Can we please get this thread closed or something?
Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 23:17, Joe Greco wrote:
"Looking around" Rockefeller Center generally isn't a crime.
"Looking around" where you're in my back yard and peeking in the windows
is, at a minimum, trespass, and if our
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:56:26 PDT, Mike Lyon said:
Howdy,
I am wondering what folks are recommending/using these days for Linux SSL
proxies? I need to build a linux box that basically acts as an SSL offloader
would (like a BigIP / Cisco ACE / Netscaler would do).
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:56:26 PDT, Mike Lyon said:
> Howdy,
>
> I am wondering what folks are recommending/using these days for Linux SSL
> proxies? I need to build a linux box that basically acts as an SSL offloader
> would (like a BigIP / Cisco ACE / Netscaler would do). Listen on port 443,
> dec
Howdy,
I am wondering what folks are recommending/using these days for Linux SSL
proxies? I need to build a linux box that basically acts as an SSL offloader
would (like a BigIP / Cisco ACE / Netscaler would do). Listen on port 443,
decrypt the SSL and then forward the request onto the webserver o
I found this in my trace route:
1 if-13-0-0-818.mcore4.pdi-paloalto.as6453.net (66.198.97.18) 4 msec
if-9-0-0.mcore4.pdi-paloalto.as6453.net (216.6.33.6) 0 msec
if-13-0-0-818.mcore4.pdi-paloalto.as6453.net (66.198.97.18) 0 msec
2 sl-st20-pa-15-0.sprintlink.net (144.223.243.21) [AS 1239
Hello,
Any one is facing any latency in network passing trough sprint network, we
have remote site and having trouble with accessing application from data
centers.
7 200.122.150.22 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec
*8 144.224.115.113 260 msec 276 msec 284 msec*
* 9 144.232.2.244 276 msec 280 msec 292 ms
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 23:17, Joe Greco wrote:
> "Looking around" Rockefeller Center generally isn't a crime.
>
> "Looking around" where you're in my back yard and peeking in the windows
> is, at a minimum, trespass, and if our local cops notice you doing it, you
> can expect that you may find yo
> And there's another name for 'casing the joint', it is 'looking around'.
> Looking around generally isn't a crime. Neither is casing a joint, for that
> matter. And like I suggested with port scanning, whether someone was
> 'looking around' or 'casing the joint' is really only determinable afte
yes ip cef, this is enabled:
IP fast switching is enabled
IP fast switching on the same interface is disabled
IP Flow switching is enabled
IP CEF switching is enabled
IP Flow switching turbo vector
IP Flow CEF switching turbo vector
and so on...
-
Andy
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 3:08 A
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Neil wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Brett Charbeneau wrote:
> >
> >.
> >As William pointed out, it's the things that follow that determine whether
> >someone's being bad. To flag port-s
I’m trying to run netflow on one of our Cisco core routers (SUP720-3BXL),
but I think I am hitting some limitations because of this:
%EARL_NETFLOW-SP-4-TCAM_THRLD: Netflow TCAM threshold exceeded, TCAM
Utilization [99%]
The setup of netflow looks like this:
ip flow-cache entries 524288
Hi All,
One of our customers has forwarded us a rambling, disjointed threat
from someone sending from ab...@sbcglobal.net who claims to be "the
Security Manager for AT&T Internet Services Security Center, its
subsidiaries and affiliates" who won't provide a name or personal
contact inform
Chris Adams wrote:
Do you think Covad would respond to a DMCA complaint like that?
That's actually the one thing that would make sense of this - that they
*do* purge the logs fast enough that they could reply to a DMCA
complaint by saying "sorry, we don't have logs".
The question is, in
Once upon a time, Neil said:
> I think you are being a little naive. Port scans, while possibly used for
> malicious ends, can very often be benign.
That sounds naive to me. From what I've seen, the number of malicious
scans is much greater than the number of benign scans. The vast
majority of
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Neil wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Brett Charbeneau wrote:
>
>.
>As William pointed out, it's the things that follow that determine whether
>someone's being bad. To flag port-scans might be responsible, but I think
>pursuing legal action over
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Brett Charbeneau wrote:
>I've been nudging an operator at Covad about a handful of hosts from
> his DHCP pool that have been attacking - relentlessly port scanning - our
> assets. I've been informed by this individual that there's "no way" to
> determine w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> I have worked for large ISP's, I understand corporate budgets and
> politics, and I'm smart enough to understand that "corporate budgets and
> politics" do not define what is acceptable within th
> Joe,
>
> I'll respond to you and this will be my last reply to this thread because
> I know I won't be able to change your mind.
Yes, it's clear *you* won't be able to.
> Saying a company's business
> decisions are antisocial just because they aren't doing you want is very
> unhelpful.
Well,
18 matches
Mail list logo
