DComTalk.com

Leythos · Guest

In article <20051011192116.21829.qmail@nym.alias.net>,
owljolsen@nym.alias.net says...
[quote]Evidence Eliminator, BC Wipe, MacAfee, etc, etc, if used
properly, leave no clue that they were ever used. The DOD spec
of zeros, overwitten by ones, then overwrtitten by random bits,
doe not leave any telltale signs that such a program was used
[/quote]
They leave clear evidence that they were used.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Moe Trin · Guest

In the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<55Kdnb72H94HetfeRVn-ow@comcast.com>, Charles Newman wrote:

[quote]"Moe Trin" <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote

Is that what you were taught by your bean counter instructor? Here's
a free clue - consult a lawyer before you try that, lest the state
of California Department of Industrial Relations comes down on your
a$$.

We were taught in certain business managment courses, that unless
you actually have the content they were downloading, you don't
dare use inappropriate internet usage as a reason to fire someone.
You look for another reason to fire them. That is what I was
taught in busienss management courses at one time.
[/quote]
You may know something about bean counting - I tend to think not, but I
have no proof one way or another. You _think_ you know about other
subjects, such as networking, computer security, an labor law. You don't.
I really don't care if you go down in flames because of your own stupidity.
But don't offer advice to others - because as has been proven time and time
again - you don't know what you are talking about, and in most cases your
advice if flat out wrong.

Old guy

Moe Trin · Guest

In the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<KqU2f.91578$lI5.39930@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, Leythos wrote:

[quote]owljolsen@nym.alias.net says...

Evidence Eliminator, BC Wipe, MacAfee, etc, etc, if used
properly, leave no clue that they were ever used. The DOD spec
of zeros, overwitten by ones, then overwrtitten by random bits,
doe not leave any telltale signs that such a program was used
[/quote]
Ya know - I always have to laugh at total fools like this. They can't
think of the blatant stuff, and wonder why it's so freakin obvious to
everyone else.

[quote]They leave clear evidence that they were used.
[/quote]
<innocent look>
But there's nothing there!!!
</innocent look>

That ought to get a few yuks at the afternoon security briefing.

Old guy

Leythos · Guest

In article <slrndko73f.idg.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld says...
[quote]In the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
KqU2f.91578$lI5.39930@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, Leythos wrote:

owljolsen@nym.alias.net says...

Evidence Eliminator, BC Wipe, MacAfee, etc, etc, if used
properly, leave no clue that they were ever used. The DOD spec
of zeros, overwitten by ones, then overwrtitten by random bits,
doe not leave any telltale signs that such a program was used

Ya know - I always have to laugh at total fools like this. They can't
think of the blatant stuff, and wonder why it's so freakin obvious to
everyone else.
[/quote]
I'm starting to think it's some lamer troll that is just baiting us with
the same old drivel - we all know how to stop it, but he keeps inventing
what he Thinks are more ways around it - next he'll be telling us that
the employee must bring in their own laptop with a WIFI card that
connects to the World-Domination wireless network, and while standing on
one leg, with a hand pointing to the east, that they will be able to
access their content without us knowing - and as long as it's not on our
network/resources I don't really care - but that means they didn't
subvert our network security - which is the lamers point in posting.

[quote]They leave clear evidence that they were used.

innocent look
But there's nothing there!!!
/innocent look

That ought to get a few yuks at the afternoon security briefing.
[/quote]
Yea, I get a kick out of him, pcbutts1, and VB, putting them all in the
same class.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Owl Jolsen · Guest

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:KqU2f.91578$lI5.39930@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
[quote]In article <20051011192116.21829.qmail@nym.alias.net>,
owljolsen@nym.alias.net says...
Evidence Eliminator, BC Wipe, MacAfee, etc, etc, if used
properly, leave no clue that they were ever used. The DOD spec
of zeros, overwitten by ones, then overwrtitten by random bits,
doe not leave any telltale signs that such a program was used

They leave clear evidence that they were used.
[/quote]

The only way to detect their use is to put a keylogger on
the machine, and hope the person you are snooping on does not
find it and destroy it. That is how the government caught the
one Newsday reporter arrested for child porn. It was a secret
keylogger that caught him using Evidence Eliminator. Had that
keylogger not been there, they would have never known the
program was used.
And like I said up-thread, there is on Russian figure skater,
I will not say WHICH one, that works in an office in Novosibirsk,
when not training or at a competition, and she has been able to
sign on to my service, without her Russian employers having any
CLUE as to what she is up to. I have chatted with her, and
has been able to sneak on from work, without her employer, in
Novosibirsk, knowing about it. She bounces off open relays
all over the world. Her boss knows she is going to strange
addresses all over the world, but he cannot figure out
what she is up to. She appreciates my service very much,
becuase it allows her to sneak on from work, when there is
a comeptition she wants to watch and/or follow.

