Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > chi.internet > #3083 > unrolled thread

Re: IoT

Back to article view | Back to chi.internet

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: IoT Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2015-06-03 21:11 +0000
    Re: IoT Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> - 2015-06-03 18:55 -0400
      Re: IoT Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> - 2015-06-04 11:01 +0000
        Re: IoT Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> - 2015-06-04 14:49 -0400
          Re: IoT Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> - 2015-06-05 12:02 +0000
            Re: IoT Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> - 2015-06-05 13:54 -0400
              Re: IoT Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2015-06-05 18:07 +0000
                Re: IoT Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> - 2015-06-05 14:10 -0400
                Re: IoT smr <me@shawnritchie.com> - 2015-06-05 13:13 -0500
                  Re: IoT smr <me@shawnritchie.com> - 2015-06-05 19:34 -0500
                    Re: IoT Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> - 2015-06-05 22:37 -0400
                      Re: IoT Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> - 2015-06-06 04:43 +0000
                        Re: IoT Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2015-06-08 16:55 +0000
                          Re: IoT smr <me@shawnritchie.com> - 2015-06-08 14:14 -0500
                      Re: IoT smr <me@shawnritchie.com> - 2015-06-06 15:02 -0500
                        Re: IoT Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2015-06-08 16:57 +0000
                          Re: IoT smr <me@shawnritchie.com> - 2015-06-08 16:16 -0500
                          Re: IoT Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2015-06-09 21:58 +0000
                            Re: IoT Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> - 2015-06-09 18:48 -0400
      Re: IoT Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2015-06-04 19:16 +0000
        Re: IoT Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> - 2015-06-04 15:50 -0400
          Re: IoT Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> - 2015-06-04 19:18 -0400
            Re: IoT Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2015-06-04 23:47 +0000
              Re: IoT Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> - 2015-06-05 14:07 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#3083 — Re: IoT

Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
> Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>> My stop sign camera has been up for over three months and over 4000 cars 
>> have been captured going > 7 mph through my sign.  Yesterday my camera 
>> started sending out 10K packets per second to all kinds of external 
>> addresses.  I thought this was some kind of cloud feature that kicked in  
>> but one of the most frequent packets was a TCP SYN on port 53 to 8.8.8.8 
>> which is Google's DNS.  DNS uses UDP so those packets were already 
>> blocked before I noticed this.  A lot are simple TCP connects and 
>> disconnects to a wide range of addresses passing no traffic but 
>> happening very frequently for no apparent reason.  It's no big deal 
>> because I can simply change the camera's gateway address but I found 
>> this interesting.  The camera still works which is all that matters.  
>>
>> Has anyone heard of anything like this?  My Internet of Things device 
>> might have turned into a bot.  
> 
> it's probably trying to update itself.

Ha!

> you're wrong on DNS being UDP only, it can use TCP too.

he's wrong on quite a few things. It's peculiar he's looking at the 
packets but not inside them. The query would probably explain what's going 
on.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3084

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> > you're wrong on DNS being UDP only, it can use TCP too.
> 
> he's wrong on quite a few things. It's peculiar he's looking at the 
> packets but not inside them. The query would probably explain what's going 
> on.

I never claimed DNS was always UDP.  No devices on my network (average 
250 unique devices per month) have ever tried to use TCP for DNS so I 
block it, or more accurately, I don't white list it.  I did look inside 
the packets which is how I know port 80 traffic was just connecting and 
disconnecting not sending any data.  It made one HTTP request and it 
wasn't even valid request, just some binary data so Squid kicked it.  
There was a single DNS request (using UDP) from the camera asking for 
the address to iotcplatform.com.  Google hasn't provided me much info as 
to what that is.  Whois says Taiwam which is weird because the camera is 
made in China and I thought those two countries didn't get along with 
each other.

If I get ambitious I might let that TCP to 8.8.8.8 through for awhile  
and see what it's doing.  Right now the firewall drops those packets 
into a bit bucket with no response.  The camera just sends SYN and 
that's it.  See how stupid you sound when you assume a situation?  Do 
you always make proclamations on mere assumptions?  

The repeated hammering of 8.8.8.8 and one other address set off an alarm 
which is how I discovered that the camera was acting funny.  I never 
expected a camera that has been operating 24/7 for 3 months flawlessly 
would do this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3085

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:

> If I get ambitious I might let that TCP to 8.8.8.8 through for awhile  
> and see what it's doing.  Right now the firewall drops those packets 
> into a bit bucket with no response.  The camera just sends SYN and 
> that's it.  See how stupid you sound when you assume a situation?  Do 
> you always make proclamations on mere assumptions?  

