|
|
Posted by Baho Utot on 01/24/08 01:49
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> One thing I should also add. You'll find a few people here who think
> they can read a couple of RFC's or Wikipedia and be experts in TCP/IP.
I see, May we have the knowledge of what your qualifications are?
> I agree the RFC's indicate how something *should* operate.
The RFCs in comment here are Standards......... or as others have said
RFCs are the last word on Internet standards, and can be found at the IETF's
Web site (http://www.ietf.org)
> But hackers
> operate outside the bounds of normal protocols, and take advantage of
> hole in the protocol.
I prefer this definition:
Many programmers have been labeled "great hackers,"[12] but the specifics of
who that label applies to is a matter of opinion. Certainly major
contributors to computer science such as Edsger Dijkstra and Donald Knuth,
as well as the inventors of popular software such as Linus Torvalds
(Linux), and Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson (the C programming language)
are likely to be included in any such list; see also List of programmers.
People primarily known for their contributions to the consciousness of the
academic hacker culture include Richard Stallman, the founder of the free
software movement and the GNU project, president of the Free Software
Foundation and author of the famous Emacs text editor as well as the GNU
Compiler Collection (GCC), and Eric S. Raymond, one of the founders of the
Open Source Initiative and writer of the famous text The Cathedral and the
Bazaar and many other essays, maintainer of the Jargon File (which was
previously maintained by Guy L. Steele, Jr.).
Within the academic hacker culture, the term hacker is also used for a
programmer who reaches a goal by employing a series of modifications to
extend existing code or resources. In this sense, it can have a negative
connotation of using kludges to accomplish programming tasks that are ugly,
inelegant, and inefficient. This derogatory form of the noun "hack" is even
used among users of the positive sense of "hacker" (some argue that it
should not be, due to this negative meaning; others argue that some kludges
can, for all their ugliness and imperfection, still have "hack value"). In
a very universal sense, a hacker also means someone who makes things work
beyond perceived limits in a clever way in general, for example reality
hackers.[13]
http://linuxreviews.org/dictionary/Hacker/
> These guys have no *real* idea what they're talking about, and no
> knowledge of how to exploit the holes in the protocols.
You don't know that nor can you prove that.
> But they
> continue to refer you to Wikipedia and RFC's to prove their case.
>
What!!!!!!!!
THE RFCs aren't real....
DAMN..... now's a fine time to inform me of that fact.
A little bit of reference material never hurt anyone has it?
Besides I don't have a case to prove.
> The problem is - they prove nothing. But they're too stoopid to
> understand that.
Lets see we have RFCS (PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION) and Wikipedia that may have
been written by networking experts verses what you have said without any
truth, let alone any reference material.
RFC791 - Internet Protocol
Description: 0791 Internet Protocol. J. Postel. Sep-01-1981. (Format:
TXT=97779 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0760) (Updated by RFC2474) (Also STD0005)
(Status: STANDARD)
Filter list: ftp|*|*|rfc791*
Section maint.: Erwin Lemmers <elem@kabelfoon.nl>
Timestamp: 2003-09-15 22:03 UTC
RFC793 - Transmission Control Protocol
Description: 0793 Transmission Control Protocol. J. Postel. Sep-01-1981.
(Format: TXT=177957 bytes) (Also STD0007) (Status: STANDARD)
Filter list: ftp|*|*|rfc793*
Section maint.: Erwin Lemmers <elem@kabelfoon.nl>
Timestamp: 2003-09-15 22:03 UTC
Oh LOOK two standards
Want to guess which one I will believe?
Want to tell me how my TCP/IP stack differs from the RFCs mister expert?
>
> There *are* numerous holes in the TCP/IP architecture. You found one of
> them - it is quite easy to spoof a connection as you indicated. But
> there are other, much more efficient ways to do so, also.
>
> I'm not going to get into them here because 1) it's off-topic for a php
> newsgroup, and
OK it's now off topic? I thought it was off topic here from the beginning,
was I too stupid to know that?
> 2) I'm not going to give these idiots clues on how they
> can hack other peoples' systems.
>
Psst no one tell them about Google, 2600 or CULT OF THE DEAD COW ...Oops too
late.
Anyway who said anything about intrusions into others computers?
Hijacking a TCP/IP connection is not an intrusion.... Not ethical but
certainly not an intrusion.
--
Dancin in the ruins tonight
Tayo'y Mga Pinoy
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|