New "worst nightmare" for network admins

There is a NEW "worst nightmrae" for network admins, and its name is
Tor. It can defeat all filtering, monitoring, and traffic analisys
becuase the data is encrypted and sent through random addresses and
ports all over the world. And by logging to Privacy net several
times, I have seen the addresses of various government and coroporate
networks show up on address analysis. So someone on your network could
have Tor running on their workstation, and you would NEVER know it.
We are now running our own online radio station on Live 365, which
will will be using for online audio broadcasts of figure skating events
this coming season, and tests with Tor show that the Player 365
application will run through Tor with no problem So anyone out on your
network could be listening to our station, or any other Live 365
station, and you would NEVER know what they were up to becuase the data
has such good military-grade encryption that Tor is actually used by
troops in the War On Terror to communicate with top brass back in
Washington, it is good enough for the military to trust it.
It is incredible the number of government and corporate
workstations that Tor is running on. Loggging on and off the system
several times, and doing an analysis with Network tools every time I
log bac on, often shows a workplace computer that is left on and
running tor, even on the weekends.
As for people that are runnign Linux, you are not safe from Tor
either, as there is a Linux version of Tor available, so someone could
have Tor on their Linux workstation as well.

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
> > There is a NEW "worst nightmrae" for network admins, and its name is
> > Tor. It can defeat all filtering, monitoring, and traffic analisys
>
> Wrong. Tor cannot defend against traffic and timing analysis. A proposed
> extension to address these issues is the AN.ON/JAP project.


The military would not be using it if they could not trust it. The
military uses Tor in the field to communicate with the top brass in
Washington, becuase the packets cannot be analised, cracked, or
sniffed. It is military grade encryption that The military, as well
Homeland Security, the FBI, and other government agencies involved in
the War on Terror as using. The data packets cannot be sniffed by ANY
of America's enemies, the security is THAT good. So if the intelligence
agencies of America's ENEMIES cannot crack, sniff, or analise it,
neither could your typical corporate network admin. And this includes
potential enemies such as Russia and China. If the RUSSIAN KGB cannot
crack, sniff, or analise the data, then neither can the typical
corporate network admin.
>
> > So someone on your network could have Tor running on their workstation,
> > and you would NEVER know it.
>
> Once again bullshit. Why TF would an admin allows users to run arbitrary
> programs?

Well, when I check my address when logging on via Tor, I do often
find myself at the address of a corporate og government network. There
are more users than you might think running Tor nodes on thwir
workstations. The way that Tor works, is the proxy
randomly forwards you to a Tor node, which handles your traffic. I have
found that numerous educational institutions, corporations, and
government have machines on their networks running Tor and Privvoxy.
The network admins are probably unaware that corporate workstations are
running as Tor nodes, forwarding whatever traffic is routed thorugh
them.

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>
>>> There is a NEW "worst nightmrae" for network admins, and its name is
>>> Tor. It can defeat all filtering, monitoring, and traffic analisys
>> Wrong. Tor cannot defend against traffic and timing analysis. A proposed
>> extension to address these issues is the AN.ON/JAP project.
>
>
> The military would not be using it if they could not trust it. The
> military uses Tor in the field to communicate with the top brass in
> Washington, becuase the packets cannot be analised, cracked, or
> sniffed. It is military grade encryption that The military, as well
> Homeland Security, the FBI, and other government agencies involved in
> the War on Terror as using. The data packets cannot be sniffed by ANY
> of America's enemies, the security is THAT good. So if the intelligence
> agencies of America's ENEMIES cannot crack, sniff, or analise it,
> neither could your typical corporate network admin. And this includes
> potential enemies such as Russia and China. If the RUSSIAN KGB cannot
> crack, sniff, or analise the data, then neither can the typical
> corporate network admin.
>>> So someone on your network could have Tor running on their workstation,
>>> and you would NEVER know it.
>> Once again bullshit. Why TF would an admin allows users to run arbitrary
>> programs?
>
> Well, when I check my address when logging on via Tor, I do often
> find myself at the address of a corporate og government network. There
> are more users than you might think running Tor nodes on thwir
> workstations. The way that Tor works, is the proxy
> randomly forwards you to a Tor node, which handles your traffic. I have
> found that numerous educational institutions, corporations, and
> government have machines on their networks running Tor and Privvoxy.
> The network admins are probably unaware that corporate workstations are
> running as Tor nodes, forwarding whatever traffic is routed thorugh
> them.
>


How about if connections to Tor nodes are blocked, there is already a
blacklist being hosted


John

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Chilly8 wrote:
> There is a NEW "worst nightmrae" for network admins, and its name is
> Tor.