> The repeated hammering of 8.8.8.8 and one other address set off an alarm 
> which is how I discovered that the camera was acting funny.  I never 
> expected a camera that has been operating 24/7 for 3 months flawlessly 
> would do this.

I think you answered your own question.

Although that iotcplatform.com site seems dead, it's probably why the camera
keeps trying to look up the ip data for it.

The iotc stands for "Internet of Things Cloud", and if you google around for
that, you get shit like this back:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
IOTC (Internet of Thing Cloud) Platform is a total solution for P2P
connections. It builds up a totally new concept of IOT connection platform
based on P2P (Point to Point) network connection architecture and advanced
Cloud computing technology via API (Application Programming Interface) for
cross-platform connection. Developers will be able to utilize ready-to-use
API to build up the connection between different devices or even across
different Operation Systems.

Until now, most of network devices connections are based on Dynamic IP, for
that reason, DDNS (Dynamic Domain Name Service) and Port mapping are
required for internet connection. It's too complicate for non-professional
users. As a result, the development progresses for the applications of
connecting to different IP devices are very limited, especially for consumer
markets.

Blah blah blah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm guessing the camera talked to the mothership on occasion to do
something, maybe each device the company made did that, in case you bought
two, they can talk to each other via the mothership rather than manually
being made aware each other exists or something.

Since iotcplatform.com is going to a godaddy holding page now, whatever they
were doing is gone or closed and the camera is just trying to get through to
something that doesn't exist.

My theory anyway.

I have something here at the house similar, think it's the Seagate NAS, when
it was configured it asked for an email address to send the alerts and
notifications to, but never asked for an smtp server, username, password or
anything else, just the address to send to. When it finally spat out a
message, it appears Seagate decided to hard code their shit into it, it
sends the message out to one of their servers and gets relayed from there to
me. No way to override that feature.

Of course one peice of stupidity to that way of doing things, one of the
messages it send out is "network is down", which of course means, if it's
sending out of the local network for smtp and there is no network, there is
no message sent.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3088

In article bje@ripco.com says...
> Since iotcplatform.com is going to a godaddy holding page now, whatever they
> were doing is gone or closed and the camera is just trying to get through to
> something that doesn't exist.
> 
> My theory anyway.

It's a good theory.  Perhaps it is just bad programming.  That would 
make sense based on how poorly put together everything else is on this 
camera.  After searching more the camera does pass traffic on 443 using 
a valid SSL session to one of the looked up addresses.  This gets 
through but I can't decipher it.

The device must have a ton of addresses hard coded because it's TCP 
connecting to these addresses and then immediately sending FIN about one 
time a second for each address.  I opened up TCP port 53 for 8.8.8.8 and 
it simply makes a TCP connect and disconnects like all the other 
addresses passing no traffic.  This happens once a second as well and I 
don't think Google would approve of thousands of these devices doing 
that for no reason.

After the end of today's stop sign scofflaw data haul I'm going to 
change the gateway addresses and reboot which sucks  because I'll have 
to realign the camera to the exact spot so it doesn't screw up how speed 
gets measured.

It's still a mystery as to what triggered this however.

 
> I have something here at the house similar, think it's the Seagate NAS, when
> it was configured it asked for an email address to send the alerts and
> notifications to, but never asked for an smtp server, username, password or
> anything else, just the address to send to. When it finally spat out a
> message, it appears Seagate decided to hard code their shit into it, it
> sends the message out to one of their servers and gets relayed from there to
> me. No way to override that feature.
> 
> Of course one peice of stupidity to that way of doing things, one of the
> messages it send out is "network is down", which of course means, if it's
> sending out of the local network for smtp and there is no network, there is
> no message sent.

When googling I read a lot about NAS devices doing this.  With all this 
Internet of Things hoopla where they want your dishwasher on the 
Internet I wonder how much bullshit traffic will be generated from 
runaway devices put together by poor programmers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3096

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:

> The device must have a ton of addresses hard coded because it's TCP 
> connecting to these addresses and then immediately sending FIN about one 
> time a second for each address.  I opened up TCP port 53 for 8.8.8.8 and 
> it simply makes a TCP connect and disconnects like all the other 
> addresses passing no traffic.  This happens once a second as well and I 
> don't think Google would approve of thousands of these devices doing 
> that for no reason.

