But maybe the news server doesn't even know what outgoing port I used?
Maybe they do?
They do. They might log it or not. Assume they do log it.
But maybe the news server doesn't even know what outgoing port I used?
Maybe they do?
I'm a user. Not an admin. I care about privacy. This is about that.
I'm thinking about trying to randomize the outgoing port I use.
To minimize the chance of fingerprinting (perhaps even by the MITM).
But maybe the news server doesn't even know what outgoing port I used?
Maybe they do?
So here's my basic networking question related to news servers.
When I post to any given news server using news.server.net:port,
does the news server log know exactly what port I'm using each time?
"Adam W." <gof-cut-this-news@cut-this-chmurka.net.invalid> said:
But maybe the news server doesn't even know what outgoing port I used?
Maybe they do?
They do. They might log it or not. Assume they do log it.
Thank you for that information as the outgoing port doesn't usually change and worse, it's a specific large number (1024 to 65K I think), isn't it?
Thank you for that information as the outgoing port doesn't usually
change and worse, it's a specific large number (1024 to 65K I think),
isn't it?
I think WireShark will get the outgoing port number but is there an
easier way to get that outgoing port number the newsreader chooses?
Do newsreaders normally choose random ports or the same port?
I appreciate your help so please don't feel required to answer that.
It's OK if you don't answer this as I already got the answer I asked
for, which means I need to delve further to find out what port is used.
And then how to change it to foil fingerprinting (perhaps by the MITM).
I think WireShark will get the outgoing port number but is there an
easier way to get that outgoing port number the newsreader chooses?
Do newsreaders normally choose random ports or the same port?
I'm a user. Not an admin. I care about privacy. This is about that.
I'm thinking about trying to randomize the outgoing port I use.
To minimize the chance of fingerprinting (perhaps even by the MITM).
But maybe the news server doesn't even know what outgoing port I used?
Maybe they do?
So here's my basic networking question related to news servers.
When I post to any given news server using news.server.net:port,
does the news server log know exactly what port I'm using each time?
Think about sending a letter through the postal service. You probably
don't care about what outgoing mailbox you drop your letter into,
instead favoring the one that's the most convenient for you. You do
care that the postal service gets the letter to the destination that you specify. What's more is that you likely don't care what route the
postal service takes to get your letter from source to destination as
long as it gets there in a timely manner.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> said:
Do newsreaders normally choose random ports or the same port?
They choose random port between 49152 and 65535 that is free.
You can't obfuscate that port from the news server because it is
relevant for the communication.
Does that mean if you've used the same port for years, a MITM
snooping on the lines (or even an audit of the server logs) can
fingerprint you.
Take the worst case scenario, for example, where I explained moments
ago to Grant Taylor that old news servers don't have modern
encryption so people obtain modern encryption with software such as
Stunnel to get that done.
But Stunnel requires a static outgoing port, where the example I gave
Grant used a single server with a single static outgoing port for
years.
Let's provide another scenario, which is probably a worst case
situation. Let's say, for arguments sake, you have two accounts on
the same server.
But, let's assume, you did that to keep those two accounts separate.
That is, you don't want either the MITM or the server to know both
are you.
If we concentrate only on ports for this question (as I'm well aware
other things will be similar such as the IP address and/or the system
time zone, and quite a few other bits of non-entropy) would it make
sense to protect the desired dissimilar nature of the two accounts by
using DIFFERENT ports?
If what I'm asking is true (that a MITM or the server logs
fingerprint both accounts as possibly the same based on the same
outgoing port for years), then there must be a reasonable way to
randomize the outgoing port used.
Do newsreaders normally choose random ports or the same port?
They choose random port between 49152 and 65535 that is free.
You can't obfuscate that port from the news server because it is
relevant for the communication.
But maybe the news server doesn't even know what outgoing port I used?
Maybe they do?
It does know.
Thank you for explaining that the outgoing port is known to the server. Hence, it can be grep'd for in a future audit of that server's logs.
But is that outgoing port ALSO known to a MITM in real time?
But is that outgoing port encrypted such that only the server sees it?
Or is that outgoing port sent in the clear so that any MITM can see it?
It would be better if you stuck to "source port" (the port allocated each time you make a connection) and "destination port" (119, 563, or whatever port news server wants you to connect to).
When you connect to the news server (destination IP and port), you send
your source IP and port in the initial packet.
News server responds to your source IP and source port.