This is not a "nightmare", but a software program for implementing
privacy.

What's your problem with it?

Yours,
VB.
--
Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design.

Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

John Mason Jr wrote:
> chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> >> Chilly8 wrote:
> >>
> >>> There is a NEW "worst nightmrae" for network admins, and its name is
> >>> Tor. It can defeat all filtering, monitoring, and traffic analisys
> >> Wrong. Tor cannot defend against traffic and timing analysis. A proposed
> >> extension to address these issues is the AN.ON/JAP project.
> >
> >
> > The military would not be using it if they could not trust it. The
> > military uses Tor in the field to communicate with the top brass in
> > Washington, becuase the packets cannot be analised, cracked, or
> > sniffed. It is military grade encryption that The military, as well
> > Homeland Security, the FBI, and other government agencies involved in
> > the War on Terror as using. The data packets cannot be sniffed by ANY
> > of America's enemies, the security is THAT good. So if the intelligence
> > agencies of America's ENEMIES cannot crack, sniff, or analise it,
> > neither could your typical corporate network admin. And this includes
> > potential enemies such as Russia and China. If the RUSSIAN KGB cannot
> > crack, sniff, or analise the data, then neither can the typical
> > corporate network admin.
> >>> So someone on your network could have Tor running on their workstation,
> >>> and you would NEVER know it.
> >> Once again bullshit. Why TF would an admin allows users to run arbitrary
> >> programs?
> >
> > Well, when I check my address when logging on via Tor, I do often
> > find myself at the address of a corporate og government network. There
> > are more users than you might think running Tor nodes on thwir
> > workstations. The way that Tor works, is the proxy
> > randomly forwards you to a Tor node, which handles your traffic. I have
> > found that numerous educational institutions, corporations, and
> > government have machines on their networks running Tor and Privvoxy.
> > The network admins are probably unaware that corporate workstations are
> > running as Tor nodes, forwarding whatever traffic is routed thorugh
> > them.
> >
>
>
> How about if connections to Tor nodes are blocked, there is already a
> blacklist being hosted
>

There is a chink in that armor, though. Privoxy, which puts someone
on the Tor network can be run on someone's home computer. One could
simply start up on thier home machine, and then connect to the their
Privoxy server from work, and that would defeat any blacklist your put
up, since the person's home computer, running Privoxy, would be
handling the traffic to and from Tor. You would see an encrypted
connection to someones home computer, but you would not know what was
going on.

>
> John

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Volker Birk wrote:
> Chilly8 wrote:
> > There is a NEW "worst nightmrae" for network admins, and its name is
> > Tor.
>
> This is not a "nightmare", but a software program for implementing
> privacy.
>
> What's your problem with it?

Its not my problem. But it WILL be for network admins. I am the
"worst nightmare" guy that used to work for Anonymous Antarctic Media,
and I have since gone off and founded my own media company. With a Live
365 Professional broadcast account, one can can on the air fairly
quickly.
I run my own online talk show as well, and one of my listeners told
me about it the other day. She uses is from her workplace in Las Vegas,
so she can listen to my talk show, and her boss has no CLUE as to what
she is up to. She listens to my show from work, if I happen to be
broadcasting at that time, and her boss does not know she is doing
this.
As a result, I now encourage my listeners to download and use Tor,
if they are going to listen from work, especially with the upcoming
figure skating season. They will be able to listen to live online
audio, and if they use Tor, the boss will NEVER know what they are up
to, because of the military grade encryption, that is actually used by
the United States Government in the War on Terror, the security is THAT
good.

>
> Yours,
> VB.
> --
> Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design.
>
> Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

In article <1158604731.591595.151420@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:

> Its not my problem. But it WILL be for network admins. I am the
>"worst nightmare" guy

> I run my own online talk show as well,

An interesting thing about the Internet is that it provides soapboxes
to all who can afford them, whether law abiding or not, and
whether ethical or not.