Leythos · Guest

In article <20051011230612.17973.qmail@nym.alias.net>,
owljolsen@nym.alias.net says...
[quote]The only way to detect their use is to put a keylogger on
the machine, and hope the person you are snooping on does not
find it and destroy it.
[/quote]
You are dreaming - it's easy to tell when a wipe/cleaner program has
run, if you don't believe me (or others here) as someone you trust that
knows something about security.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Guest

Owl Jolsen wrote:
[quote]In less than 6 months, we will be one of several online media companies
webcasting the total solar eclipse from Africa, on 29th March, 2006. This
will be during the working hours in Europe.
For corporate IT admins in Europe, this will be their WORST NIGHTMARE
come to life. We are working on and improving our system in sucha way that
corporate IT admins in Europe will not be able to stop people from watching
the eclipse without shutting down the ENTIRE NETWORK. We will be using a
heavily encrypted feed, so that any IT admins that try to sniff the packets
wont get anything. As somoene said once "The book will be open, but the
pages will all be in an unreadble language".
We will be running an ecnrypted link over port 80. There is NO WAY that
can be shut down without cutting off ALL web access to the network. We are
taking a cue from Kazaa, and P2P services, and are using encrypted links
over port 80, which admins will be unable to stop without shutting down the
entire network.
As far as eclipses go, this will be the longest, as far as totality goes,
since one of our competitors began webcasting eclipses way back in 1997.
Where we plan to he webcasting from, it will be at about 10:45 AM British
Summer Time, 11:45 in Central Europe (Europe goes to Summer Time on Sunday,
26th March).
Basically, people will be watching the eclipse, and gobbling down HUGE
amounts of bandwidth. We plan to offer feeds up to 100K in bitrate, and that
will add up fast. Users will be clogging the network watching the eclipse,
and corporate IT admins will have no CLUE as to what is going in, becusae the
feeds will be encrypted.
The REAL nightmare scenario on this for IT admins, will be in the year
2009, when we will be webcasting a total solar eclipse with 6 minutes and
38 seconds of totality from Shanghai, China, on 22nd July, 2009. For nearly
7 minutes, poeple will be clooging network bandwidth all over Asia, and
becuase it will be encrypted, admins will never know that people are watching
the solar eclipse. It will also being during the workday in Australia, so
Australian admins will also wonder why the bandwidth usage is going so high.
[/quote]
an administartor's main concern is to make sure the computer's are
running ok. Not to make sure that workers don't pick their noses or
watch the eclipse.

Anyhow, who the heck watches eclipses nowadays anyway? except
astronomers, school children, and the bored/unemployed.

It can be blocked, but most admins probably won't bother. It's not
their concern. It's not their responsibility if ppl don't want to work.

Anyhow. you ever think that maybe the boss or manager, or in your
scenario, the IT person couldn't walk past the computers during those 6
minutes?

Besides, do you really get so excited about an eclipse? (given that
you're an adult and you're not an astronomer)

Somebody. · Guest

<jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1129132048.383935.46790@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quote]
Owl Jolsen wrote:
In less than 6 months, we will be one of several online media companies
webcasting the total solar eclipse from Africa, on 29th March, 2006. This
will be during the working hours in Europe.
For corporate IT admins in Europe, this will be their WORST NIGHTMARE
come to life. We are working on and improving our system in sucha way
that
corporate IT admins in Europe will not be able to stop people from
watching
the eclipse without shutting down the ENTIRE NETWORK. We will be using a
heavily encrypted feed, so that any IT admins that try to sniff the
packets
wont get anything. As somoene said once "The book will be open, but the
pages will all be in an unreadble language".
We will be running an ecnrypted link over port 80. There is NO WAY
that
can be shut down without cutting off ALL web access to the network. We
are
taking a cue from Kazaa, and P2P services, and are using encrypted links
over port 80, which admins will be unable to stop without shutting down
the
entire network.
As far as eclipses go, this will be the longest, as far as totality
goes,
since one of our competitors began webcasting eclipses way back in 1997.
Where we plan to he webcasting from, it will be at about 10:45 AM British
Summer Time, 11:45 in Central Europe (Europe goes to Summer Time on
Sunday,
26th March).
Basically, people will be watching the eclipse, and gobbling down HUGE
amounts of bandwidth. We plan to offer feeds up to 100K in bitrate, and
that
will add up fast. Users will be clogging the network watching the
eclipse,
and corporate IT admins will have no CLUE as to what is going in, becusae
the
feeds will be encrypted.
The REAL nightmare scenario on this for IT admins, will be in the year
2009, when we will be webcasting a total solar eclipse with 6 minutes and
38 seconds of totality from Shanghai, China, on 22nd July, 2009. For
nearly
7 minutes, poeple will be clooging network bandwidth all over Asia, and
becuase it will be encrypted, admins will never know that people are
watching
the solar eclipse. It will also being during the workday in Australia, so
Australian admins will also wonder why the bandwidth usage is going so
high.

