X-No-Archive: Yes

"Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:frsukp$dag$1 [at] aioe.org...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:frl08e$a67$1 [at] aioe.org...
>>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>
>> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.224744c591bc834698968e [at] adfree.usenet.com...
>>> In article <friqro$dsh$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.2246ae83f7aa853098968d [at] adfree.usenet.com...
>>>> > In article <frieo5$9ul$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>>>> >> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b [at] adfree.usenet.com...
>>>> >> > In article <frgleg$qg4$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>>>> >> >> I got a telephone call
>>>> >> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
>>>> >> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
>>>> >> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
>>>> >> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her
>>>> >> > country
>>>> >> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
>>>> >> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
>>>> >
>>>> > That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now
>>>> > you
>>>> > claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe
>>>> > even
>>>> > laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.
>>>>
>>>> She was NOT committing ANY *CRIMINAL* act. The laws in Canada, just
>>>> like in Australia and America, regarding unauthorised access to a
>>>> computer
>>>> ONLY apply if you BREAK someone's PASSWORD. If there is NO
>>>> password or authentication system that says "Keep Out!", then the laws
>>>> regarding unauthorised access to a computer DO NOT APPLY. If its
>>>> not protected by a password, or some other kind of authentication
>>>> system,
>>>> then it is LEGAL to access, so NO crime was committed on her part.
>>>
>>> You keep saying that it's not illegal, but when she gets fired for
>>> breaking company policy, because you enabled her, you are liable for her
>>
>> If the filters FAIL to block it, then she could have been accused
>> of violating company policy, had anybody known what was going
>> on.
>>
>> That is why my figure skating message boards are picking up a following
>> among people surfing from work. Becuase my board is NOT in any
>> filtering lists, it can be accessed from most workplaces, and as long
>> as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
>> accused of violating company policy. It is the same as with
>> unauthorised computer access, if t here is nothing coming on the
>> screen saying they are attempting to access a site that violates
>> company policy, then it is NOT a violation of company policy.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I know that becuase we now have a Shoutcast feed for talk and sports
> programming, there is more a lot more workplace listening. There has
> been someoene, in Leeds, England, listening to our figure skating
> coverage from work, with connections of 2 hours or more at a time.
> Becuase my Shoutcast server is not in any filter lists, people have
> NO trouble tuning in from work.
>
> In fact, since implementing a Shoutcast feed, I have been getting a lot
> more traffic from office networks all over Europe, because my server
> is not in any filtering lists.
>

There is a new kind of public proxy coming out, now that uses VPN.
A little known Windows feature is now being used more. It turns out
that Windows XP SP2, 2003, and Vista, in their professional versions,
have a built-in VPN server. I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
all the traffic. Its encrypted. And best of all, there is no need to install
extra software, or fiddle with your browser settings. All one has to
do is to go into Network Connections, and create a VPN connection
to my site, and then log on to it. The Windows VPN/PPTN server uses
168-bit encryption, which would cannot be cracked, sniffed, or
monitored.

A couple of commercial companies offering for-pay access, via
the Windows VPN client, are telling people that if they use their
EXPENSIVE (59 USD/month) service, that ones employer will
not be able to monitor the connection through packet sniffing,
becuase of the 168-bit encryption. There are at least several
commercial public VPN services advocating people use their
service from work.

And these servers are actually quite fast. I use one, myself, to listen
to Pandora, when I am outside the United States, and it seems
to be able to handle the 150K connection fairly well, unlike a lot
of the misconfigured proxy servers out there, which are mostly
on residential cable modems, and don't have a lot of outbound
bandwidth.

Chilly8 wrote:


> There is a new kind of public proxy coming out, now that uses VPN.
> A little known Windows feature is now being used more. It turns out
> that Windows XP SP2, 2003, and Vista, in their professional versions,
> have a built-in VPN server.


Windows 2000 as well, and XP Home as well. It's called IPsec and its primary
use is not just VPN. Or are you referring to PPTP? Or L2TP? Wow, that's
really news. Wow, they have the same as almost any other modern OS has!

> The Windows VPN/PPTN server uses

> 168-bit encryption, which would cannot be cracked, sniffed, or
> monitored.


At first, 3DES in EDE-Mode has only 112 bit of effective security even
though the key has a formal length of 168 bit.

Second, in most setups it can be attacked due to a simple MITM attack, since
you don't deploy strong authentication with the necessary PKI.

Third, it can obviously be sniffed, but that's very useful since it is
encrypted.

Forth, PPTP has some known weaknesses which, depending on the setup, might
be exploitable in your scenario.

Fifth, in many cases it's not applicable without L2TP tunneling, doesn't
work so well behind NAT...

> A couple of commercial companies offering for-pay access, via
> the Windows VPN client, are telling people that if they use their
> EXPENSIVE (59 USD/month) service, that ones employer will
> not be able to monitor the connection through packet sniffing,
> becuase of the 168-bit encryption.


But they can detect, block and hold responsible. Even further, proper
policies won't allow the user to create arbitrary RAS connections.


But then again, we all know that you're an incompetent fool. Just look at
your headers, they're telling pretty clearly that you can't even differ an
Exchange Communication Client from a newsreader.

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Sebastian G." <seppi [at] seppig.de> wrote in message
news:6668amF2irc3iU1 [at] mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> There is a new kind of public proxy coming out, now that uses VPN.
>> A little known Windows feature is now being used more. It turns out
>> that Windows XP SP2, 2003, and Vista, in their professional versions,
>> have a built-in VPN server.
>
>
> Windows 2000 as well, and XP Home as well. It's called IPsec and its
> primary use is not just VPN. Or are you referring to PPTP? Or L2TP? Wow,
> that's really news. Wow, they have the same as almost any other modern OS
> has!
>
> > The Windows VPN/PPTN server uses
>
>> 168-bit encryption, which would cannot be cracked, sniffed, or
>> monitored.
>
>
> At first, 3DES in EDE-Mode has only 112 bit of effective security even
> though the key has a formal length of 168 bit.
>
> Second, in most setups it can be attacked due to a simple MITM attack,
> since you don't deploy strong authentication with the necessary PKI.
>
> Third, it can obviously be sniffed, but that's very useful since it is
> encrypted.
>
> Forth, PPTP has some known weaknesses which, depending on the setup, might
> be exploitable in your scenario.
>
> Fifth, in many cases it's not applicable without L2TP tunneling, doesn't
> work so well behind NAT...
>
>> A couple of commercial companies offering for-pay access, via
>> the Windows VPN client, are telling people that if they use their
>> EXPENSIVE (59 USD/month) service, that ones employer will
>> not be able to monitor the connection through packet sniffing,
>> becuase of the 168-bit encryption.
>
>
> But they can detect, block and hold responsible. Even further, proper


They can't hold the company providing the proxy service responsible.
The company is merely providing service, and are effectively an ISP,
since, when you connect with the VPN connection, you assume an
IP from that network's pool of IP addresses. It is no different than
somone connecting a modem and using dial-up ISP. The VPN
server is handling the all your Internet traffic.