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

On 18 Sep 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<1158569789.051828.277810@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com
wrote:
>> Chilly8 wrote:

>>> There is a NEW "worst nightmrae" for network admins, and its name is
>>> Tor. It can defeat all filtering, monitoring, and traffic analisys

Oh, my - it's September, and the failing students from "Introduction to
the Fundamentals of Concepts of Networking" are back.

> The military would not be using it if they could not trust it. The
>military uses Tor in the field to communicate with the top brass in
>Washington, becuase the packets cannot be analised, cracked, or
>sniffed.

Just because _you_ can't imagine how police detect drunken drivers doesn't
prevent them from doing so. Just because you don't understand network
packets doesn't mean everyone else is as clueless about the subject.

>And this includes potential enemies such as Russia and China. If the
>RUSSIAN KGB cannot crack, sniff, or analise the data, then neither can
>the typical corporate network admin.

You also are displaying a substantial lack of knowledge of the world.

> Well, when I check my address when logging on via Tor, I do often
>find myself at the address of a corporate og government network.

I can't help it if you missed that point about 'end points' and packet
counting.

>There are more users than you might think running Tor nodes on thwir
>workstations.

That's simply because you don't understand RFC0791 and RFC0894. Don't
give up your day job wiping tables and emptying trash bins at MacDonalds.

>I have found that numerous educational institutions, corporations, and
>government have machines on their networks running Tor and Privvoxy.

You wouldn't have the first clue how to detect _ANYTHING_ running on a
network.

>The network admins are probably unaware that corporate workstations are
>running as Tor nodes, forwarding whatever traffic is routed thorugh them.

Yeah - I probably shouldn't mention this, but there is a sure fire method of
detecting this. It's so obvious a solution that animals, both hunters and
hunted, have been using it since they began to hunt several thousand years
ago. That's enough of a clue for a dairy cow - wonder if you might notice it.

Old guy

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Spender wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2006 00:19:10 -0700, "Chilly8" wrote:
>
> > There is a NEW "worst nightmrae" for network admins, and its name is
> >Tor. It can defeat all filtering, monitoring, and traffic analisys
> >becuase the data is encrypted and sent through random addresses and
> >ports all over the world. And by logging to Privacy net several
> >times, I have seen the addresses of various government and coroporate
> >networks show up on address analysis. So someone on your network could
> >have Tor running on their workstation, and you would NEVER know it.
>
> You have been here before spouting the same tripe. Any network admin can
> spot an unusual stream of encrypted data flowing to and from a workstation.
> Depending on the environment, that can be an instant tip off that the user
> is up to no good. An admin can also use tools to see what applications are
> running on a workstation. Again, anything that looks out of the ordinary is
> a red flag.
>
> And you keep forgetting the admins ability to remotely view the screen of
> any workstation, and the keystroke logging programs used by many companies
> to give them hard copies of the legal backing for firing someone.

And there are programs on the market that can hunt down and destroy
these things. here are a number of anti-spyware programs that can hunt
down and destroy any keyloggers, application monitors, screen monitors,
etc, etc, placed on your machine. If they go to examine the machine's
logs, they get nothing, becuase there are no logs to examine on account
of the various keyloggers and other spyware programs having been
destroyed.

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Walter Roberson wrote:
> In article <1158604731.591595.151420@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> wrote:
>
> > Its not my problem. But it WILL be for network admins. I am the
> >"worst nightmare" guy
>
> > I run my own online talk show as well,
>
> An interesting thing about the Internet is that it provides soapboxes
> to all who can afford them, whether law abiding or not, and
> whether ethical or not.