Source ports on most implementations are dynamic, they change with each connection (I saw them being static only on some proprietary embedded platforms).
What *exactly* are you trying to mitigate here?
But is that outgoing port encrypted such that only the server sees it?
No.
Or is that outgoing port sent in the clear so that any MITM can see it?
Yes, both source and destination ports are sent in the clear.
In a previous message, if I understood Adam W correctly (and I may
very well NOT have understood him), this is what he termed the ports
used.
Old newsreader server setting = 127.0.0.1
Old newsreader port setting = 49152 <<<<< Is this the "source
port"?
Then, in the stunnel.conf file you must match to the same outgoing
port. [EternalSept]
client = yes
accept = 127.0.0.1:49152 <<<<< Is this the "source port" you
refer to? connect = news.eternal-september.org:563 <<<<< Is this the destination port?
This alone easily works for both accounts, but should you set up the second account to use a DIFFERENT outgoing port to prevent easy fingerprinting?
It would be better if you stuck to "source port" (the port allocated each
time you make a connection) and "destination port" (119, 563, or whatever
port news server wants you to connect to).
Thank you for suggesting "source port" for the port that Stunnel requires match that of the older newsreader "source port", and destination port.
Newsreader:
Server = 127.0.0.1
Port = 49152 <<<<< you refer to this as the "source port"
News server responds to your source IP and source port.
Are you sure of that?
Doesn't the news server ALSO respond to what you refer to as the
"destination port" (ie 119 or 563 most of the time)?
Does the news server obtain your "source port" (which is the port that is assigned in the old newsreader to correspond to that of stunnel.conf)?
Yes, both source and destination ports are sent in the clear.
I'm confused because you mixed IP addresses (which have nothing to do with the question) and then you re-defined source & destination ports mixed up.
May I ask you to try again where BOTH OF US will use consistent terms?
Using the simple example I gave Grant Taylor, let's use these terms.
I'm not asking about anything other than what you called the "source port".
Is that "source port" (as described above) sent in the clear over the net?
Or not?
Does that mean if you've used the same port for years, a MITM
snooping on the lines (or even an audit of the server logs) can
fingerprint you.
Yes, but applications won't use the same source port for years.
They choose one each time a connection is being established.
Take the worst case scenario, for example, where I explained moments
ago to Grant Taylor that old news servers don't have modern
encryption so people obtain modern encryption with software such as
Stunnel to get that done.
But Stunnel requires a static outgoing port, where the example I gave
Grant used a single server with a single static outgoing port for
years.
IIRC stunnel has 2 connections.
1) stunnel <--> server
2) Client <--> stunnel
Relevant here is the source port at stunnel at 1.
Let's provide another scenario, which is probably a worst case
situation. Let's say, for arguments sake, you have two accounts on
the same server.
But, let's assume, you did that to keep those two accounts separate.
That is, you don't want either the MITM or the server to know both
are you.
If we concentrate only on ports for this question (as I'm well aware
other things will be similar such as the IP address and/or the system
time zone, and quite a few other bits of non-entropy) would it make
sense to protect the desired dissimilar nature of the two accounts by
using DIFFERENT ports?
As long as you use the same machine, the IP address can be used to
track.
And using the same source port works only if only one connection is
being established.
If what I'm asking is true (that a MITM or the server logs
fingerprint both accounts as possibly the same based on the same
outgoing port for years), then there must be a reasonable way to
randomize the outgoing port used.
Randomizing the outgoing port is default.
In a previous message, if I understood Adam W correctly (and I may very
well NOT have understood him), this is what he termed the ports used.
Old newsreader server setting = 127.0.0.1
Old newsreader port setting = 49152 <<<<< Is this the "source port"?
Adam discussed the IP address also, where I need to make it clear that I am only asking about what Adam referred to as the "source port".
Old newsreader port setting = 49152 <<<<< Is this the "source port"?
accept = 127.0.0.1:49152 <<<<< Is this the "source port" you refer to?
connect = news.eternal-september.org:563 <<<<< Is this the destination port?
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> said:
But maybe the news server doesn't even know what outgoing port I used?
Maybe they do?
It does know.
Thank you for explaining that the outgoing port is known to the server. Hence, it can be grep'd for in a future audit of that server's logs.
But is that outgoing port ALSO known to a MITM in real time?
Since your communication to the server is encrypted, I would expect that outgoing port to ALSO be encrypted such that a MITM wouldn't see it.