In article <ftk796$2vg$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
> all the traffic.

And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
easier to spot than a proxy connection.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8 wrote:


>> But they can detect, block and hold responsible. Even further, proper
>
> They can't hold the company providing the proxy service responsible.


And I never claimed that. They can hold the employee responsible.

And it's your moral responsibility if you suggest them to violate their
company's policies and drive themselves into trouble. But your blatant
ignorance of this fact makes the defense of your actions just more laughable.

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2267c2dc32c964d9896b8 [at] adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <ftk796$2vg$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
>> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
>> all the traffic.
>
> And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
> easier to spot than a proxy connection.

One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,
very handy when I go to China, or Cuba, an average of once
a year to broadcast figure skating events. I completely bypass
the local censors, since the connection cannot be analysed,
cracked, monitored, or sniffed. If, say, Hotmail, is blocked,
I can VPN to my server,. and log on to Hotmail that way,
and the local government censors will NEVER know what I
am up to.

If I want to read certain blocked Western news sources, while
in China, such as the BBC, or CNN, or a few Australian
news outlets, I can do that, and there is no POSSIBLE way
the censors in China would know what I was up to, becuase
of the encrypted connection to my server. So I can do pretty
much what I want, no matter what part of the world I go to,
and local censors cannot monitor me.

Chilly8 wrote:


> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
> encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,


But it can be simply censored by not allowing any such connection in first
place. D'oh, that's exactly what China does!

> since the connection cannot be analysed,

> cracked, monitored, or sniffed.


It can be analyzed, trivially. Both by the headers as well as by the
statistical significant pseudorandomness of the paylod.

"Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftkvo0$3ev$1 [at] aioe.org:

>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2267c2dc32c964d9896b8 [at] adfree.usenet.com...
>> In article <ftk796$2vg$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>>> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
>>> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
>>> all the traffic.
>>
>> And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
>> easier to spot than a proxy connection.
>
> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
> encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,
> very handy when I go to China, or Cuba, an average of once
> a year to broadcast figure skating events. I completely bypass
> the local censors, since the connection cannot be analysed,
> cracked, monitored, or sniffed. If, say, Hotmail, is blocked,
> I can VPN to my server,. and log on to Hotmail that way,
> and the local government censors will NEVER know what I
> am up to.
>
> If I want to read certain blocked Western news sources, while
> in China, such as the BBC, or CNN, or a few Australian
> news outlets, I can do that, and there is no POSSIBLE way
> the censors in China would know what I was up to, becuase
> of the encrypted connection to my server. So I can do pretty
> much what I want, no matter what part of the world I go to,
> and local censors cannot monitor me.

You could get someone jailed or killed.

Back in the 60's, I had a friend in Cuba that I used to play chess with via
amateur radio using Morse code.

American amateurs and Cuban amateur radio operators were allowed to
communicate but we had to avoid politically hot topics.

One day, we were in the middle of a chess game when he told me to wait...
someone was knocking on his door.

He never came back to finish the game.
I never heard him on the radio again.

I suspect that Cuban radio monitors thought that our chess moves were
encrypted messages.

I don't know if he just lost his license or his life.

As I said, you could be in danger yourself and those that use your service
could be in danger.

It doesn't matter WHAT the content is, the fact that the authorities can
not read it could be enough to get someone killed. You need to realize that
you are 'playing with fire' and think carefully about the possible
consequences and the fact that you may have to live with never knowing what
happened to someone.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm [at] ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Sebastian G." <seppi [at] seppig.de> wrote in message
news:666ei3F2i8u0nU2 [at] mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
>> encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,
>
>
> But it can be simply censored by not allowing any such connection in first
> place. D'oh, that's exactly what China does!

However, I have my server in a server farm, and not on any of
the blocking lists, in China or Cuba. I test this, often, by connecting
to my web site, also running on the same server, through open proxies
in China and Cuba, and my web site is currently accessible from
China and Cuba.

The way China does it, is by fiddling with their DNS services,
so a particular name, will not resolve. This could by bypassed by
using the raw IP number for my server.
>
> > since the connection cannot be analysed,
>
>> cracked, monitored, or sniffed.
>
>
> It can be analyzed, trivially. Both by the headers as well as by the
> statistical significant pseudorandomness of the paylod.

But with the connection encrypted, and going through my
server, they cannot find out that I am accessing banned sites,
while in the country.

X-No-Archive: Yes


"bz" <bz+csm [at] ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7C5418EC349WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote [at] 130.39.198.139...
> "Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftkvo0$3ev$1 [at] aioe.org:
>
>>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>
>> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2267c2dc32c964d9896b8 [at] adfree.usenet.com...
>>> In article <ftk796$2vg$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>>>> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
>>>> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
>>>> all the traffic.
>>>
>>> And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
>>> easier to spot than a proxy connection.
>>
>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere. With the strong
>> encryption, I cannot be monitored by government censors,
>> very handy when I go to China, or Cuba, an average of once
>> a year to broadcast figure skating events. I completely bypass
>> the local censors, since the connection cannot be analysed,
>> cracked, monitored, or sniffed. If, say, Hotmail, is blocked,
>> I can VPN to my server,. and log on to Hotmail that way,
>> and the local government censors will NEVER know what I
>> am up to.
>>
>> If I want to read certain blocked Western news sources, while
>> in China, such as the BBC, or CNN, or a few Australian
>> news outlets, I can do that, and there is no POSSIBLE way
>> the censors in China would know what I was up to, becuase
>> of the encrypted connection to my server. So I can do pretty
>> much what I want, no matter what part of the world I go to,
>> and local censors cannot monitor me.
>
> You could get someone jailed or killed.