Well, Professional-level broadcast accounts can get stats on where
people are connecting from, and as of right now, there is someone
connected to my station using a Tor node in Bergen, Norway. It could be
the caller that was on my show the other day, or someone else who heard
it. I am currently on holiday for this week to watch the eclipse from
down in French Guiana, so I am not running any shows this week, and I
have music in the storage space provided by Live 365, which kicks on
whenver there is no live broadcast, and the user through the Tor
network signed on at 2:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, according to the
stats, and is still on at 3:27PM Pacific Daylight Time. If it is
someone listening to my station from work, the boss will NEVER KNOW
what is going on becuase the data stream is encrypted. Plus, Live 365
VIP listeners, which this listener is, also get 128-bit SSH/SSL
encryption, so even without Tor, the outgoing data would still be
encrypted. With a data stream that has been encrypted twice, once by
Live 365, and then again by Tor, if somone at their work is listening,
being that it is still the workday in the western part of North
America, the boss will never find out what happened.
For any network admins reading this, at this time, that person
could be in YOUR shop listening to my station, and right under your
nose, and you would have no CLUE what was going in, primarily becuase I
keep the bitrate, when the automated music kicks on from Live 365, just
enough to keep good enough fidelity, but low enough where the bandwidth
usage, per hour, would be no more than what an average Web download
would be, amounting to only a few megabytes, so it will not stick out
like a sore thumb when bahdwidth statistics are compiled, When I do my
talk show, oir we broadcast anything else live, I drop the bandwidth
usage down even further. a 12K bitrate is low enough for talk radio, or
to broadcast figure skating, or other sporting events. I raise it to
24K when the automtic music from Live 365 kicks on after live
broadcasting is finished.

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:
> And there are programs on the market that can hunt down and destroy
> these things. here are a number of anti-spyware programs that can hunt
> down and destroy any keyloggers, application monitors, screen monitors,
> etc, etc, placed on your machine.

I doubt that if I'm implementing a small keylogger, that they will find.

Yours,
VB.
--
Viel schlimmer als die Implementation von PHP ist jedoch das Design.

Rudolf Polzer in de.comp.security.misc

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:19:10 -0700, Chilly8 wrote:

A lot of BS.
************************************************************

I have disabled connections for less reasons!
Unknown heavy traffic?
--> I don't care if its Napster, WebTV/Radio,
ftp, nntp, bit-torrent, mail or whatever
--> heavy traffic is not allowed here!
--> your MAC address will be disabled!
If you have legitimate traffic (even heavy) no problem!
Low traffic on "strange" ports CAN raise questions!
Heavy traffic on ANY port will raise questions!
Anybody trying to circumvent the firewall:
You don't want to be the one!

For your info:
I'm running a "public accessible Hotspot".
This means that there is a lot of "strange" traffic
but 99.9% of all people are well behaved!
Only 1 (one) MAC address is permanently banned
(Or until that laptop gets the "spamware" removed)
Only 2 out of way more than 1000 people tried to abbuse
the network connection! After closing all bit-torrent
ports permanently and a short talk, they behaved.

Rudy

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

God Rudy wrote:


> the network connection! After closing all bit-torrent
> ports permanently and a short talk, they behaved.

Well, Tor would not work with BitTorrent. The only things I find
that I cannot stuff down SocksCap are BitTorrent, Gnutella, and PP-Live
TV, but everything else I have ever tried with SocksCap, and Tor does
work. This is becuase SocksCap cannot handle anything that uses UDP,
but anything that uses solely TCP can be stufffed down SocksCap.
And besides, there is no possible way you can know what they are up
to, if they are using a system such as Tor, that uses military-grade
encryption, since all the data packets would be encrypted.

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:45:41 -0700, chilly8 wrote:

>
> God Rudy wrote:
>
>
>> the network connection! After closing all bit-torrent ports
>> permanently and a short talk, they behaved.

That example was downloading MP3 planed for redistribution!
Not exactly legal!

>
> Well, Tor would not work with BitTorrent. The only things I find
> that I cannot stuff down SocksCap are BitTorrent, Gnutella, and PP-Live
> TV, but everything else I have ever tried with SocksCap, and Tor does
> work. This is becuase SocksCap cannot handle anything that uses UDP, but
> anything that uses solely TCP can be stufffed down SocksCap.
> And besides, there is no possible way you can know what they are up
> to, if they are using a system such as Tor, that uses military-grade
> encryption, since all the data packets would be encrypted.

