Re: Windows Encryption Software
On 12/9/2010 8:20 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Brandon Kim > wrote: >> I want to know if there's software out there that will encrypt files on >> win2k3, winxp, win7, so that if someone >> decides to steal the computer and plug the harddrive into a USB external >> case, they won't be able to read the files >> on the harddrive. > Save yourself some grief and buy a self-encrypting disk (SED) instead. > OS transparent so you won't have the endemic problems with oops it no > longer boots and I can't just boot a live cd and access my business > critical data. > > -Bill > > +1 - You mentioned Windows 2003 - with truecrypt, you need to type in the password to boot the computer. For desktops and laptops, that's fine, but if your DC looses power or something, you don't want to be the one to have to go around and type in the password for all those servers... Ben
Re: Facebook issue
I am seeing the same thing here. Empty HTML tags... (sorry for the top quote) Regards Ben From: "Andre Gironda" Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:39 PM To: "nanog@nanog.org" Subject: Re: Facebook issue On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM, andrew.wallace wrote: > Anyone having issue with Facebook? It's returning an empty set of html tags
Re: IPv6 words
That one would be good for a firewall/IDS setup... "Oh rats, our attack was stopped by a firewall at... HEY!" :-D bc -Original Message- From: "Scott Weeks" Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 7:59pm To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 words 2607:f9a0::f0c:0ff >;-) scott
Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
Steve, I'm seeing the following issues, also as reported by others: * No RFC 2369 headers means a fun time filtering and no unsubscribe info (maybe that one is on purpose? :) I kid!) * The mailing list is stripping out all Received: headers from prior to the message hitting the listserver * For me at least, messages seem to be delivered out of order - I received this message almost immediately, but messages from 2 hours ago are still making their way into my mailbox. This was not occurring before and it's not a problem with my mail provider. Warm regards, Ben -Original Message- From: "Steve Feldman" Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:00am To: deles...@gmail.com Cc: "NANOG list" Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward We're aware of the spam problem and have our top people working on it. Reports of other lingering issues from the change would be appreciated, though. Thanks, Steve On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:03 AM, jim deleskie wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:32 AM, William Pitcock > wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:50:38 +0100 (BST) >> Tim Franklin wrote: >> Thankfully, the current test has been a success. >>> >>> Including stopping non-members from posting to the list, and other >>> anti-spam? >>> >>> I've got a sudden influx this morning of spam addressed to >>> nanog@nanog.org :( >>> >> >> Ditto. Getting lots of crap here. >> >> William >> >
Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
Right, you should, because we are back on s0 (server zero?) and mailman. The headers were being suppressed by the AMSL servers, which are running that strange "bulk_mailer 1.13" software. If you inspect the headers for any of the messages that were forwarded to us from that server (the one that started the thread called "NANOG List Update - Moving Forward" from Michael K Smith, for example), you will see that the headers are being stripped... --bc -Original Message- From: "Jay Ashworth" Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:13pm To: "NANOG" Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward ----- Original Message - > From: "Ben Carleton" > * The mailing list is stripping out all Received: headers from prior > to the message hitting the listserver You're the third person to report that, but *I* am seeing incoming Received headers in my messages here -- yours, for example, has them all, even prior to the message hitting s0. Great name, there, BTW. "s0". Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Facebook insecure by design
Actually, the reason for what happened in your example is that Cee Lo's page has what is **technically** an app (called I Want You, as seen in the sidebar under his profile photo) set as the default screen for when you view his page. The app (that does admittedly looks like it could be an official feature from facebook) uses externally-hosted HTTP-only content, which Facebook will detect and warn you about. -- Ben On 9/30/2011 5:05 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote: In accord with the recent thread, "facebook spying on us?" We should also worry about other spying on us. Without some sort of rudimentary security, all that personally identifiable information is exposed on our ISP networks, over WiFi, etc. Facebook claims to be able to run over TLS connections. Not so much (see attached picture). This wasn't an "app", this is the simple default content of a page accessed after a Google search. https://www.facebook.com/ceelogreen
Cablevision residential ops?
