Many people (myself included) specificly turn UPnP off. It seems like a pretty open security hole, even though I could see how it would make p2p apps work a lot easier. rearden
>Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:09:21 -0700 >From: "David Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: [p2p-hackers] Real-world UPnP stats >To: "'Peer-to-peer development.'" <p2p-hackers@zgp.org> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alex Pankratov >> >> David Barrett wrote: >> > Yikes, that's pretty bad. Did you also capture which fraction >of >> clients >> > report that UPnP works at all? >> >> Not sure I follow. How would you define these clients ? > >Sorry, I was unclear. I mean, "what fraction of NAT'd clients >have NATs >that respond 200OK to your UPnP SOAP attempt?" > >I'm just curious how widely UPnP is deployed. > >-david > Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@zgp.org http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