1) I DON'T care if the traffic is encripted!
2) ALL incomming ports are closed by default!
You need a very good reason to convince me to open
ANY port.
3) I DON'T care TCP,UDP or ANY other IP protocol
-If someones Computer creates "mistery" traffic that
reduced bandwith, I CAN shut it down!
-Then i find normaly very fast who it was.
-You (The abuser of the network) has a LOT to explain!
-You will stay banned if you cannot explain the extra
traffic from your computer!
4) If you have ANYTHING to hide, DON'T put it in the public
(Internet) in any form or way!
-Encrypted traffic attract everybodys attention!
-especialy if it is NOT from a aproved source!
(I.E. company mail or webserver)

Rudy
P.S.
What do YOU have to hide that you use that "service" yourself to post here? :-)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

In article <1158698741.761100.229510@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:

> And besides, there is no possible way you can know what they are up
>to, if they are using a system such as Tor, that uses military-grade
>encryption, since all the data packets would be encrypted.

You have so many mistaken ideas that it'd be a shame to correct
them and reduce the fun.

Let's just say that "the man who was not there", Was Not Here again today.

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

In message <1158698741.761100.229510@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

> And besides, there is no possible way you can know what they are up
>to, if they are using a system such as Tor, that uses military-grade
>encryption, since all the data packets would be encrypted.

Keep on believing that. I might not be able to sniff the content, but I
sure can figure out what a user is up to -- I can see every process
running on their PC, the contents of the drive, or even remote in and
see the desktop.

Things like that tend to make it simple to figure out what the user is
doing. *shrugs*

--
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:03:14 -0700, chilly8 wrote:


> However, someone with one of various kinds of high-gain antennas
> could hit your ublic hotspot from quite a ways away without even having
> to come into your establishment. I know that becuase when I was at
> Anonymous Antarctic Media, before I left, it was common practice when
> covering figure skating, or other sporting events, to use various kinds
> of high-gain antennas to connect to any open WAP we could find. And as
> far as the MAC address goes, there are programs out there that can
> "spoof" the MAC address. That was the company policy at Anonymous
> Antarctic Media, to find open WiFi access points with NetStumbler, and
> the spoof the MAC address using various hacker tools on the market, and
> a policy I intend to implement at my newlly founded company. High gain
> antennas are legal in every country, except England (which has tigher
> RF rules then anywhere else in the world). You can buy the
> SuperCantenna online. You might want to check out
> http://www.cantenna.com to see what I am talking about.
> If you l live anywhere that Chinese cookware is sold, you can buy
> an authentic Chinese wok that can be made into a very good high-gain
> antenna, with as much as 17db of gain, though the Cantenna, or antennas
> made from chip cans or stew cans are much more feasable for use inside
> a sports arena. The 12db gain of the cantenna is more than enough to
> hit any nearby open WAP.hotspot.

Do you really believe that you could cheat for a long time?
We DON'T care who or where you are. We CAN disable your access.
If the same user shows up again with a different MAC, the guys in
uniform (and without) will be VERY interested in you! Just for
a few questions ...

Rudy

P.S.
Still asking why do YOU have to hide behind "anonymous" servers!
You have been using 7 different IP addresses in about 4 countrys!
Do you thing that the google abuse departement likes that?
Or are you afraid that your boss would fire you for NOT working?
(You are posting most probaly from work because that computer
has the ".NET" built in.)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:35:23 -0700, chilly8 wrote:
BullShit!

>
> I have been using every anonymising service ever since, to
> avoid being tracked down. They have been trying to find me for years, and
> have not succeeded yet.
>

Do you hear the black helicopters? NO? There comming to get YOU!

:-)

Re: New "worst nightmare" for network admins

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> God Rudy wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:03:14 -0700, chilly8 wrote:
>
> I use the professional version of XP on my personal machines as
> well, becuase it is far more stable than the "Home" version of the
> product. ...

Bullshit! What about this,

Windows XP Home Edition vs. Professional Edition: What's the difference?
(http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp )

would lead anyone to believe that this is anything but BS?

Windows XP Security Checklist
(http://labmice.techtarget.com/articles/winxpsecuritycheckli st.htm)

One could actually make the argument that the average Home/SOHO user
is too clueless to use WinXP Pro out of the box. Many more network
vulnerabilities and services that need locked down.

Configuring NT-services much more secure
(http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html)

> ... It is worth the extra US$100 for the Professional Version.

I agree with that, at least for the savvy user. But it has absolutely
nothing to do with security or stability.

