* Joel jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote:
> On 11/29/12 23:18 , Joakim Aronius wrote:
>
> > I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that
> > we still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies
> > like child pr0n, organized crime e
* Will Hargrave (w...@harg.net) wrote:
>
> On 29 Nov 2012, at 20:53, George Herbert wrote:
>
> > The assertion being made here, that it's somehow illegal (or immoral,
> > or scary) for there to be not-completely-traceable internet access in
> > the US, is absurd.
>
> The real issue here is *not
* Patrick W. Gilmore (patr...@ianai.net) wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:58 , Barry Shein wrote:
> > It would seem like they'd have to confiscate the equipment at every
> > Starbucks in their jurisdiction, which could be every one in the US
> > for example.
>
> They didn't confiscate every Tor ex
* Jones, Barry (bejo...@semprautilities.com) wrote:
> I can share with you several stories personnel (both IT or vendors), who have
> scanned Electric Utility environments with or without permission; and hence
> caused multiple failures - including electro-mechanical systems and related
> applic
* Tore Anderson (tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com) wrote:
> * Mikael Abrahamsson
>
> >> In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the
> >> move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a
> >> tunnel? Sessions drop.
> >
> > I guess you and me have rad
* Christopher Morrow (morrowc.li...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Charles N Wyble
> wrote:
> > http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Aug/76
> >
> > Wondering what folks think about this? If this was true then we just
> > entered a whole new era of mass WAN exploitation.
>
* Jay Ashworth (j...@baylink.com) wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Matt Ryanczak"
>
> > Indeed. Verizon LTE is v6 enabled but the user-agent on my phone
> > denies me an IPv6 experience.
>
> I thought I'd heard that LTE transport was *IPv6 only*...
LTE supports both IPv4 and IPv
* George Herbert (george.herb...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Back on original point - if the *actual effective* model of browser
> security is browsers with an internal revoked cert list - then there's
> a case to be made that a pre-announcement in private to the browser
> vendors, enough time for them to
* Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net) wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>
> > Announcing this high and loud even before fixes were available would not
> > have exposed more users to threats, but less.
>
>
> An argument against doing this prior to fixes being avai
* Jack Bates (jba...@brightok.net) wrote:
> Given "These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the
> stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access
> to almost 500,000 other websites." I'd say they had DOS issues with
> their nameservers. They can't be expected to let
* Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) wrote:
> This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver
> based blacklist of child porn sites.
>
Swedish ISPs are required to enforce a DNS blacklist for childporn, perhaps
also other European countries. The list is maintained by
* Joel Jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote:
>
> manual configuration of ip address name mappings seems like a rather low
> priority for the average home user...
>
> I don't expect that will be a big activity in the future either, more
> devices means less manual intervention not more.
>
Ok, ok, so
* Hannes Frederic Sowa (han...@mailcolloid.de) wrote:
>
> But most people just don't care. My proposal is to have some kind of
> sane defaults for them e.g. changing their prefix every week or in the
> case of a reconnect. This would mitigate some of the many privacy
> concerns in the internet a l
* Paul Stewart (pstew...@nexicomgroup.net) wrote:
> That really makes sense - on an incredibly smaller scale (and I mean MUCH
> smaller scale), we operate cable modem in two small communities - currently
> we use 3 IP addresses per subscriber. One for the cable modem itself, one
> for the subsc
* Mark Newton (new...@internode.com.au) wrote:
>
> On 15/12/2009, at 11:19 PM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
>
> > So what you are saying is that ease of use and service availability is
> > priority one. Then what exactly are the responsibilities of the ISP and CPE
> > ma
* Steven Bellovin (s...@cs.columbia.edu) wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:47 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> > Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Stable outgoing connections for p2p apps, messaging, gaming platforms
> > and foo website with java script based rpc mechanisms have similar
> > properties. I don't slee
* Truman Boyes (tru...@suspicious.org) wrote:
>
> an SRX 3400/3600 you can scale up the performance of IPSEC VPN
> throughput with additional SPCs. You should be able to scale to over
> 6Gbps of IPSEC with enough SPCs.
>
> Truman
Yes, the SRX line of products is the most future-proof way to go
17 matches
Mail list logo