> As I said, you could be in danger yourself and those that use your service
> could be in danger.

Not me, I would not be in danger. A local person, maybe, but not me,
as a foreigner. With an encrypted connection, whether I am in
China, Cuba, or censorious Middle Eastern countires, there is
no POSSIBLE way I can be monitored, becuase of the encryption.

Since Live 365 is blocked in Iran, I use my VPN, if I go there,
to log in and check on the Live 365 feed for my station, and
the Mullahs in Iran have no CLUE as to WHAT I am up to.
Both Live 365 and LoudCity are blocked, in Iran, but I use
my VPN connection to bypass the Mullahs, and check on
my station.

I also use it in Britan and the U.S., becuase of the warrantless
monitoring of communications in both countries, that is apparently
even more than the afforentioned censorious regimes in Cuba,
China, etc. By using an enrypted connection, Mi-6 in Britain,
or Homeland Security in America cannot snoop on my
communications, becusae of the heavy crypto. The government
spooks in America and Britain cannot monitor me, when I use
my VPN connection. All Mi-6 and Homeland Security know
is that I am making an encrypted connection to my server, via
a VPN link, but that is ALL either DHS or MI-6 would
know.

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftliqm$umj$1 [at] aioe.org...
>


>
> I also use it in Britan and the U.S., becuase of the warrantless
> monitoring of communications in both countries, that is apparently
> even more than the afforentioned censorious regimes in Cuba,
> China, etc. By using an enrypted connection, Mi-6 in Britain,
> or Homeland Security in America cannot snoop on my
> communications, becusae of the heavy crypto. The government
> spooks in America and Britain cannot monitor me, when I use
> my VPN connection. All Mi-6 and Homeland Security know
> is that I am making an encrypted connection to my server, via
> a VPN link, but that is ALL either DHS or MI-6 would
> know.
>
>

One other footnote is the being a USA/Australia dual
national, some DHS folks might consider me subject to the
travel restrictions on Cuba, even though I do not live in the
U.S. By encrypting my communications, especially when
covering sporting events in Cuba. DHS and the Office of
Foregin Assets Control (OFAC) cannot find out I ever
was in Cuba. Any CIA/DHS/OFAC monitoring of the outbound
connection from Cuba, towards my server, is neutralised,
and there is no POSSIBLE way the government of the United
States can monitor what I am up to.

I feel that because I live in Australia, as a USA/Oz dual,
and travel to Cuba on an Aussie passport, that I should only
be subject to Australian regulations, which currently permit
travel to Cuba, and should not be subject to getting an
OFAC licence, from the U.S., to travel there. So by
encrypting the outbound connection from Cuba, any
spooks from DHS, OFAC, or the CIA cannot eavesdrop
on the connection. All that would the American government
would know is that someone was making a heavily encrypted
outbound connection from Cuba, but would not be able to
decipher what was being sent from Cuba.

I also scrub the hard disks on any computer equipment that
has been in Cuba, with Evidence Eliminator, before it is ever
taken to, or through the U.S., so that Customs cannot recover
anything to indicate I was in Cuba. Cuban authorites, believe
it or not, will not stamp your passport, if you ask. You just put
a slip of paper in your passport, and the Cuban authorities
will stamp that instead. Betweent that, and scrubbing the disks
with Evidence Eliminator, I can travel to Cuba, without getting
an OFAC licence, and the United States government is never
the wiser. If U.S. Customs decided to examine the hard disks,
they wold not get anything.

In article <ftkvo0$3ev$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2267c2dc32c964d9896b8 [at] adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <ftk796$2vg$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> >> I merely set up a VPN tunnel, where
> >> someone can log onto my machine, and have all my server handling
> >> all the traffic.
> >
> > And it stand out in a firewall like a flare on a dark night - even
> > easier to spot than a proxy connection.
>
> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere.

You are really stupid Chilly.

First, if they are going to censor the internet they are going to block
VPN's to the same areas, most filtering does not permit VPN's out of an
area - it's a real threat to allow outbound VPN connections.

Second, a IPSec tunnel or any other tunnel sticks out like a red flare
in a monitored network, so, you can claim you're getting away with xyz,
but the fact is that you just made your connection easier to spot and to
eliminate.

It doesn't matter what you are doing/passing through the VPN, it's that
a VPN is going to be spotted and then flagged and then terminated if
it's even permitted to pass - in most secure networks there are NO VPN
connections permitted to leave the networks except those setup by IT
Administrators.


--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

In article <ftliqm$umj$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> Not me, I would not be in danger. A local person, maybe, but not me,
> as a foreigner.

You are bound by the laws of any country you are in - so, if you are in
China breaking their laws you would be liable.


--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2268366eb3fad2159896bb [at] adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <ftliqm$umj$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>> Not me, I would not be in danger. A local person, maybe, but not me,
>> as a foreigner.
>
> You are bound by the laws of any country you are in - so, if you are in
> China breaking their laws you would be liable.


However, when I go to Cuba, being a USA/Australia dual, I feel that
I should not have to get a travel licence from the United States
government, as long as I use my Australian passport. By running an
outbound VPN connection to my server, from Cuba, the United
States government. This way, the USA would never know that I,
as an American citizen, was in Cuba, in violation of the ban on
travel to Cubn. All DHS would ever know was that someone was
making a heavily encrypted outbound connection from Cuba, which,
contrary to popular opinion, cannot be cracked, monitored, analysed,
or sniffed by any spooks in America who may try and eavesdrop
on it.

I feel that since I live in Australia, that the United States regulatoins
regarding travel to Cuba do not, and should not, apply to me, so
by running an outbound VPN connection, when broadcasting from
Cuba, the United States government would not know what was going
on. All the spooks in the United States government will see is some
heavily encrypted traffic coming out of Cuba, and that is ALL the
authorities in America will know.