Ron :)

Totpark (Was New "worst nightmare" for network admins)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Totpark (Was New "worst nightmare" for network admins)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Totpark (Was New "worst nightmare" for network admins)

In message <1158882714.641022.82580@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

>X-No-Archive: Yes

Got something to hide?

>Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> You have been here before spouting the same tripe. Any network admin can
>> >> spot an unusual stream of encrypted data flowing to and from a workstation.
>> >> Depending on the environment, that can be an instant tip off that the user
>> >> is up to no good. An admin can also use tools to see what applications are
>> >> running on a workstation. Again, anything that looks out of the ordinary is
>> >> a red flag.
>> >>
>> >> And you keep forgetting the admins ability to remotely view the screen of
>> >> any workstation, and the keystroke logging programs used by many companies
>> >> to give them hard copies of the legal backing for firing someone.
>> >
>> > And there are programs on the market that can hunt down and destroy
>> > these things. here are a number of anti-spyware programs that can hunt
>> > down and destroy any keyloggers, application monitors, screen monitors,
>> > etc, etc, placed on your machine.
>>
>> And why should a user be able to execute such applications in first place?
>> Just remove exec rights globally (trivial on security-enhanced Linux,
>> trivial on Windows XP with Software Restriction policies, trivial with
>> certain third-party security solutions for Windows 2000 and NT4), and only
>> allow execution of all relevant applications.
>>
>> And why should a user be granted with administrative privileges that are
>> required to shut down privileged daemons or to run such programs which
>> simply require administrative privileges to shut down privileged daemons?
>>
>> All a big non-issue.\
>
>
> However, there is a new browser that some hacker have released
>called TorPark, which does not have to be installed on any machine. You
>can carry it on one of these USB drives that fit on your keychain, and
>plug that into any USB port and run the
>executable. TorPark conneccts to the Tor network without having to
>download and install the Tor software. It comes pre-configured to surf
>via the Tor network. Its desinged to run in "restricted" enfiroments
>where one does not have priveleges to install the Tor software. Whoever
>came out with that browser will be the network admins WORST NIGHTMARE
>COME TO LIFE.

What makes you think Tor is any harder to block then anything else on
the network?

--
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section
in a swimming pool.

Re: Totpark (Was New "worst nightmare" for network admins)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Totpark (Was New "worst nightmare" for network admins)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Totpark (Was New "worst nightmare" for network admins)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Totpark (Was New "worst nightmare" for network admins)

In message <4nkajbFa95bqU1@news.dfncis.de> Sebastian Gottschalk
wrote:

>DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> In message <1158882714.641022.82580@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>> chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> Got something to hide?
>
>Huh? Only fools would think that Google wouldn't archive such a posting
>instead of simply not displaying it, or that Google would be the only
>instance who archives certain newsgroups. Actually one could think that
>Google is simply dumb to offer such a useless feature, which simply
>restricts their own database.

Regardless of whether Google archives it (I believe they do), it does
prevent his employer, family, friends, etc from looking up his words
down the road.

My present employers know this alias, and are free to read up whatever I
post. My contributions to their own mailing lists, and third party
mailing lists is what got me the job (and yes, I was an asshole there
too)

>> What makes you think Tor is any harder to block then anything else on
>> the network?
>
>Because the TOR protocol has essentially no characteristics?

Sure it does. It's lack of characteristics is it's characteristic.
Unless there is anything else that fits the profile that is needed by
the business, it gets blocked by default. 99% of office users won't
even notice that anything other then HTTP is blocked, and those that
notice can make a case for additional access.

For the record, I consider "listening to music" as a business need if it
increases employee productivity. Personally, I download one of my
favourite TV shows and watch it while I work daily -- Does it hurt my
productivity? Maybe... But I use that time for brainless parts of my
job, and then I tend to work through lunch.

I also read usenet, slashdot, and do personal email on company time.
'course when my boss wants to know about something happening in our
field, I'm up to date without doing the research. I'm the "If nobody
knows what the hell this customer is talking about, ask DevilsPGD" guy.

So that's just my two cents worth. If a network admin wants to detect
it, the fact that it doesn't match another known traffic pattern will
make it stand out to any IDS.

--
Getting married for sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts
-- Jeff Foxworthy

Re: Totpark (Was New "worst nightmare" for network admins)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Totpark (Was New "worst nightmare" for network admins)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)