not an environment I would like to work in, but I only
provide them with the odd bit of IT support.

Another thing that Chilly won't believe is that a lot of my companies
customers have there networks locked down so well we have to use our 3g
cards to access our email and when we manage to sell them our hosted
services we have to tell them the relevant IP addresses so that
appropriate holes can be opened in their firewalls (this even applies to
small companies).

>> This is with a *cheap* device I can set it up in 5 minutes so that it
>> *never* needs updating to block new proxies since it does not allow
>> people to access anything they are not explicitly allowed to access.
>
> Your argument still fails to address Chilly8's pure denial of reality.
> But don't mind, I don't think there's any way to do this.

True, very true.
--
Flash Gordon

Report this message

#11: Re: Newest Proxies - April 23

Posted on 2008-04-24 13:31:10 by chilly8

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fuo75b$in3$1@aioe.org...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.227959b7aea8024c98970d@adfree.usenet.com...
>> In article <98cc8ccc-7ba1-482a-a359-
>> ebaeae2f378f@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, jimonight@gmail.com says...
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/daily_ip
>>> http://www.assban.com
>>> http://www.aplusproxy.com
>>> http://www.btwproxy.com
>>> http://www.afastway.com
>>> http://www.myspaceproxyindex.com
>>
>> None of them work from any of my networks or customers network, and we
>> didn't have to do anything to block them....
>
> Most businesses are reliant on commercial filtering products that will
> not have these proxies in their filter lists for a few days. That is what
> one guy hawking 8e6's proxy dectector says. He says that without
> his product on your network, you are NEVER going to keep up
> with the flood of new php, cgi, and other public proxies appearing
> on the net every day.
>
> This is why I see traffic to my web sites coming from different proxies
> every day. Existing proxies are blocked, and new ones come in to
> take their place.


I have a couple of other producers that have approached me about
adding their shows to the station lineup, becusae they know I will
do everything I can, to make sure their shows are heard
ANYWHERE, including at work. There is another '80s show
that has approached me about airing their program, as well
as a show that features '70s and early '80s disco music.

I also have one producer, in Shenzen China, wanting to put
his program of "Canto-Pop" music on my station, targeting
Chinese expats in countries like Australia, Britain, and the
United States.

My reputation of doing everything possible to foil filtering
and blocking is starting to become well-known.

Report this message