97 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

I don't think that's the real issue of the article; I think it's the fact that the established connection to the update server is so insecure it's laughable. If one were inclined, they could send and execute malicious software via the updater in the program... potentially.I think their goal was to setup the pretense that anyone using this software is easily identified, and knowing who is connected makes it even easier for malicious persons to do harm.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I don't know why you are digging TheOther1 up, unless it is out of pure ignorance...<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tech_news/ISP_Attempt_To_Block_File_Sharing_Ends_in_Epic_Failure?t=33320991#c33320991&quot; rel="nofollow">http://digg.com/tech_news/ISP_Attempt_To_Block_Fil ...</a>

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@NidStyles, f**k anti-piracy, but what you said is overly sensational. If you don't pirate and are the only user on your connection then you don't need the service at all. If you don't trust all the users on your system to do the right thing and are afraid of the possible legal consequences, then you need the service. its not extortion in any sense. and either way, with or without the $2 service, if you pirate, the ISP is *forced* to hand over your records. You are equating the MPAA and RIAA with the ISPs, and this is not the case. If the latter two didn't care about file-sharing, do you think the ISPs would? Just as much as they care about any other traffic. I am fervently anti-anti-piracy, and I know you are too, but when you make emotionally charged, illogical statements all it does is alienate those who think before they just blindly feel.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Just because my computer is not your computer's destination does not mean that I can't get your IP address. Obviously it won't just fall into my lap, it will need to be intercepted. This is the case whether you are listening for wireless traffic, or intercepting traffic through a man-in-the-middle attack. I never made a claim that it would be simple to acquire, I only stated that it is transmitted in a state that is visible to anyone with computer equipment (where that equipment is used to capture the binary packet and decode it).&quot;My suggestion would be to get a basic grasp of networking before you attempt to clarify any more misconceptions.&quot;I'm not even going to dignify this with a response, since it's obvious you can't understand.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

You don't even have to have the TCP/IP stack loaded. Ever heard of IPX/SPX? Appletalk? DECnet?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

&quot;Just because my computer is not your computer's destination does not mean that I can't get your IP address. &quot;Yep, I covered that and explained I was oversimplifying. But again your claim that it is visible to anyone isn't exactly accurate and the link to the RFC doesn't underline your point at all. And your initial response that you got so bent about was completely inaccurate.The only thing obvious is that I understand more than you and that you don't have a response. There's no shame in not entirely understanding something, but to hold tight to your limited knowledge after being shown the errors is the foundation of ignorance. Take your limited knowledge and grow it.What you said is that anyone with computer equipment can see my IP. You have computer equipment and can't see my IP. Your statement was plain and simple inaccurate as you need much more than computer equipment. You also need access at critical points in the transmission chain.

• Reply