But is that outgoing port encrypted such that only the server sees it?
Or is that outgoing port sent in the clear so that any MITM can see it?
But what if you sent a letter from the same post office for years,
always with the same envelope & handwriting & other identifying bits?
Therein lies the issue I'm trying to better understand, as a user.
When you're using Stunnel you have to set up a permanent outgoing port.
Isn't that static port (which can remain unchanged for years)
something that a MITM (or an audit of the server logs) can use to
fingerprint you?
Hence you're likely to keep that outgoing port static, perhaps
for years.
For example, assume in the old newsreader, you've set the server:port
as
Newsreader server = 127.0.0.1
Newsreader port = 49152
Then, in the stunnel.conf file you must match to the same outgoing port.
[EternalSept]
client = yes
accept = 127.0.0.1:49152
connect = news.eternal-september.org:563
verifyChain = yes
CAfile = ca-certs.pem
checkHost = news.eternal-september.org
OCSPaia = yes
My question is whether a MITM (or an audit of the server logs) will
show all your posts as having the same outgoing port, perhaps for
years on end?
If so, to prevent fingerprinting, should we randomize the outgoing
port?
Does that mean if you've used the same port for years, a MITM snooping
on the lines (or even an audit of the server logs) can fingerprint you.
Take the worst case scenario, for example, where I explained moments
ago to Grant Taylor that old news servers don't have modern encryption
so people obtain modern encryption with software such as Stunnel to
get that done.
Let's provide another scenario, which is probably a worst case
situation. Let's say, for arguments sake, you have two accounts on
the same server.
But, let's assume, you did that to keep those two accounts separate.
That is, you don't want either the MITM or the server to know both
are you.
would it make sense to protect the desired dissimilar nature of the
two accounts by using DIFFERENT ports?
Of course, if the fingerprinting concern is valid, then a better
solution might be to change newsreaders, but what if you are happy
with the reader?
If what I'm asking is true (that a MITM or the server logs fingerprint
both accounts as possibly the same based on the same outgoing port
for years), then there must be a reasonable way to randomize the
outgoing port used.
By fingerprintering I assume you mean the ability of someone monitoring network traffic to distinguish your connections from anyone else’s.
Tinkering with source port choice is quite unlikely to reduce
it. Indeed it may _increase_ the possibility of fingerprinting: if you
use something other than your platform’s normal source port choice
then you are distinguishable from all other users of the same platform.
It does know.
Depends on implementation.
Thank you for explaining that the outgoing port is known to the server. Hence, it can be grep'd for in a future audit of that server's logs.
But is that outgoing port ALSO known to a MITM in real time?
Since your communication to the server is encrypted, I would expect
that outgoing port to ALSO be encrypted such that a MITM wouldn't
see it.
But is that outgoing port encrypted such that only the server sees it?
Or is that outgoing port sent in the clear so that any MITM can see it?
I think I confused everyone by not knowing the terms YOU use for the
port that I'm speaking about, which is definitely STATIC for years
and years.
Again, I think I confused everyone because the stunnel.conf file has a
static port that must be assigned, and which typically remains static.
In confusing everyone, I confused myself to the point that I don't know
what you're answering because I don't know the proper terms for ports.
In a previous message, if I understood Adam W correctly (and I may very
well NOT have understood him), this is what he termed the ports used.
Old newsreader server setting = 127.0.0.1
Old newsreader port setting = 49152 <<<<< Is this the "source port"?
Then, in the stunnel.conf file you must match to the same outgoing port.
[EternalSept]
client = yes
accept = 127.0.0.1:49152 <<<<< Is this the "source port" you refer to?
connect = news.eternal-september.org:563 <<<<< Is this the destination port?
verifyChain = yes
CAfile = ca-certs.pem
checkHost = news.eternal-september.org
OCSPaia = yes
Thank you for describing that connective process where it's confusing
the way you outlined it, as it's likely the opposite of what you
showed.
Let's remove the double arrows to assume (for now) only a posting process.
1) Client sends the composed article to Stunnel
2) Stunnel sends the composed article to the newsserver
3) The newsserver adds a few headers and posts the article to Usenet
The question is asking whether maybe the news server knows what Adam
referred to as the "source port", or maybe not. I don't know.
Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. That's why I asked.
I am well aware that a ton of information also needs to be randomized,
from the IP address that is sending the article to the time zone of
the system to the newsreader being used to a slew of identifying bits
of entropy.