Oh, fuck google.

They knew exactly what they were doing when they made those name servers
available to the public. 8.8.8.8 and the other one are just multiple point
gateways that probably have 1000's of machines behind them.

Likely those are doing millions of lookups a second and even if there are
thousands of those cameras out and about, the added traffic is literally a
drop in the ocean.

My guess is that camera was probably doing it from day 1 and you didn't
notice until now. Whenever they start writing software into hardware they
have to come up with some long term solution for minor issues like, is this
thing still on the internet? If they put in the web address of the company
that made it into the firmware to ping or try to connect to, the problem
there is they might be out of business in 6 months.

Using a service like google and their public name servers probably is a
cheap and reliable way of seeing the product work for years to come. It's
unlikely (although possible) that they won't close that service or change
the ip address.

I'm just saying from your description of what it is doing, it seems more
like a "am I alive" test than it actually looking for some answer to a dns
query.

If it wasn't doing it from day 1, Geoff probably had the best answer, maybe
it came to that time of the month for it to check to see if any new firmware
is available and since that website is dead and buried, it's in like a panic
mode asking for updates every second.


> When googling I read a lot about NAS devices doing this.  With all this 
> Internet of Things hoopla where they want your dishwasher on the 
> Internet I wonder how much bullshit traffic will be generated from 
> runaway devices put together by poor programmers.

I wouldn't mind it if they would allow some way of overriding the internal
default settings, which they don't. That smtp routing is just hard coded in,
and that's that.

I can understand why they are doing it, most people just want to buy the
thing, plug it in and start using it. They don't want to weed through a
manual and menu after menu of configuration options. Most of the time they
wouldn't know the values to input anyway.

Sometimes it does work well.

I have one of those Harmony remotes, the one to handle the tv, surround
sound receiver, cable box, whatever else. A universal remote.

There is no programming on this thing. There is no button to learn anything,
no secret button sequence to enter a code, nothing at all.

You go their website.

You enter your email address, it goes into a configuration menu, you type in
the model numbers of everything you want it to control, another menu is for
the activities (like this button will turn the tv on to this input or
channel) and whatever else you want it to do.

When done, it generates the profile, you plug in a usb cable from the
computer to the remote, it downloads the profile, reboots and tells you
that's it. If something isn't to your liking, like you wanted volume up to
change the channels on the cable box, just go back and change it.

The upshot to all of this is, although it doesn't seem all that easier than
looking in a booklet (or website) for codes, or sitting there with it
learning key presses, if the current remote you have breaks or gets lost and
is replaced, you just go back and download the same profile again.

The added bonus is you don't even have to have the same model. If it's made
by them and is a later model or a touchscreen type, you just say you changed
the remote to this model number and it regenerates the codes to go into that
one instead.

Of course the downside to this is if they decide to go out of the remote
control business or just decide to go out of business altogether, you sort
of end up with a brick.

My point is that camera probably had a similar feature for the non-technical
people out there. Like if you went to their website to register the camera,
there may have been a config page like, if it detects movement, send a
snapshot to my phone at this email address. If it loses power, send a
message or email. Maybe they had a remote viewer where if you were out of
town and wanted to watch the stream, you log into thier system and it
streams it without the standard codec problems of what is supported.

That whole IOT bit might be stupid looking, but thats the point, to make it
as stupid as possible to make it work.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3099

In article bje@ripco.com says...
> My guess is that camera was probably doing it from day 1 and you didn't
> notice until now. 

I know the exact time it started two days ago.  My system monitors all 
traffic from all devices.  I even have raw pcap logs I could show you.  
One of the features of my system is that it catches bots and it has 
caught many over the years all from infected Windows PCs.  People don't 
haul around laptops anymore so most all traffic is from phones and 
tablets and some Mac Airs so I haven't had a bot show up in over a year.  
BTW: Apples and androids are about 50/50 and I rarely see a blackberry 
anymore.  Poor blackberry.

> Whenever they start writing software into hardware they
> have to come up with some long term solution for minor issues like, is this
> thing still on the internet? If they put in the web address of the company
> that made it into the firmware to ping or try to connect to, the problem
> there is they might be out of business in 6 months.

