|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/24/08 04:13
Baho Utot wrote:
> 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?
>
Over 40 years of programming, over 20 of that in TCP/IP. Including
working on the internals of the protocol.
>> I agree the RFC's indicate how something *should* operate.
>
> The RFCs in comment here are Standards......... or as others have said
>
Sure. But that does NOT mean there are not holes in the protocol which
can be used by hackers.
> 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/
>
Use whatever definition you want. I really don't care.
>> 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.
>
You've already proven that, Baho, by your lack of understanding. You
think RFC's are the only thing going. Sorry, Charlie. They show how
things *should work* - but don't go into what *can* be done by a hacker.
>> But they
>> continue to refer you to Wikipedia and RFC's to prove their case.
>>
>
> What!!!!!!!!
>
> THE RFCs aren't real....
>
I never said the RFC's aren't real. Don't put words in my mouth.
> DAMN..... now's a fine time to inform me of that fact.
>
> A little bit of reference material never hurt anyone has it?
>
I am not going to teach you how to hack TCP/IP.
> Besides I don't have a case to prove.
>
I really don't give a damn. I have nothing 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?
>
Go ahead. Keep quoting the RFC's. It continues to show how little you
understand what *can* be done.
> Want to tell me how my TCP/IP stack differs from the RFCs mister expert?
>
I never said it did.
>> 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?
>
It always has been off-topic for this newsgroup.
>> 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.
>
How little you really understand.
But it's obvious - you're only arguing to argue. You're another I guess
I'm just going to have to *plonk* you again - like I did in a.w.w. You
were no more intelligent there, and we're glad you're gone.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|