In article <ftlt31$9f8$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> However, when I go to Cuba, being a USA/Australia dual, I feel that
> I should not have to get a travel licence from the United States
> government, as long as I use my Australian passport. By running an
> outbound VPN connection to my server, from Cuba, the United
> States government. This way, the USA would never know that I,
> as an American citizen, was in Cuba, in violation of the ban on
> travel to Cubn. All DHS would ever know was that someone was
> making a heavily encrypted outbound connection from Cuba, which,
> contrary to popular opinion, cannot be cracked, monitored, analysed,
> or sniffed by any spooks in America who may try and eavesdrop
> on it.

And you seem to miss the point - it doesn't matter WHAT IS "in" your
tunnel, it's that it's easy to tell you've made it, where from/to, and
track it to your location.

You are exposed as another snake-oil salesman.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2268437f67fb5dde9896be [at] adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <ftlt31$9f8$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>> However, when I go to Cuba, being a USA/Australia dual, I feel that
>> I should not have to get a travel licence from the United States
>> government, as long as I use my Australian passport. By running an
>> outbound VPN connection to my server, from Cuba, the United
>> States government. This way, the USA would never know that I,
>> as an American citizen, was in Cuba, in violation of the ban on
>> travel to Cubn. All DHS would ever know was that someone was
>> making a heavily encrypted outbound connection from Cuba, which,
>> contrary to popular opinion, cannot be cracked, monitored, analysed,
>> or sniffed by any spooks in America who may try and eavesdrop
>> on it.
>
> And you seem to miss the point - it doesn't matter WHAT IS "in" your
> tunnel, it's that it's easy to tell you've made it, where from/to, and
> track it to your location.
>

However, as far as the travelr restrictions go, there is nothing that
DHS or OFAC could ever gather in the way of evidence, since
the outbound transmission from Cuba, so there is nothing usable
against me that the United States government could ever gather,
as far as any violations of the travel restrictions on Cuba go.

All they would know is that the transmission is going to an IP
in France, where my server is, and a computer is France is
NOT SUBJECT to ANY United States laws, and the contents
of said computer is not subject to the jurisdiction of ANY
United States court.

And I foil the U.S. government even more by using any unsecured
WiFi access point close to the arena or stadium. The spooks in
the United States government would know that something was
coming from a WiFi access point in Cuba, so there is NOTHING
the United States government could ever trace to me. I scrub
my hard drives with Evidence Eliminator, before attempting to take
any computer equipment that has been in Cuba, through U.S.
Customs, so that if Customs/DHS decides to do a forensic examination
on any of the station's equipment, they won't get anything.

They would see the encrypted transmission eminating from a
WiFi router in Cuba, but the United States government could
not POSSIBLY find out WHO was using that link, if the
transmission, outbound from that point, is heavily encrypted.

In article <ftluu8$gmt$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>
>
> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2268437f67fb5dde9896be [at] adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <ftlt31$9f8$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> >> However, when I go to Cuba, being a USA/Australia dual, I feel that
> >> I should not have to get a travel licence from the United States
> >> government, as long as I use my Australian passport. By running an
> >> outbound VPN connection to my server, from Cuba, the United
> >> States government. This way, the USA would never know that I,
> >> as an American citizen, was in Cuba, in violation of the ban on
> >> travel to Cubn. All DHS would ever know was that someone was
> >> making a heavily encrypted outbound connection from Cuba, which,
> >> contrary to popular opinion, cannot be cracked, monitored, analysed,
> >> or sniffed by any spooks in America who may try and eavesdrop
> >> on it.
> >
> > And you seem to miss the point - it doesn't matter WHAT IS "in" your
> > tunnel, it's that it's easy to tell you've made it, where from/to, and
> > track it to your location.
> >
>
> However, as far as the travelr restrictions go, there is nothing that
> DHS or OFAC could ever gather in the way of evidence, since
> the outbound transmission from Cuba, so there is nothing usable
> against me that the United States government could ever gather,
> as far as any violations of the travel restrictions on Cuba go.
>
> All they would know is that the transmission is going to an IP
> in France, where my server is, and a computer is France is
> NOT SUBJECT to ANY United States laws, and the contents
> of said computer is not subject to the jurisdiction of ANY
> United States court.
>
> And I foil the U.S. government even more by using any unsecured
> WiFi access point close to the arena or stadium. The spooks in
> the United States government would know that something was
> coming from a WiFi access point in Cuba, so there is NOTHING
> the United States government could ever trace to me. I scrub
> my hard drives with Evidence Eliminator, before attempting to take
> any computer equipment that has been in Cuba, through U.S.
> Customs, so that if Customs/DHS decides to do a forensic examination
> on any of the station's equipment, they won't get anything.
>
> They would see the encrypted transmission eminating from a
> WiFi router in Cuba, but the United States government could
> not POSSIBLY find out WHO was using that link, if the
> transmission, outbound from that point, is heavily encrypted.