It's possible an internal timer went off telling it to phone home.  It 
got an address on its first DNS lookup and then it couldn't UDP out nor 
could it get a binary data blob through on port 80 using invalid http.  
Had they simply did a valid http GET to home base they could have 
downloaded a software image no problem.  This tomfoolery baffles me if 
what they're doing is legit.   That kind of software upgrade is a good 
way to brick a lot of customer devices which would probably be more 
liability than whatever they could gain from it.

I set a valid gateway address in the camera because I wondered what kind 
of comms it would do and it has been completely silent since I installed 
it mid February.  My other camera hasn't sent a single packet to the 
Intertubes but that's an older model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3100

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article bje@ripco.com says...
>> My guess is that camera was probably doing it from day 1 and you didn't
>> notice until now. 
> 
> I know the exact time it started two days ago.  My system monitors all 
> traffic from all devices.  I even have raw pcap logs I could show you.  
> One of the features of my system is that it catches bots and it has 
> caught many over the years all from infected Windows PCs.  People don't 
> haul around laptops anymore so most all traffic is from phones and 
> tablets and some Mac Airs so I haven't had a bot show up in over a year.  
> BTW: Apples and androids are about 50/50 and I rarely see a blackberry 
> anymore.  Poor blackberry.
> 
>> Whenever they start writing software into hardware they
>> have to come up with some long term solution for minor issues like, is this
>> thing still on the internet? If they put in the web address of the company
>> that made it into the firmware to ping or try to connect to, the problem
>> there is they might be out of business in 6 months.
> 
> It's possible an internal timer went off telling it to phone home.  It 
> got an address on its first DNS lookup and then it couldn't UDP out nor 
> could it get a binary data blob through on port 80 using invalid http.  
> Had they simply did a valid http GET to home base they could have 
> downloaded a software image no problem.  This tomfoolery baffles me if 
> what they're doing is legit.   That kind of software upgrade is a good 
> way to brick a lot of customer devices which would probably be more 
> liability than whatever they could gain from it.
> 
> I set a valid gateway address in the camera because I wondered what kind 
> of comms it would do and it has been completely silent since I installed 
> it mid February.  My other camera hasn't sent a single packet to the 
> Intertubes but that's an older model.

These are gems:

raw pcap logs
internal timer
couldn't UDP out
binary data blob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3102

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> These are gems:
> 
> raw pcap logs
> internal timer
> couldn't UDP out
> binary data blob

More penis envy.  #5!

What do you call that stuff?  Just stuff?  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3103

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:

> Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>> In article bje@ripco.com says...
>>> My guess is that camera was probably doing it from day 1 and you didn't
>>> notice until now. 
>> 
>> I know the exact time it started two days ago.  My system monitors all 
>> traffic from all devices.  I even have raw pcap logs I could show you.  
>> One of the features of my system is that it catches bots and it has 
>> caught many over the years all from infected Windows PCs.  People don't 
>> haul around laptops anymore so most all traffic is from phones and 
>> tablets and some Mac Airs so I haven't had a bot show up in over a year.  
>> BTW: Apples and androids are about 50/50 and I rarely see a blackberry 
>> anymore.  Poor blackberry.
>> 
>>> Whenever they start writing software into hardware they
>>> have to come up with some long term solution for minor issues like, is this
>>> thing still on the internet? If they put in the web address of the company
>>> that made it into the firmware to ping or try to connect to, the problem
>>> there is they might be out of business in 6 months.
>> 
>> It's possible an internal timer went off telling it to phone home.  It 
>> got an address on its first DNS lookup and then it couldn't UDP out nor 
>> could it get a binary data blob through on port 80 using invalid http.  
>> Had they simply did a valid http GET to home base they could have 
>> downloaded a software image no problem.  This tomfoolery baffles me if 
>> what they're doing is legit.   That kind of software upgrade is a good 
>> way to brick a lot of customer devices which would probably be more 
>> liability than whatever they could gain from it.
>> 
>> I set a valid gateway address in the camera because I wondered what kind 
>> of comms it would do and it has been completely silent since I installed 
>> it mid February.  My other camera hasn't sent a single packet to the 
>> Intertubes but that's an older model.
> 
> These are gems:
> 
> raw pcap logs
> internal timer
> couldn't UDP out
> binary data blob

Yeah. My first thought was "what does a NOT-raw PCAP log consist of?". 

This is some manager-level fakespeak.