Hi folks, Sorry to be a bother, but I'm wondering if there is a tech from Cablevision (Long Island, NY) on the list who can help me. We are unable to access websites that are using the CloudFlare service, and it looks to be an issue internal to Cablevision. I can provide a Traceroute showing where the packets are being stopped inside the CV network. Thanks! -- Ben
Hurricane Electric Tunnelbroker staff?
Hi folks, I am seeing an IPv6-connected host on my network (which is on a HE.net tunnel) apparently being portscanned by an HE server at 2001:470:0:64::2 for about the last hour or so. It is trying to hit several different ports four times each before moving on and eventually repeating itself. If anyone from HE can shed some light on what's going on here it would be greatly appreciated, I can provide the IP of the host in question off-list if needed. Thanks, -- Ben
Re: Hurricane Electric Tunnelbroker staff?
On 12/23/2012 12:31 AM, Ben Carleton wrote: Hi folks, I am seeing an IPv6-connected host on my network (which is on a HE.net tunnel) apparently being portscanned by an HE server at 2001:470:0:64::2 for about the last hour or so. It is trying to hit several different ports four times each before moving on and eventually repeating itself. If anyone from HE can shed some light on what's going on here it would be greatly appreciated, I can provide the IP of the host in question off-list if needed. Thanks, -- Ben Thank you to everyone who responded on and off-list, we've got this resolved. -- Ben
Re: Hurricane Electric Tunnelbroker staff?
On 12/23/2012 5:23 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 23 December 2012 14:15, Ben Carleton wrote: On 12/23/2012 12:31 AM, Ben Carleton wrote: Hi folks, I am seeing an IPv6-connected host on my network (which is on a HE.net tunnel) apparently being portscanned by an HE server at 2001:470:0:64::2 for about the last hour or so. It is trying to hit several different ports four times each before moving on and eventually repeating itself. If anyone from HE can shed some light on what's going on here it would be greatly appreciated, I can provide the IP of the host in question off-list if needed. Thanks, -- Ben Thank you to everyone who responded on and off-list, we've got this resolved. Don't worry, we don't care for what the resolution is; no need to post it to the list, either, the next person can just re-post this question anyways! Thank you for wasting everyone's time! C. I actually have no idea what the resolution was. All I know is that when I checked again a few hours later, the traffic had stopped, which, to be honest, is good enough for me. -- Ben
Re: Microsoft Product Activation server reachability
- Original Message - > From: "Nathan Anderson" > To: "nanog@nanog.org" > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:24:16 PM > Subject: Microsoft Product Activation server reachability > > Anybody else having a problem reaching (what appears to be) the sole > Microsoft Product Activation server (wpa.one.microsoft.com)? > > $ ping wpa.one.microsoft.com > PING wpa.one.microsoft.com (94.245.126.107): 56 data bytes > 36 bytes from 213.199.189.41: Communication prohibited by filter > > I get this sourcing from our network, from AT&T 3G, and from ye residential > DSL connection located in the greater Seattle area. They aren't simply > source-filtering. Either that or they are source-filtering for 0.0.0.0/0. > > This is apparently the only server/IP they have set up to respond to these > requests. wpa.one.microsoft.com resolves to that IP via every DNS server > I've tried (so no round-robin A records), Microsoft products that need to > activate over the internet only try to resolve that FQDN, and I've looked > for others without success (wpa.two.microsoft.com isn't valid, for example). > > -- > Nathan Anderson > First Step Internet, LLC > nath...@fsr.com > > I am seeing the same from NYC metro. According to MS (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457159.aspx#ECAA), access to that host on 80 and 443 is all that should be required to activate. (and wpa.one.microsoft.com has no , go figure) [ben@razor ~]$ ping wpa.one.microsoft.com PING wpa.one.microsoft.com (94.245.126.107) 56(84) bytes of data. >From 213.199.189.41 icmp_seq=2 Packet filtered ^C --- wpa.one.microsoft.com ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 received, +1 errors, 100% packet loss, time 5260ms [ben@razor ~]$ telnet wpa.one.microsoft.com 80 Trying 94.245.126.107... ^C [ben@razor ~]$ telnet wpa.one.microsoft.com 443 Trying 94.245.126.107... ^C -- Ben
Re: Reliable Cloud host ?