With every post you show yourself to be unethical and dishonest.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.226882b7cf133c1a9896c2 [at] adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <ftluu8$gmt$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>>
>>
>> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2268437f67fb5dde9896be [at] adfree.usenet.com...
>> > In article <ftlt31$9f8$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>> >> However, when I go to Cuba, being a USA/Australia dual, I feel that
>> >> I should not have to get a travel licence from the United States
>> >> government, as long as I use my Australian passport. By running an
>> >> outbound VPN connection to my server, from Cuba, the United
>> >> States government. This way, the USA would never know that I,
>> >> as an American citizen, was in Cuba, in violation of the ban on
>> >> travel to Cubn. All DHS would ever know was that someone was
>> >> making a heavily encrypted outbound connection from Cuba, which,
>> >> contrary to popular opinion, cannot be cracked, monitored, analysed,
>> >> or sniffed by any spooks in America who may try and eavesdrop
>> >> on it.
>> >
>> > And you seem to miss the point - it doesn't matter WHAT IS "in" your
>> > tunnel, it's that it's easy to tell you've made it, where from/to, and
>> > track it to your location.
>> >
>>
>> However, as far as the travelr restrictions go, there is nothing that
>> DHS or OFAC could ever gather in the way of evidence, since
>> the outbound transmission from Cuba, so there is nothing usable
>> against me that the United States government could ever gather,
>> as far as any violations of the travel restrictions on Cuba go.
>>
>> All they would know is that the transmission is going to an IP
>> in France, where my server is, and a computer is France is
>> NOT SUBJECT to ANY United States laws, and the contents
>> of said computer is not subject to the jurisdiction of ANY
>> United States court.
>>
>> And I foil the U.S. government even more by using any unsecured
>> WiFi access point close to the arena or stadium. The spooks in
>> the United States government would know that something was
>> coming from a WiFi access point in Cuba, so there is NOTHING
>> the United States government could ever trace to me. I scrub
>> my hard drives with Evidence Eliminator, before attempting to take
>> any computer equipment that has been in Cuba, through U.S.
>> Customs, so that if Customs/DHS decides to do a forensic examination
>> on any of the station's equipment, they won't get anything.
>>
>> They would see the encrypted transmission eminating from a
>> WiFi router in Cuba, but the United States government could
>> not POSSIBLY find out WHO was using that link, if the
>> transmission, outbound from that point, is heavily encrypted.
>
> With every post you show yourself to be unethical and dishonest.

However, in Cuba, like in many countries, it is ONLY illegal to
use someone's WiFi router if you BREAK somebody's
PASSWORD. Simply put, if its is out there, and not been
secured, then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and LEGAL
to use. It is the same in America and in Australia. Unless there
is some kind of password on encryption system sayng "Keep
Out!", then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and it is LEGAL
for you to use it.

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftmimc$n23$1 [at] aioe.org...
>
>


Since starting a subscription 96K feed on my station, my listenership
is going up again. And with three different proxy options, it allows people
to be able to listen from work, with their destination being masked by
my proxy. Users can either use my Tor gateway, using the normal
high speed web proxy, or they can use the new subscription VPN
service I put on my machine. I put the VPN service on, so that
listeners can get my 96K live 365 feed from work.

Since I added a LoudCity feed, which works better with proxies,
I am getting a lot of the at-work listeners I lost when Live 365
mucked with their system in August of last year. LoudCity
stations can be listened to more easier with proxies, especially
the phpProxy and CGI variety of proxies.

I am pretty sure there are a few network admins that are
wondering about the 96K outbound connections to strange
addresses in places like Ukraine, where a lot of the phoProxy
sites are.

In article <ftn4st$m65$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> I am pretty sure there are a few network admins that are
> wondering about the 96K outbound connections to strange
> addresses in places like Ukraine, where a lot of the phoProxy
> sites are.

No, in fact, most Security admins won't be wondering as you won't have
connections from their networks.

The only time you'll get a connection from a business network is when
the firewall has not properly been locked down.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftmimc$n23$1 [at] aioe.org:

> However, in Cuba, like in many countries, it is ONLY illegal to
> use someone's WiFi router if you BREAK somebody's
> PASSWORD.

Not true.
http://www.crn.com/security/26806554
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/24/ethical_wireless_hac ker_is_innocent
/
notice that the JURY found him innocent BECAUSE he was warning about the
network being open.
Had he been just USING the network without permission, he could have been
in serious trouble.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10138



> Simply put, if its is out there, and not been
> secured, then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and LEGAL
> to use. It is the same in America and in Australia.

and such news as "Singapore Teen Faces Three Years in Jail for Wireless
Piggybacking"
should tell you that your ideas of 'unprotected means open to public' is
wrong.


> Unless there
> is some kind of password on encryption system sayng "Keep
> Out!", then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and it is LEGAL
> for you to use it.

Keep it up and YOU will end up in gaol.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm [at] ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Since you obviously won't stop feeding that troll: welcome to my
killfile.

*plonk*

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

X-No-Archive: Yes


"bz" <bz+csm [at] ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7D587FDF73BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote [at] 130.39.198.139...
> "Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftmimc$n23$1 [at] aioe.org:
>
>> However, in Cuba, like in many countries, it is ONLY illegal to
>> use someone's WiFi router if you BREAK somebody's
>> PASSWORD.
>
> Not true.
> http://www.crn.com/security/26806554
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/24/ethical_wireless_hac ker_is_innocent
>

> notice that the JURY found him innocent BECAUSE he was warning about the
> network being open.
> Had he been just USING the network without permission, he could have been
> in serious trouble.
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10138

..


Well, if he had been using a Pringles can antenna, and been much
further out, that would likely have never happend. As a smaller
radio outlet, we out open WiFi hotspots, when broadcasting
sporting events. So the open networks we use are quite a ways
out, well beyond the normal 300 feet limit. A SuperCantenna
can hit an unmodified WiFi hotspot. up to a mile away,
even farther if the power output of the WiFi card has
been increased.

Since we are quite a ways from any unsecured WiFi network
that really does not matter. We use several wireless options. I hold
an Australian flying licence, and a few days before an event
begins and flying restrictions come into effect, I take a rented
plane up and scan the area for unsecured wireless networks
within 2 miles of the event venue. Our techno-geeks have
installed amplifiers in the equipment to kick up both the send
and receive, so, with a SuperCantenna, we can hit any open
WiFi AP up to 2 miles away. We also do this because the
walls inside an arena can hamper reception. From about
1500 to 2000 feet above the level of the ground, lots
of open APs can be found in about 20 minutes of
scanning.

I also saw one on Figure Skating Universe, at Trophee De
France, back in 2005, that was reporedly doing this, and
live blogging the event to FSU. Using a SuperCantenna,
an modified WiFi card, with the power kicked way up
on both send and receive, this person was live-blogging
the event, until their battery ran down. Thats the one
downside to kicking up the power, your batteries
run down faster.


This is why we have to run the equipment off a sroage battery that
hooked to an inverter (it also solves the problem of differing
Ac power aronnd th world). Our modified WiFi card puts out
about 85 watts of effective radiated power, when the power
amplification, and the SupeerCantenna are combined.