an administartor's main concern is to make sure the computer's are
running ok. Not to make sure that workers don't pick their noses or
watch the eclipse.

Anyhow, who the heck watches eclipses nowadays anyway? except
astronomers, school children, and the bored/unemployed.

It can be blocked, but most admins probably won't bother. It's not
their concern. It's not their responsibility if ppl don't want to work.

Anyhow. you ever think that maybe the boss or manager, or in your
scenario, the IT person couldn't walk past the computers during those 6
minutes?

Besides, do you really get so excited about an eclipse? (given that
you're an adult and you're not an astronomer)
[/quote]

Apparently. He's willing to (or at least, he trolls here trying to get us
to believe that he's willing to) build his bread and butter on the model
that people will risk their employment by disconnecting their machines,
hacking the admin account, de-installing keyloggers, using a cell phone for
Internet, installing his freakish questionble proxy-viewer-server software
(put out by a company that recommends all the previous security compromises)
viewing his content, wiping the evidence, and re-connecting to the corporate
LAN... for an eclipse.

-Russ.
>

Moe Trin · Guest

In the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<r4V2f.31701$tD4.130@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, Leythos wrote:

[quote]next he'll be telling us that the employee must bring in their own
laptop with a WIFI card that connects to the World-Domination wireless
network, and while standing on one leg, with a hand pointing to the
east, that they will be able to access their content without us knowing
[/quote]
As long as they chant a mantra at the same time. Yeah, that wouldn't
be noticeable. I'd rather doubt that WiFi would do the trick here, as
even cell phones don't work very well in our buildings. Non-company
pagers don't work either. To bad the company pagers do.

[quote]and as long as it's not on our network/resources I don't really care -
but that means they didn't subvert our network security - which is the
lamers point in posting.
[/quote]
It would be a problem here - we don't allow non-company computers into
the facility. That's been company policy for over 12 years.

Old guy

Charles Newman · Guest

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Moe Trin" <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote in message
news:slrndkqqqp.v7c.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us...
[quote]In the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
r4V2f.31701$tD4.130@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, Leythos wrote:

next he'll be telling us that the employee must bring in their own
laptop with a WIFI card that connects to the World-Domination wireless
network, and while standing on one leg, with a hand pointing to the
east, that they will be able to access their content without us knowing

As long as they chant a mantra at the same time. Yeah, that wouldn't
be noticeable. I'd rather doubt that WiFi would do the trick here, as
even cell phones don't work very well in our buildings. Non-company
pagers don't work either. To bad the company pagers do.
[/quote]
Well, there are a number of homemande antenna designs, for both
cell phones and WiFi that might boost the signal enough to work.
Some antenna designs can give as much as a 12db increase in
signal, and you can buy one as Compusa. Of course, I had to
turn on X-No-Archive for this post, or one guy will find me
and tell me it is illegal to use such an antenna, when it is not. One
salesman as Compusa said the the Super Cantenna is perfectly
legal to use on any WiFi card or AP. Depending on what your
building is made out of, the Super Cantenna, sold at Compusa
for $49, might do the trick.

Walter Roberson · Guest

In article 05qdneqJ7JhSYNDeRVn-hg, someone who didn't want their name
to be permanently associated with this topic wrote:

Walter Roberson · Guest

In article OOGdnWVngO2KOtPeRVn-gQ, someone who didn't want their name
to be permanently associated with this topic wrote:

:X-No-Archive: Yes

:"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message

Charles Newman · Guest

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:diltp3$1mv$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...

Moe Trin · Guest

In the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<05qdneqJ7JhSYNDeRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Charles Newman wrote:

Moe Trin · Guest

In the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<OOGdnWVngO2KOtPeRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Charles Newman wrote:

March 29, 2006 total eclipse - IT admin's WORST NIGHTMARE Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

	DComTalk.com Forum Index -> Firewalls	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5