On 2/26/2012 6:04 PM, Mike Lyon wrote: > Godaddy? Servint.com? Amazon EC2? > > -mike > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 26, 2012, at 12:57, Randy Carpenter wrote: > >> >> Does anyone have any recommendation for a reliable cloud host? >> >> We require 1 or 2 very small virtual hosts to host some remote services to >> serve as backup to our main datacenter. One of these services is a DNS >> server, so it is important that it is up all the time. >> >> We have been using Rackspace Cloud Servers. We just realized that they have >> absolutely no redundancy or failover after experiencing a outage that lasted >> more than 6 hours yesterday. I am appalled that they would offer something >> called "cloud" without having any failover at all. >> >> Basic requirements: >> >> 1. Full redundancy with instant failover to other hypervisor hosts upon >> hardware failure (I thought this was a given!) >> 2. Actual support (with a phone number I can call) >> 3. reasonable pricing (No, $800/month is not reasonable when I need a tiny >> 256MB RAM Server with <1GB/mo of data transfers) >> >> thanks, >> -Randy >> With that some of those cloud providers are charging per-instance, automatic hot standby is really not a given, but that could just be me :) We use Amazon and are happy with them. With them, you would have to set up your own failover operation but it's absolutely doable. They give you all the tools you need (load balancing, EBS, etc) but it's up to you to make it happen. We use their load-balancing feature with HTTP but it looks like you could do it with any service (DNS, etc). As a result, when they had their last huge outage (a whole datacenter), we lost some of our instances but our customer-facing services remained available. Their support options are pretty good but you have to shell out for a package to get them on the phone. Pricing for that is tied to how much of their resources you are using. -- Ben
.GW registrar?
Hello all, Does anyone have a contact at either DENIC or "Fundação IT & MEDIA Universidade de Bissao" that can advise if registrations are currently being accepted for .GW domain names? The IANA admin contact, ad...@register.gw, is at a domain with no valid MX records (or A records, for that matter). The technical contact is listed as DENIC. TIA, -- Ben Carleton
Re: .GW registrar?
On 6/6/2012 9:34 AM, Ben Carleton wrote: > > Hello all, > > Does anyone have a contact at either DENIC or "Fundação IT & MEDIA > Universidade de Bissao" that can advise if registrations are currently being > accepted for .GW domain names? The IANA admin contact, > ad...@register.gw, is at a domain with no valid MX records (or A records, for > that matter). The technical contact is listed as DENIC. > > TIA, > -- Ben Carleton Thank you to everyone who contacted me off-list, my questions have been answered. For everyone's future reference, .GW is not currently accepting registrations. -- Ben Carleton
Re: Make that NTT America (was Re: Verio taking twitter down during Iran Election Riots?
Why would NTT take it out for the whole world when DCI could just block it from Iran? --b On Jun 15, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Erik Fichtner wrote: Erik Fichtner wrote: http://status.twitter.com/post/124145031/maintenance-window-tonight-9-45p-pacific Am I reading that right? Is someone at Verio seriously going to take twitter out for 90 minutes at 9am in Tehran? I am reading it wrong, partially. It's NTT America, not Verio. Missed a layer. Anyway...