This is only asking whether what I think Adam meant by the "source
port" is being sent to the news server and whether that is being sent
in the clear.
Stunnel ALWAYS uses the same "source port" for years on end
That's NOT what I'm asking about.
Until I use the terminology that YOU use, I'll just confuse you
and your answers will be confusing to me no matter how hard I try
to understand.
We need a common name for these two ports that we all can agree on.
This question is only asking whether what Adam called the "source port"
is sent (in the clear or not) to the server over the Internet.
Maybe it is. Maybe it's not.
I think I confused everyone by not knowing the terms YOU use for the
port that I'm speaking about, which is definitely STATIC for years
and years.
It is /you/ Gunther, who is using non-standard naming for things.
Are you sure of that? Doesn't the news server ALSO respond to what you
refer to as the "destination port" (ie 119 or 563 most of the time)?
Does the news server obtain your "source port"
(which is the port that is assigned in the old newsreader to correspond
to that of stunnel.conf)?
Then that's a problem if what you called the "source port" is sent in the clear because a MITM can take advantage of fingerprinting you that way.
Right?
May I ask you to try again where BOTH OF US will use consistent terms?
Using the simple example I gave Grant Taylor, let's use these terms.
Newsreader:
Server = 127.0.0.1
Port = 49152 <<<<< "source port"
Stunnel.conf
[EternalSept]
client = yes
accept = 127.0.0.1:49152 <<<<< "source port"
connect = news.eternal-september.org:563 <<<<< "destination port"
verifyChain = yes
CAfile = ca-certs.pem
checkHost = news.eternal-september.org
OCSPaia = yes
I'm not asking about anything other than what you called the "source port".
May we start again with a response - where both of us use the same terms.
My basic question is:
Is that "source port" (as described above) sent in the clear over the net?
Or not?
Explicitly because it's an ephemeral thing and by itself means next to nothing.
The OS / kernel / TCP/IP tack /does/ generate random source ports /by/ /default/ on every OS that I've ever used.
Take the worst case scenario, for example, where I explained moments
ago to Grant Taylor that old news servers don't have modern encryption
so people obtain modern encryption with software such as Stunnel to
get that done.
Think about what you just typed; "old news server doesn't have modern encryption". So what goes over the wire to the news server is old (and busted) encryption.
We're all frustrated but the question is really this simple as I see it.
Q: Is "49152" being sent to the news server or not?
I'm so confused by all the helpful answers that I'm about to give up.
The first is I don't know what YOU want me to call the specific port.
The newsreader actually isn't involved as far as I can tell, so I'm going
to _remove_ teh newsreader from this since sTunnel is doing all the work.
[EternalSept]
client = yes
accept = 127.0.0.1:49152
connect = news.eternal-september.org:563
verifyChain = yes
CAfile = ca-certs.pem
checkHost = news.eternal-september.org
OCSPaia = yes
Take the worst case scenario, for example, where I explained moments
ago to Grant Taylor that old news servers don't have modern encryption
so people obtain modern encryption with software such as Stunnel to
get that done.
Think about what you just typed; "old news server doesn't have modern
encryption". So what goes over the wire to the news server is old (and
busted) encryption.
I think Gunther wanted to write "old news readers", because only then it would make sense. But only he knows for sure...
It might mean something when correlated with NAT logs.
One time police contacted me asking for logs about one of my users (IRC server, not NNTP), they wanted his IP(s) as well as source port(s). Not saying they know what they're doing, but that's what they asked for.
I just modified my nnrpd to log the port, BTW. It doesn't cost
anything, and might be needed some time later.
Of course this port has nothing to do with the port Gunther is asking
about (he's probably unaware that such thing as source port in TCP
even exists, or was unaware until now).
I saw two exotic embedded implementations in which it didn't.
One simply incremented the port number and other used the same number
every time.
But I paid attention in the first place, because I had to diagnose
and document other weird problems these implementations had. They were
poorly written and has problems with IP fragmentation, for example.
BTW, I also once saw zero as a port number, but oddly the machine
on the other end (a normal Linux) had no problem with that, and
communication worked.
I still don't know if zero as a source port number is allowed or
not. Common sense tells me it shouldn't be, but well... it worked.
I think Gunther wanted to write "old news readers",
because only then it would make sense. But only he knows for sure...
Yes. The reason for sTunnel is to give old news READERS modern
encryption.
BTW, I think I made two big mistakes in this thread, for which
I apologize.