-- 
smr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3107

On 6/5/15 2:31 PM, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article me@shawnritchie.com says...
>>> raw pcap logs
>>> internal timer
>>> couldn't UDP out
>>> binary data blob
>>
>> Yeah. My first thought was "what does a NOT-raw PCAP log consist of?".
>>
>> This is some manager-level fakespeak.
>
> So we're going to mince words here?  The raw meant everything and not
> snippets like you can get with snort.  You can have external timers for
> things.  I used UDP as a verb for prose and it's short for "sending a
> UDP packet" out.  BFD.  Binary data blob is just what I call a bunch of
> non-ASCII bits.  Do you say soda or pop?  That's all you guys have?  Why
> don't you dig into classic alt.flame and break out the good insults like
> calling me a big poopy pants.

Dude, a PCAP log is a PCAP log. Everything else, all of these other dumb 
phrases you're making up, are mere puffery designed to obscure your lack 
of actual ability. It's hilarious to those of us who do this, and do 
this well, for a living. We see your kind on the regular. I love 
interviewing you sorts. I just throw you in front of a fucked-up lab 
network, give you access to Google, and watch you hang yourself.

-- 
smr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3108

In article me@shawnritchie.com says...
> Dude, a PCAP log is a PCAP log. Everything else, all of these other dumb 
> phrases you're making up, are mere puffery designed to obscure your lack 
> of actual ability. It's hilarious to those of us who do this, and do 
> this well, for a living. 

Wow.  I'm so impressed.  You know pcap.  You must be one of those  
intellectual high tech gurus like you see on shows like CSI Cyber.  Can 
you type with all ten fingers, wave your arms, and make windows fly 
across the screen to catch bad guys?  I'm so impressed with people who 
know so much.  Do you know libpcap?  How do you know what I do for a 
living?  Answer: You don't.

Now go eat your big poopy pants.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3109

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article me@shawnritchie.com says...
>> Dude, a PCAP log is a PCAP log. Everything else, all of these other dumb 
>> phrases you're making up, are mere puffery designed to obscure your lack 
>> of actual ability. It's hilarious to those of us who do this, and do 
>> this well, for a living. 
>
> Wow.  I'm so impressed.  You know pcap.  You must be one of those  
> intellectual high tech gurus like you see on shows like CSI Cyber.  Can 
> you type with all ten fingers, wave your arms, and make windows fly 
> across the screen to catch bad guys?  I'm so impressed with people who 
> know so much.  Do you know libpcap?  How do you know what I do for a 
> living?  Answer: You don't.

I may not know what you do for a living, but I know that it sure as hell
isn't networks.

I'm a software guy.  I know enough about networks to be able to talk with a
network guy like shawn and have him understand what I need done.  ie, I get
it all conceptually, but I'm not designing a complex solution or implementing
it or debugging it.  Yet even with that small amount of knowledge, I can
instantly tell that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3115

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article glg@tanzenmb.com says...
>> I may not know what you do for a living, but I know that it sure as hell
>> isn't networks.
>> 
>> I'm a software guy.  I know enough about networks to be able to talk with a
>> network guy like shawn and have him understand what I need done.  ie, I get
>> it all conceptually, but I'm not designing a complex solution or implementing
>> it or debugging it.  Yet even with that small amount of knowledge, I can
>> instantly tell that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
> 
> You gather all this from Usenet posts?  You sound like one of those 
> dumbass software guys for which there are no shortage, making 
> assumptions that introduce bugs in code.
> 
> How do I know?  I'm a software guy too.  My network controller is up to 
> 50K lines of code that works (C, C++, Perl, Awk, Bash).  That doesn't 
> include the 20K lines for the stop sign camera but that's just my  
> revenge is a dish served cold project and not anything real.  Then 
> there's another 75K lines for my baseball app.  I don't usually quote 
> lines of code because the 20K could have been harder than the 75K but I 
> have no other metric at hand.

Ha-  "my network controller", "my baseball app"

How does this stop sign revenge work again? Do you use awk and perl to 
email nastygrams to those that speed past your stop sigh?

> My graduate degree is in network and computer architecture.   So suck 
> that Gasbag and your fancy University of Phoenix degree.  You don't know 
> shit about me or what I can do.  I probably could do your job with about 
> a week of getting used to the working environment.  You don't sound 
> intelligent here either but I wouldn't make judgment based on what gets 
> written here like all you fools with penis envy.  