Re: Fire, Power loss at Fisher Plaza in Seattle
Yes it was. On Jul 3, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Wasn't Authorize.net affected by this? We received a support ticket about why Authorize.net is down today (I don't know either, I don't ask too many questions). Jeff On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote: Earth is a single point of failure, where is your backup site? [TLB:] Given that all my customers are on Earth, I don't need one if my customers also are "down". -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Look for us at HostingCon 2009 in Washington, DC on August 10th - 12th at Booth #401.
Re: questionable email filtering policies?
Try filling out this form to reach Y's abuse dept? http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/defer.html --bc On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:22 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote: Seems rather unwise to filter your abuse mailbox. - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - (reason: 554 Message not allowed - UP Email not accepted for policy reasons. Please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-04.html [120]) -Dan
Re: T-Mobile ?
We are also seeing this in the Metro NY market. Ben On Nov 3, 2009, at 8:18 PM, wrote: Anyone hear of any issues on the T-Mobile network? Seems as if we cannot reach anyone with a T-Mobile cell phone. Dialing out works sporadically, but calls drop frequently. Thanks, Charles
Re: news from Google
I don' think that google will be able to kill opendns right now. Neither google nor any of the other well known DNS services provide the "value-added services" that OpenDNS does, such as filtering, etc which can be a godsend for small businesses that can't afford a rackful of gear... BGC On Dec 4, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM, wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 03:34:10PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Morrow >>> wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Richard Bennett wrote: > Google will be all sweetness and light until they've crushed >> OpenDNS, > and when the competitor's out of the picture, they'll get down to >> the > monetizing. one note: OpenDNS is not the only 'competitor' here just one of the better obviously known ones. ie: 4.2.2.2 L(3) 198.6.1.1/2/3/4/5/122/142/146/195 ex-UU Neustar (can't recall ips, sorry) -chris >>> >>> >>> Why did Google put an infrastructure critical application into PA space? >>> >>> >> >>whats PA space in this context? clearly 8.0.0.0/8 was allocated >> prior to any current group-think about what PA might be. >> >> --bill >> > > > Let's call it "conceptual PA". I'm simply asking why something that has the > potential to impact all of us is being numbered into address space other > than their own? > > And before the thinkpol start in, I'm referring to the v4 addresses and > their status. It's a fair question since it has major impact on the net. If > the store for legacy v4 addresses is open I'd like to know what street it's > on. > > Best, > > -M< > > -- > Martin Hannigan mar...@theicelandguy.com > p: +16178216079 > Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
Re: Cisco hardware question
On Mar 4, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Kaveh . wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback. Let me clarify a few things regarding issues that > this thread has addressed so far: > > A) Pre-existing configs: What Tim and Joe mentioned is apparently correct. I > was on phone with a few Cisco tech-reps earlier today and they told me that > since version 8.2, they have been shipping ASAs with a default configuration, > which explains the existence of private IP addresses on the inside interface, > etc ... . > > B) What Cisco reps could NOT explain was the existence of a number of > FSCK000#.REC files on these appliances. To be more specific each of ASAs in > question contains 4 extra files: FSCK.REC, FSCK0001.REC, FSCK0002.REC, > FSCK0003.REC). I said 'extra' because I asked the Cisco reps on phone to > provide me a complete list of files that should exist on a brand new ASA, and > the 4 files above were not part of the list and I think even they got > confused when I mentioned the existence of these files. > > I could not find much info on these files, but a simple Google search > indicates that these files may be 'recovery files' of Disks operating under > Unix/Linux/BSD/etc /... kernel, indicating a dying hard drive. That would be > enough to freak me out! Anyone can confirm this? > > C) SmarNet issue: I am a little confused on this. Since this purchase was for > NEW equipment, and the devices were shipped by Cisco (at least that is what I > read on the box; a Cisco warehouse in TX), then my understanding is that the > devices came with the first 12 months of Smarnet anyway. So I will be > surprised if they decline the contract renewal after the first year. After > all they sold us the appliances as if they were new. How can decline renewal > if I can prove that I paid them for new? > > D) Reseller: Yes, I appreciate the input. I will stick with a bigger name > like CDW, next time, but again it appears to me that the devices were shipped > from a Cisco warehouse in Texas, and not from the reseller's location. > > > > I would greatly appreciate any input, especially on B) > > > > Thank you > > > > Best regards > > > >> Subject: RE: Cisco hardware question >> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:27:04 -0800 >> From: madc...@hisna.com >> To: ken.gilm...@gmail.com >> CC: nanog@nanog.org >> >> According to previous conversations with my Cisco rep the answer is no - >> Cisco won't support it. I'm blind copying him on this and will pass on his >> response. >> >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >> >> >> From: Ken Gilmour [mailto:ken.gilm...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thu 3/4/2010 4:17 PM >> To: Adcock, Matt [HISNA] >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Cisco hardware question >> >> >> So if one were to purchase equipment, which is explicitly sold as >> "Refurbished" from, say www.impulsetech.us and they were to offer Smartnet >> on it, there is no guarantee that even if you paid for it, that Cisco would >> fulfil their support contract? >> >> Regards, >> >> Ken >> >> >> On 4 March 2010 15:22, Adcock, Matt [HISNA] wrote: >> >> >> >> Don't deploy the equipment, demand a refund, and report the reseller to >> Cisco. I agree completely with Brian - find a good Cisco partner and stick >> with them. Also, you can't legally buy used Cisco equipment and use the >> operating system. You can buy the equipment but the OS is absolutely >> non-transferrable. If you try to get SMARTNet on it red flags will go up and >> Cisco won't support it. >> >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >> >> >> Matt Adcock, Manager >> 334-481-6629 (w) / 334-312-5393 (m) / madc...@hisna.com >> 700 Hyundai Blvd. / Montgomery, AL 36105 >> >> P >> The average office worker uses 10,000 sheets of paper = 1.2 trees, per year >> By not printing this email, you've saved paper, ink and millions of trees >> >> >> >> From: Brian Feeny [mailto:bfe...@mac.com] >> Sent: Thu 3/4/2010 3:05 PM >> To: Kaveh . >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Cisco hardware question >> >> >> >> >> >> If you are getting Cisco hardware with configs on it or crashfiles, etc. >> Then no it is NOT new equipment. Who are you buying from? Are they a Gold >> partner on Cisco's partner locator? If not, then I have seen some seedy >> things, and of course i have seen seedy things with Gold partners too, I am >> just pointing out that the ability to compete and make margin get more and >> more difficult the lower the partner is on the totem pole and so desperation >> can drive certain behavior. >> >> In general from a cisco Gold partner you can expect as good as 35-40% or so >> on new equipment for a discount for regular deals. Special pricing for >> special projects you may be able to get a bit better, and maybe 1% or so >> better for general products from CDW or a big box company like them. If you >> are paying 50-60% off list for just individual items you order, then its >> likely not new and there is likely something shady go
Re: atdn.net issues
On 2/22/2011 11:39 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > Anyone know who to contact for issues with atdn.net? Their website is not > exactly a well of information. > > All connections from my network to anything at atdn (AOL, etc.) are dying at > atdn's edge. > > Traceroutes go out through xo.net. I have verified that both of my upstream > providers can get there fine (via the same path), so it appears to be a > problem specifically with our net blocks (74.115.180.0/22 and 74.219.82.0/24) > or ASN (15088) > > If anyone has any visibility from the other side of atdn.net, and can give me > any info, I would appreciate it. > > thanks, > -Randy > Did you try this: Technical Vikas Mehta +703-265-2011 vikas.me...@corp.aol.com NOC NOC +703-265-4662 opt 4 n...@atdn.net NOC Maintenance Notification+703-265-4662 opt 4 ma...@atdn.net On the side, a traceroute to AOL from my location in New York sent me from Chicago to Vienna, Austria, and then back to AOL... :) -- Ben