One was to confuse everyone with more details than necessary,
the other was to use all the wrong terminology (which just made that
mistake worse).
I've been digging into this where I realized only belatedly that the
old news reader really plays no role whatsoever in communicating with
a server.
To be clear, I'm now (belatedly) aware there are actually four pairs of IP-addresses and ports involved (I think they're each called sockets).
[EternalSept]
client = yes
accept = 127.0.0.1:49152
connect = news.eternal-september.org:563
verifyChain = yes
CAfile = ca-certs.pem
checkHost = news.eternal-september.org
OCSPaia = yes
Service [EternalSept] accepted connection from 127.0.0.1:54321
s_connect: connected 135.181.20.170:563
Service [EternalSept] connected remote server from 183.17.22.24:49153
Connection closed: 3981 byte(s) sent to TLS, 246 byte(s) sent to socket
127.0.0.1:54321 <-> The old newsreader randomly chooses any available
local port for its connection to & from sTunnel
127.0.0.1:49152 <-> However, I have pre-defined both sTunnel
and the old newsreader to use this exact
specific static local port for sTunnel's
connections to & from the old newsreader
183.17.22.24:49153 <-> This seems to be the 49152 above plus one
(at least based on my peek at sTunnel logs)
for the local sTunnel port for connections
to and from the news server (the IP address
is that of my Internet connection, usually VPN)
135.181.20.170:563 <-> This seems to be the remote news server port
the connection to & from sTunnel (the IP address
is that of the news server, usually fixed) and
the port is also of the news server, usually fixed.
What I'm stating above can be wrong (and probably is wrong). But it's
my take of what the sTunnel logs are trying to explain to me.
I think I have the answer now - which isn't the answer anyone gave me.
So it could be wrong - since nobody said what I'm going to assume.
I'm sorry for all the confusion I caused - as I don't know enough
yet but I saw the answer already which was the 49152 isn't sent,
which at first I thought was a "good thing"
but then I found out that "49153" is what's sent (as it's the first
open port above 49152 that is actually sent).
So sending 49152 is not happening. 49152 is what's sent instead
(I think) as it's the next unused port.
That's just as bad isn't it?
I mean, what's the difference between always sending 49152 (which it
is not doing) but, instead, almost always sending 49153.
Is my assessment above (which nobody said yet) right? Or wrong?
The news server knows the port it received, which is (usually) one more
than the port I set, which, as I see it, is practically the same thing.
Is it?
I agree with you so I will clear it all up below by calling it "49152".
We're all frustrated but the question is really this simple as I
see it.
Q: Is "49152" being sent to the news server or not?
I'm so confused by all the helpful answers that I'm about to give up.
It's really a simpler question than it's being made out to be.
There are two huge basic problems I see which makes this confusing.
The first is I don't know what YOU want me to call the specific port.
And the other is that this port question is really a very simple one.
It's not supposed to be a complicated question.
Maybe the server sees port "49152"; maybe it doesn't.
It's really that simple of a question of maybe that unique specific
"49152" port is sent over to the server in the clear or maybe it's
never even sent.
I still don't know the answer to that (which is the original) question.
If I use the example already given, I can refer to that port as
"49152".
The newsreader actually isn't involved as far as I can tell, so I'm
going to _remove_ teh newsreader from this since sTunnel is doing
all the work.
I realize you're trying to help, but I confused all of you with too
much information so the question is re-stated boiled to the basic
essentials.
The question is (and always was) really this super simple as I see it.
Q: Is "49152" being sent to the news server or not?
(I think they're each called sockets).
183.17.22.24:49153 <-> This seems to be the 49152 above plus one
(at least based on my peek at sTunnel logs)
because only then it would make sense. But only he knows for sure...
I've seen people use stunnel on the server to provide a TLS interface to
a server that doesn't support TLS.
The only differences between what we think Gunther asked and the
scenario I just described are 1) where stunnel is running and 2) the IP addresses used to communicate with stunnel.
One time police contacted me asking for logs about one of my users (IRC
server, not NNTP), they wanted his IP(s) as well as source port(s). Not
saying they know what they're doing, but that's what they asked for.
I would have asked to see a court warrant before I would say anything
beyond if I had information that I could provide upon receipt of a court warrant.
I just modified my nnrpd to log the port, BTW. It doesn't cost
anything, and might be needed some time later.
I've never gone out of my way to add /additional/ logging save for when debugging something. Then I usually disable said additional logging
after finishing what I was working on.
