computerworld.com — Details about a Secret Service safe house for the First Family -- to be used in a national emergency -- leaked on a LimeWire file-sharing network recently. Lawmakers are now eyeing a bill to ban P2P use on government, contractor networks
Jul 29, 2009 View in Crawl 4
djderrickeJul 30, 2009
I agree. I call bulls**t.
jasonpjohnsonJul 31, 2009
This is good in theory. Although your "secure network traffic" would be sniffed and read by my proxy servers that are consistently preforming man in the middle attacks on all outbound traffic. So I could then read your "web" traffic and see that it was in fact not web traffic. Also you must have software that could authenticate to my proxy considering that users do not user there username and passwords. You wouldn't know what to type in. Common Access Card (CAC) Logon uses certificate based authentication, you can not authenticate with username/password. Above that we monitor how much traffic comes and goes. In a prof of concept we did use some tools that packaged and masked RDP traffic as web traffic over 443 with a custom appache server on the other side that took the masked traffic and then converted it to RDP traffic, our firewall couldn't catch the traffic. Although it was to slow to be usable, required a lot of knowledge of our network, admin rights on the desktop, and in the end our firewalls threw a error that it noticed an abnormal amount of traffic to a residential IP address.
xerox2k2Jul 31, 2009
exactly! whatever happened to generals(in this case commander in chief) LEADING their solders into battle with swords drawn.the day when a country's leader personally leads his soldiers in the front line will be the day the entire country follows him/herinstead of a president cowering miles underground in fallout bunkers,what makes him more worth saving than you or i??he's just one man, he can be replaced
boner11Aug 2, 2009
FDR died in the middle of WWII, look how that turned out.
edmondmajorAug 5, 2009
:c
thereyagoNov 12, 2009
these are just excuses to use security to legislate P2P Look through the stories, there have been a rash of stories culminating in the editorial from the times. <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/security/Congress_s_OMG_Over_the_P2P_Leak" rel="nofollow">http://digg.com/security/Congress_s_OMG_Over_the_P ...</a>If anything this shows precisely why they should not legislate it. It is our right in a democracy to know which of our legislators is facing ethics charges. The fact that the NYtimes somehow thinks that lawmaker's inability to keep information from the public should be a moral and deciding reason to legislate on an issue speaks volumes about the all to often complicit nature of the relationship of the media to power I am not surprised though disappointed that the NYtimes wants to legislate P2P technology since it makes free the dissemination of information. However the reasoning here is hardly persuasive.Legislating this is not much different in my view than the legislation of literacy to control populations. Democracy doesn't function without the free flow of information. Music and art are our cultural heritage and the artificially high price driven by false scarcity is an obsolete method of distribution. Wealth is a poor way to determine participation in society. Our fore fathers understood this hence public libraries. They are closing large parts of the public library in Philadelphia and I wonder that if they did not already exist that they would certainly not be created now. A democratic society that can't allow access information stands little chance of addressing healthcare and questions of war and peace.A totally self interested and shortsighted editorial from the NYtimes that loves technology in the service of freedom in Iran but can't seem to see how that works here.