Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
At 09:12 PM 8/30/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference between speech and action. Complete and utter bullshit. And complete and utter loss of reputation capital on your part. It disagrees 100% with my interactions with law enforcement. If you wish to make point, at least make it believable. /pbp
Re: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums
At 11:25 PM 8/29/01 -0700, Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A group of researchers at Notre Dame figured out how to use the TCP Checksum calculations to get other computers to do number-crunching for them. Below, we present an implementation of a parasitic computer using the checksum function. In order for this to occur, one needs to design a special message that coerces a target server into performing the desired computation. The article has the amount of great mathematical depth you'd expect from CNN :-) But it does say that the paper will be published in Nature this week. And the message in my mailbox immediately after the above was Nature's ToC including: Parasitic computing A-L BARABASI, V W FREEH, H JEONG J B BROCKMAN http://www.nature.com/nlink/v412/n6850/abs/412894a0_fs.html Cheers, Paul Pomes
Re: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums
At 07:00 AM 8/30/01 -0500, Dean, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't fall for this. After registering at www.nature.com (supplying personal details), you find you'll have to pay to see the article. What a surprise that the leading science journal in the world charges for the latest content. I'm shocked, simply shocked, that market forces apply to publishing and that I must pay for my subscription. It's almost always possible to find free copies of a paper somewhere on the net for those willing to do the search. I prefer subscribing to Nature's value-added journal instead. /pbp