I think that Gunther is asking from a place of good intention but not
yet understanding how things fit together.
After all, we all started at zero at some point. I try to help bring
people along the way that I would want people to help bring me along.
I saw two exotic embedded implementations in which it didn't.
I suspect you've run into something older and / or less mainstream than
I. ;-)
Ya, incrementing the port number monotonically was common in very early TCP/IP stacks. Using an initial random port and monotonically
incrementing it therefrom was done for a while. Then it was the output
of a one way hash with the counter as an input. I think there is now
some randomness used per connection on some TCP/IP stacks.
I qualify using port 0 as yes you can, but you shouldn't. More
convention than technical limitation.
I didn't want to bother. I don't feel obliged to protect users that
break the law, and it's also written in rules.
On the other hand, this case was mild, I doubt it was pursued further
(but I don't know, I didn't receive any update, nor did I expect
it). There was a schizophrenic guy convinced that that someone hacked
into his computer and removed some files, and the user in question
admitted to have done it (as a joke), but the schizophrenic guy filed
a report with the police in response and they investigated.
Maybe you live in a country where the law is is obeyed by the
authorities.
I like many things about Poland, but how things work here when it
comes to the abuse of power by the authorities is not one of them. I'd
prefer to have the source port, it costs me nothing and could save me
from potential trouble. Especially as I don't feel obliged to protect
anyone who breaks the law using my server (and they would be instantly
booted out if I learned that the did it).
Yes, it definitely seems so. You make a connection and it happens,
but how it all works under the hood... you have to be interested in it
(or work in that field) to actually learn about it.
Me too.
It was modern, it's just how things are done in certain proprietary
devices. Let's call the company A. They hire people to reinvent
the wheel, maybe due to NIH syndrome, maybe due to other reasons,
but they don't want to pay too much, so people who agree to work for
that wage don't have much experience, and they do the best they can.
Then there's a need from the customer to make these devices communicate
with devices made by company B (the one I work for), and of course the communication isn't reliable, but company A claims it's the fault of
our devices, and I'm asked to check what's really going on and make
it work.
To make it even worse, device from company A has been tested (by
company A) and got approved by the government, so they're not allowed
to modify it (because they would have to apply for approval once again,
and it's a cost they don't want to cover) and we're the ones supposed
to make it work together, because it's our customer who wants our
devices communicating with these from company A. Only then they'll
buy our devices, so there's pressure from the sales team.
In the end I made it work somehow, but it will never be stable. And
guess who will be blamed for that.
On the other hand, if I was asked to write a TCP/IP stack and I
wasn't able to talk sense to the manager, I would do it to the best
of my knowledge, but these things are so complicated and there are so
many edge cases when communicating with various other implementations
(each behaving in a subtly different way in some cases) that I think
it would be full of bugs almost by design.
Such things have to mature, be actually used by many people in
many environments, before they're stable enough to be used in
production. But engineers can talk, and sales and management knows
better...
Fortunately many things improved after I switched teams, my current
manager is a programmer himself, so he knows very well which
expectations are sane and which aren't.
Something possibly interesting to read about it (I didn't read it yet):
https://lwn.net/Articles/910435/
Probably yes. I'd have to dig into RFCs to satisfy this curiosity...
Yes, I did it too. But in this case encrypting the connection from the newsreader to stunnel only for it to be decrypted outside localhost
doesn't make any sense.
From the config snippets he provided I think the answer to both of
these questions is localhost.
Maybe you live in a country where the law is is obeyed by the
authorities.
Hardly. But that doesn't mean that I won't ask for a warrant. It means
that they have to want to subvert things /enough/ to either get the
warrant, thus conspiracy, or find another way to get it.
1) how do you know that the request is legitimate without the
documentation substantiating that it's legitimate.
2) How do you know that the accused did anything illegal without substantiating evidence?
3) What reputation do you want with your other users when it comes to protecting their information / privacy?
Then there's a need from the customer to make these devices communicate
with devices made by company B (the one I work for), and of course the
communication isn't reliable, but company A claims it's the fault of
our devices, and I'm asked to check what's really going on and make
it work.
*sigh* ...
Is company A bigger than company B?
(each behaving in a subtly different way in some cases) that I think
it would be full of bugs almost by design.
Probably not /by/ /design/ per se. More likely lack of complete design.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 49:18:02 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,291 |
| Posted today: | 1 |