>
>
>
>> Simply put, if its is out there, and not been
>> secured, then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and LEGAL
>> to use. It is the same in America and in Australia.
>
> and such news as "Singapore Teen Faces Three Years in Jail for Wireless
> Piggybacking"
> should tell you that your ideas of 'unprotected means open to public' is
> wrong.
>
>
>> Unless there
>> is some kind of password on encryption system sayng "Keep
>> Out!", then it is PUBLIC in the eyes of the law, and it is LEGAL
>> for you to use it.
>
> Keep it up and YOU will end up in gaol.

That is why I use Evidence Eliminator, so there is nothing on
the station's equipment that can be used to prosecute either me,
or the radio station. As I said, I also use it after I have been in
Cuba, so that the next time I travel to America, I won't get
nicked for travelling to Cuba (despite living in Australia),
without obtaining an OFAC licence. I chatted in my chat room
with another USA/Australia dual national who does this with
any computer equiipment he takes from Australia, on trips
to Cuba. If it becomes necessary to change planes in the USA
coming from Cuba, he scrubs the hard disks with Evidence
Eliminator, before they are taken through U.S. Customs, so
they will not be able to recover any evidence he was in
Cuba, from off his hard disl, should U.S. Customs decide to
do forensic examination of any of his computer eqiipment.
He just simply scrubs the hard disks with EE, before he
leaves Cuba, and when going through Customs at LAX,
they don't get anything off his hard disk, if they decide to
examine the machine.

"Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftoau0$kc8$1 [at] aioe.org:

.....
>
> Well, if he had been using a Pringles can antenna, and been much
> further out, that would likely have never happend. As a smaller
> radio outlet, we out open WiFi hotspots, when broadcasting
> sporting events. So the open networks we use are quite a ways
> out, well beyond the normal 300 feet limit. A SuperCantenna
> can hit an unmodified WiFi hotspot. up to a mile away,
> even farther if the power output of the WiFi card has
> been increased.
.....[confessions to multiple crimes snipped].....

The jails are full of people that thought they were smart enough to get
away with 'it'. Each of them was sure that they had everything figured out.

Most of them even got away with 'it', for a while.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm [at] ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

X-No-Archive: Yes

"bz" <bz+csm [at] ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7D90FC19B5DWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote [at] 130.39.198.139...
> "Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftoau0$kc8$1 [at] aioe.org:
>
> ....
>>
>> Well, if he had been using a Pringles can antenna, and been much
>> further out, that would likely have never happend. As a smaller
>> radio outlet, we out open WiFi hotspots, when broadcasting
>> sporting events. So the open networks we use are quite a ways
>> out, well beyond the normal 300 feet limit. A SuperCantenna
>> can hit an unmodified WiFi hotspot. up to a mile away,
>> even farther if the power output of the WiFi card has
>> been increased.
> ....[confessions to multiple crimes snipped].....
>
> The jails are full of people that thought they were smart enough to get
> away with 'it'. Each of them was sure that they had everything figured
> out.
>
> Most of them even got away with 'it', for a while.


Using a SuperCantenna, itself, is NOT illegal in ANY
of the countries where we oftne broadcast figure skating
events from during the northern winter. SuperCantennas
are LEGAL in Australia, China, Cuba, France, Germany,
England, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Finland, and the
United States.

Besides people's unsecured WiFi networks, we can also
use WiFi networks at any Internet cafe that is within
the extended range. We just simply find one, if it is
close enough, and buy enough time to handle a days
worth of coverage.

When I scan for WiFi signals from an airplane flying
around the area of the arena, I also scan for any
Intenret cafes, coffee houses, or fast food outlets,
even the local libarries hat might have WiFi as well.
Thats the advantage of having an Australian flying
licence, I can take an airplane up and scan the area.

For Skate America, last sesaon, the local libary,
and its WiFi hotspot was close enough to the area
where our equipment, outfitted with a Super
Cantenna, was able to use that. My scan for
hotspots from an airplane picked that one up.
And using an WiFi card, with an effective
radidated power of 85 watts is LEGAL
under both Pennsylvania state law, and
US federal law. The one we use amplifies
the signal to 5 watts, and then Cantenna
boosts that to about 85 watts of effective
radidated power (ERP). All I had to do was
sign up for a library card, so that I could use the WiFi
network. And such amplifiers are LEGAL, since you
can BUY them online with ANY major credit card,
and they will ship them to you, to any part of the world.
no questions asked.

And scanning for WiFi hotspots from an airplane
is LEGAL, provided you follow all the other local
laws, regarding operating an aircraft. Flying over
the area at about 2000 feet above the level of
the ground and scanning for both unsecurd WiFi
hotspots as well as public hotspots from places like
McDonalds, Borders, Kinkos, Starbucks, etc, etc,
is LEGAL. In the United States, for example, as
long as I followed Federal Aviation Adminstration
(FAA) rules, scanning for WiFi hotspots from
the air did NOT violate ANY federal laws, or
those of the State Of Pennsylvania, when scanning
for hotspots to use to broadcast Skate America.

The ideal speed for scannig an area is about 100 to 120
knots indicated airspeed (KIAS).

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.22692766b1ef78679896c4 [at] adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <ftn4st$m65$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>> I am pretty sure there are a few network admins that are
>> wondering about the 96K outbound connections to strange
>> addresses in places like Ukraine, where a lot of the phoProxy
>> sites are.
>
> No, in fact, most Security admins won't be wondering as you won't have
> connections from their networks.
>
> The only time you'll get a connection from a business network is when
> the firewall has not properly been locked down.


Speaking of China, I may soon be airing a musical programme aimed
at ethnic Chinese communities in the United States, England, and
Canada. One producer in Shenzen, China, is interested in running
his show of "Canto-Pop" tunes on my station, becuase he KNOWS
that I do everything POSSIBLE to make it heard in workplaces.
This would give ethnic Chinese in places like London, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, or in Vancover access to Chinese-
language music programming for up to 2 hours a day while
they are at work. The procuder has even set up his own
public proxy server, in China, so that workplace firewalls
can be circumvented. It will be a phoProxy, in encrypted
mode, so the boss, where anyone is lstening, won't know
what is happening

So if you have any ethnic Chinese in your workplace, get ready
for a lot of them listening to this Chinese-language music
programme, once it does start airing on my station. Network
admins will probably wonder what is going on when a whole
bunch of encrypted connections to a strange proxy in China
start showing up in the logs.