I'd love to see any of those claims happen.

Geoff, do you have any sort of bring-a-retard to work days where Anderson 
could be let out of his cage for a little bit?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3117

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:

> Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>> In article glg@tanzenmb.com says...
>>> I may not know what you do for a living, but I know that it sure as hell
>>> isn't networks.
>>> 
>>> I'm a software guy.  I know enough about networks to be able to talk with a
>>> network guy like shawn and have him understand what I need done.  ie, I get
>>> it all conceptually, but I'm not designing a complex solution or implementing
>>> it or debugging it.  Yet even with that small amount of knowledge, I can
>>> instantly tell that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
>> 
>> You gather all this from Usenet posts?  You sound like one of those 
>> dumbass software guys for which there are no shortage, making 
>> assumptions that introduce bugs in code.
>> 
>> How do I know?  I'm a software guy too.  My network controller is up to 
>> 50K lines of code that works (C, C++, Perl, Awk, Bash).  That doesn't 
>> include the 20K lines for the stop sign camera but that's just my  
>> revenge is a dish served cold project and not anything real.  Then 
>> there's another 75K lines for my baseball app.  I don't usually quote 
>> lines of code because the 20K could have been harder than the 75K but I 
>> have no other metric at hand.
> 
> Ha-  "my network controller", "my baseball app"
> 
> How does this stop sign revenge work again? Do you use awk and perl to 
> email nastygrams to those that speed past your stop sigh?
> 
>> My graduate degree is in network and computer architecture.   So suck 
>> that Gasbag and your fancy University of Phoenix degree.  You don't know 
>> shit about me or what I can do.  I probably could do your job with about 
>> a week of getting used to the working environment.  You don't sound 
>> intelligent here either but I wouldn't make judgment based on what gets 
>> written here like all you fools with penis envy.  
> 
> I'd love to see any of those claims happen.
> 
> Geoff, do you have any sort of bring-a-retard to work days where Anderson 
> could be let out of his cage for a little bit?

You know Anderson's not good at this shit because any pro knows that the
first person to claim their degree or certification like it actually means
jack shit compared to real world work, loses.

-- 
smr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3113

On 6/6/2015 2:36 PM, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article me@shawnritchie.com says...
>> I'm not the one who was trying to impress others by tossing about
>> puffed-up, redundant phrases like "raw PCAP log".
>
> Look fuck head.  I'm not trying to impress anyone with anything I say.
> I just mentioned that I had pcap logs because Bruce thought the camera
> might have always been doing this.  I used raw as an adjective, big
> fucking deal.  The controller keeps a lot of different logs, some in raw
> fucking text and not just fucking text.  Do you experts have some sort
> of code book I can consult so my prose doesn't offend next time?
>
> The fact that you would even say I'm trying to impress anyone is fucking
> ludicrous beyond imagination.  How did you people get so fucking stupid?
> Nobody but you, Gasbag, that purported china man, Bruce, and maybe two
> or three others, reads this group so who the fuck am I trying to
> impress?  Do you think I'm going to score Barb getting her to drop Max
> for me because of my knowledge of pcap?  What the fuck is wrong with you
> people?
>
> I brought up an anomaly in a device that perhaps one of you fuck heads
> would have some insight on but all you care about is some fucking made
> up pecking order like god damned high school girls.  Revel in your
> ignorance.
>
>

It's fun to hit a nerve.

-- 
smr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3116

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On 6/6/2015 2:36 PM, Mark Anderson wrote:
>> In article me@shawnritchie.com says...
>>> I'm not the one who was trying to impress others by tossing about
>>> puffed-up, redundant phrases like "raw PCAP log".
>>
>> Look fuck head.  I'm not trying to impress anyone with anything I say.
>> I just mentioned that I had pcap logs because Bruce thought the camera
>> might have always been doing this.  I used raw as an adjective, big
>> fucking deal.  The controller keeps a lot of different logs, some in raw
>> fucking text and not just fucking text.  Do you experts have some sort
>> of code book I can consult so my prose doesn't offend next time?
>>
>> The fact that you would even say I'm trying to impress anyone is fucking
>> ludicrous beyond imagination.  How did you people get so fucking stupid?
>> Nobody but you, Gasbag, that purported china man, Bruce, and maybe two
>> or three others, reads this group so who the fuck am I trying to
>> impress?  Do you think I'm going to score Barb getting her to drop Max
>> for me because of my knowledge of pcap?  What the fuck is wrong with you
>> people?
>>
>> I brought up an anomaly in a device that perhaps one of you fuck heads
>> would have some insight on but all you care about is some fucking made
>> up pecking order like god damned high school girls.  Revel in your
>> ignorance.
>>
>>
> 
> It's fun to hit a nerve.