> My scan for
> hotspots from an airplane picked that one up.
> And using an WiFi card, with an effective
> radidated power of 85 watts is LEGAL
> under both Pennsylvania state law, and
> US federal law.

Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?

We are allowed to operate at an ERP of 100mW (2,4GHz) resp. 500mW (5,4GHz) maximum.

Or are you reading the decimal point wrongly?

Cheers,
Jens

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Jens Hoffmann" <jh [at] bofh.de> wrote in message
news:ftq3dr$42q$1 [at] murphy.mediascape.de...
>> My scan for
>> hotspots from an airplane picked that one up.
>> And using an WiFi card, with an effective
>> radidated power of 85 watts is LEGAL
>> under both Pennsylvania state law, and
>> US federal law.
>
> Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?

"fry birds"? What is that crack supposed to mean?
>
> We are allowed to operate at an ERP of 100mW (2,4GHz) resp. 500mW (5,4GHz)
> maximum.
>
> Or are you reading the decimal point wrongly?

There are 10w amplfiers, which, with a Cantenna, can boost
the ERP quite a bit. Both the amplfiers and the Cantennas are
LEGAL to buy, LEGAL to own, LEGAL to use, at least
in the countries where I have used them. That's a 10W
signal, BEFORE it goes into a Cantenna.

Hi,

>> Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?
>
> "fry birds"? What is that crack supposed to mean?

FCC in the US allows a maximum of 4W ERP.
http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/dbm_to_watt_conversion.cfm
http://www.topatec.com/pwr_db.htm

The amount of energy you supposedly use is dangerous.

I still think, you cannot calculate a pringles antenna correctly.

Pretty consistent with the rest of your fantasies, though.

Cheers,
Jens

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Jens Hoffmann" <jh [at] bofh.de> wrote in message
news:ftqt6e$biq$1 [at] murphy.mediascape.de...
> Hi,
>
>>> Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?
>>
>> "fry birds"? What is that crack supposed to mean?
>
> FCC in the US allows a maximum of 4W ERP.
> http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/dbm_to_watt_conversion.cfm
> http://www.topatec.com/pwr_db.htm
>

However, using a Cantenna, itsself, which boosts the ERP,
without any amplication, to around 15W ERP is LEGAL. You
can BUY a Cantenna in many computer stores. And the Fry;s
electronics guy who sold it to be SAID that the SuperCantenna
is LEGAL to use. I have heard the same from the folks are
Radio Shack, Circuit City, and Compusa, tht such atennnas
are LEGAL to use.

> The amount of energy you supposedly use is dangerous.

Not at 85 watts ERP.
>
> I still think, you cannot calculate a pringles antenna correctly.
>

You don't have to. You can BUY a Cantenna, which is actually
more efficient than a homemade Pringles can antenna. They
are optimised to get the best gain

Also scanning for open WiFi routers, using an airplane does
NOT violate ANY laws, as long as I follow all instructions
from Air Traffic Control (ATC).

"Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> writes:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Jens Hoffmann" <jh [at] bofh.de> wrote in message
> news:ftqt6e$biq$1 [at] murphy.mediascape.de...
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> Legalities aside: Do you want to transmit data or fry birds?
>>>
>>> "fry birds"? What is that crack supposed to mean?
>>
>> FCC in the US allows a maximum of 4W ERP.
>> http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/dbm_to_watt_conversion.cfm
>> http://www.topatec.com/pwr_db.htm
>>
>
> However, using a Cantenna, itsself, which boosts the ERP,
> without any amplication, to around 15W ERP is LEGAL. You
> can BUY a Cantenna in many computer stores. And the Fry;s
> electronics guy who sold it to be SAID that the SuperCantenna
> is LEGAL to use. I have heard the same from the folks are
> Radio Shack, Circuit City, and Compusa, tht such atennnas
> are LEGAL to use.

And by god I'd take anything those guys said to the bank. Especially
legal advice!

Chilly, so which diagnosable neurosis do you suffer from?

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

> However, using a Cantenna, itsself, which boosts the ERP,
> without any amplication, to around 15W ERP is LEGAL.

>> FCC in the US allows a maximum of 4W ERP.

> You
> can BUY a Cantenna in many computer stores. And the Fry;s
> electronics guy who sold it to be SAID that the SuperCantenna
> is LEGAL to use.

Wow, I am awed. So he makes the FCC rules?


> You don't have to.
That is what you seem to be thining about a lot of things.



>You can BUY a Cantenna,

Tell news.

X-No-Archive: Yes

>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere.


Here is another good use for VPN. Some in-flight Internet service
block Skype (because they want you to use their EXPENSIVE
"airfone" service). If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
extra to use the entertainment system on the plane. Just plug
in my headphones, VPN into my server, connect to Vongo,
sit back, relax, and enjoy. I use this, and other for-pay
online movie services, to have my own choice of movies,
often better than the airlines provide. Becuase of the
secure connection, the airline would never know that I was
watching my own choice of movies.

The same thing in hotels, with in-room Internet. Some hotels
block Skype, becuase they want you do make calls from
the in-room phone, and pay hotel telephone surchages. I can
VPN into my server, and launch Skype through there, and the
hotel would NEVER know that I was bypassing their filtering
of Skype, becuase the connection to my server is secure and
cannot be eavesdropped upon by the hotel. Since a lot of
business travellers also use VPN to connect to the office
networks back home, the hotels don't DARE block VPN,
unless they want to lose business travellers, which do make
up a lot of their business.

Chilly8 wrote:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere.
>
>
> Here is another good use for VPN. Some in-flight Internet service
> block Skype (because they want you to use their EXPENSIVE
> "airfone" service). If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
> into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
> would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
> connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
> flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
> sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
> decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
> and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
> extra to use the entertainment system on the plane.


Are you really so stupid? This is exactly the reason why they block
everything that looks pseudorandom, including compressed and encrypted data.

> I can VPN into my server, and launch Skype through there, and the

> hotel would NEVER know that I was bypassing their filtering
> of Skype, becuase the connection to my server is secure and
> cannot be eavesdropped upon by the hotel.


Actually it's very trivial: Since you're abusing MSOE as a newsreader and
probably as a mail client, as well as MSIE as a webbrowser, they can simply
inject arbitrary code onto your computer, and then read everything outside
of the encrypted communication channel.
(And you couldn't even hold them responsible, since they're simply using the
access you're actively offering to them.)

X-No-Archive: Yes



However, one point in the posts that got lost, is that I use VPN
to avoid being detected by U.S. authorities, when I go to Cuba.
I do feel, that since I live in Australia, I should NOT be compelled
to comply with U.S. travel restrictions on Cuba, despite being a
U.S./Australia dual national. By encrypted the outbound connection
from Cuba, with a VPN tunnel, the spooks in Washington cannot
eavesdrop on my communications, which allows me to cover my
tracks, if I to go Cuba to broadcast sporting events.

"Sebastian G." <seppi [at] seppig.de> wrote in message
news:66d4uvF2j67jjU1 [at] mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>>> One use for my VPN server is when I go to countries that heavily
>>>> censor the Internet. I can bypass the local censorship by using
>>>> a VPN connection to my server elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> Here is another good use for VPN. Some in-flight Internet service
>> block Skype (because they want you to use their EXPENSIVE
>> "airfone" service). If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
>> into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
>> would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
>> connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
>> flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
>> sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
>> decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
>> and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
>> extra to use the entertainment system on the plane.
>
>
> Are you really so stupid? This is exactly the reason why they block
> everything that looks pseudorandom, including compressed and encrypted
> data.
>
> > I can VPN into my server, and launch Skype through there, and the
>
>> hotel would NEVER know that I was bypassing their filtering
>> of Skype, becuase the connection to my server is secure and
>> cannot be eavesdropped upon by the hotel.
>
>
> Actually it's very trivial: Since you're abusing MSOE as a newsreader and
> probably as a mail client, as well as MSIE as a webbrowser, they can
> simply

MSOE is THE mail client for Windows, other than using Web-based
systems from Hotmail, or for-pay webmail services from some ISPs.

"Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftrjmr$o0v$1 [at] aioe.org:

> If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
> into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
> would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
> connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
> flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
> sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
> decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
> and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
> extra to use the entertainment system on the plane.

Now you are admitting to violating FCC and FAA regulations by operating a
computer with wireless turned on while in the air.

There is a reason that devices that emit radio signals are not allowed to
be used in flight.

Do you realize that you may interfere with navigational instruments and
cause the plane to crash?

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm [at] ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

bz <bz+csm [at] ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> There is a reason that devices that emit radio signals are not allowed to
> be used in flight.
> Do you realize that you may interfere with navigational instruments and
> cause the plane to crash?

To be honest: these regulations are bullshit.

Not only once I forgot to switch off my mobile phone, because it was in
my jacket. And I think, many people have the same problem.

I don't think, that this ever will crash the plane - fortunately, people
who are designing planes are not too dumb to implement appropriate
shielding.

These regulations are as dumb as the regulations, that you may not bring
a tube of toothpaste into the plane.

Yours,
VB.
--
The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately
followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading
zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would
have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X

X-No-Archive: Yes

"bz" <bz+csm [at] ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7EE6AE03D6BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote [at] 130.39.198.139...
> "Chilly8" <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:ftrjmr$o0v$1 [at] aioe.org:
>
>> If I need to make a telephone call, I just VPN
>> into my server, and then launch Skype through that. The airline
>> would have no CLUE as to what I am doing, becuase the
>> connection to my server is encrypted, and anyone on the
>> flight crew trying to monitor the connection, with any packet
>> sniffing, would just be getting a bunch of jibberish. If the airline
>> decides to say, block Vongo, I can use VPN to get around that,
>> and watch my OWN choice of movies, without having to pay
>> extra to use the entertainment system on the plane.
>
> Now you are admitting to violating FCC and FAA regulations by operating a
> computer with wireless turned on while in the air.

Nope, this is in-flight Internet provided by the AIRLINE that I am
using, read the post. I am using VPN to circumvent the airline's
firewall on their internet service, so I can aceess Skype. A
number of airlines DO block Skype on their in-flight Internet,
I am merely saying that I use a VPN tunnel into MY server,
so I can get around the firewall and use Skype. The service
I use is a LEGAL service provide by the airline, I just merely
use my VPN system to thwart filtering, blocking, and
monitoring, by the airline's IT staff.

Now was far as LIGHT aircraft go (I do hold an Australian
flying licence), it is NOT illegal for me to rent, say, a Cessna
aircraft and take it up and scan the area for any open wireless
networks, if I am going to be broadcasting a sporting event.

Cessna 172 and 182 aircraft are actually the best light
aircraft, that I have flown, for scanning an area for
various kinds of wireless hotspots. It can be flown a
fairly slow speed, and the optimum airspeed when
scanning for WiFi networks as around 100 KIAS.
The flaps-up stall speed is around 60KIAS, so
I fly over the area around any arena or stadium
holding the sporting event we want to broadcast,
and fly at 80 to 100 KIAS airspeed. With
a SuperCantenna, all kinds of WiFi hotspots,
be they an unsecured router at a business or
resident, of the various public hotspots at places
like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc, etc,. can be
found and logged rather quickly. And doing this
from a light aircraft, such as a Cessna 172 or
182 is LEGAL, as long as I follow whatever
instructions are given by local air traffic control.

Chilly8 wrote, On 13/04/08 08:07:
> "Sebastian G." <seppi [at] seppig.de> wrote in message

<snip>

>> Actually it's very trivial: Since you're abusing MSOE as a newsreader and
>> probably as a mail client, as well as MSIE as a webbrowser, they can
>> simply
>
> MSOE is THE mail client for Windows, other than using Web-based
> systems from Hotmail, or for-pay webmail services from some ISPs.

Ah, that would explain why almost all businesses use something other
than MSOE for email on their Windows machines.

MSOE is merely one email client that MS provide, MS provide others and
so do other SW companies and some of the alternatives are free.
--
Flash Gordon