You better watch out. His network controller may pointed at your gateway 
if you keep playing with fire.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3118

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:57:39 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:

> smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
>> On 6/6/2015 2:36 PM, Mark Anderson wrote:
>>> In article me@shawnritchie.com says...
>>>> I'm not the one who was trying to impress others by tossing about
>>>> puffed-up, redundant phrases like "raw PCAP log".
>>>
>>> Look fuck head.  I'm not trying to impress anyone with anything I say.
>>> I just mentioned that I had pcap logs because Bruce thought the camera
>>> might have always been doing this.  I used raw as an adjective, big
>>> fucking deal.  The controller keeps a lot of different logs, some in raw
>>> fucking text and not just fucking text.  Do you experts have some sort
>>> of code book I can consult so my prose doesn't offend next time?
>>>
>>> The fact that you would even say I'm trying to impress anyone is fucking
>>> ludicrous beyond imagination.  How did you people get so fucking stupid?
>>> Nobody but you, Gasbag, that purported china man, Bruce, and maybe two
>>> or three others, reads this group so who the fuck am I trying to
>>> impress?  Do you think I'm going to score Barb getting her to drop Max
>>> for me because of my knowledge of pcap?  What the fuck is wrong with you
>>> people?
>>>
>>> I brought up an anomaly in a device that perhaps one of you fuck heads
>>> would have some insight on but all you care about is some fucking made
>>> up pecking order like god damned high school girls.  Revel in your
>>> ignorance.
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> It's fun to hit a nerve.
> 
> You better watch out. His network controller may pointed at your gateway 
> if you keep playing with fire.

I'd welcome it. I haven't had to aim the BFR at anyone in a while.

-- 
smr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3123

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/2015 10:49 AM, Mark Anderson wrote:
>> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>>> You better watch out. His network controller may pointed at your gateway
>>> if you keep playing with fire.
>>
>> Do you want to see my power point presentation?
>>
>>
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that you've actually made one.

Ha!

Sure, have him go ahead and share it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3124

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> >>> You better watch out. His network controller may pointed at your gateway
> >>> if you keep playing with fire.
> >>
> >> Do you want to see my power point presentation?
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that you've actually made one.
> 
> Ha!
> 
> Sure, have him go ahead and share it.

I talked to the marketing guy, who doesn't know the difference between 
pcap and a night cap, that meanies on the Internet were making fun of 
one of my slides and she told me to stop bothering her.  Thus, I'm left 
to my own devices.

s/raw/fucking/g

Problem solved.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3089

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>> > you're wrong on DNS being UDP only, it can use TCP too.
>> 
>> he's wrong on quite a few things. It's peculiar he's looking at the 
>> packets but not inside them. The query would probably explain what's going 
>> on.
> 
> I never claimed DNS was always UDP.  No devices on my network (average 
> 250 unique devices per month) have ever tried to use TCP for DNS so I 

wow, big network there. I'm going to take notes when you talk about 
networks.

> block it, or more accurately, I don't white list it.  I did look inside 
> the packets which is how I know port 80 traffic was just connecting and 
> disconnecting not sending any data.  It made one HTTP request and it 
> wasn't even valid request, just some binary data so Squid kicked it.  
> There was a single DNS request (using UDP) from the camera asking for 
> the address to iotcplatform.com.  Google hasn't provided me much info as 
> to what that is.  Whois says Taiwam which is weird because the camera is 
> made in China and I thought those two countries didn't get along with 
> each other.

WTF does china have to do with taiwan in this case, other than nothing? 
Your troubleshooting method is weak at best.

> If I get ambitious I might let that TCP to 8.8.8.8 through for awhile  
> and see what it's doing.  Right now the firewall drops those packets 

Better buckle up, that's a really ambitious move there.

> into a bit bucket with no response.  The camera just sends SYN and 
> that's it.  See how stupid you sound when you assume a situation?  Do 
> you always make proclamations on mere assumptions?  

You're the one that's baffled by a fucking webcam, not me. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | chi.internet

csiph-web