full-disclosure - Re: According to Ivan, the secret ZA phone-homeserver is located at 127.0.0.1 [was Re: Re: Re: ZoneAlarm phones home]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon Feb  6 18:57:34 2006
From: davek_throwaway at hotmail.com (Dave Korn)
Subject: Re: According to Ivan,
	the secret ZA phone-homeserver is located at
	127.0.0.1 [was Re: Re: Re: ZoneAlarm phones home]

Frank Knobbe wrote:
>On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:06 +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>> >> The company says it will fix the "bug" soon. In the meantime you can
>> > work >around it by adding:
>> >> # Block access to ZoneLabs Server
>> >> 127.0.0.1 zonelabs.com
>> >> to your Windows host file.

>>   2)  You aren't the first person in the world to mistake the loopback
>> interface for a routable address, but you do look just as dumb as 
>> everyone
>> else who's ever done it down the annals of history.
>
>You might want to remove your foot from your own mouth. The loopback
>thing is a workaround

  I'm perfectly aware of that, but if you had actually read this thread you 
would realise that's not the issue under discussion.

 I claimed that Cringely was spreading FUD, because he hadn't so much as 
shown us a packet trace or an IP address.  Ivan told me to "read the article 
again Dave, you'll find that he did provide the ip address of the 
destination servers to Zonelaram".  When I point out to Ivan that a) the 
article was not by Cringely but a second-hand report of Cringely's original 
article, and that b) 127.0.0.1 is not the ip address of the destination 
servers, I am correct, and the fact that redirecting a hostname lookup to 
the loopback address is an effective method of blocking an adbanner does not 
in any way contradict anything I've said nor confirm anything Ivan said.

  Maybe that taste of shoe leather you've noticed is coming from your own 
mouth?

>You might want to think yourself before assailing other posters
>verbally. But frankly, I don't care since your email just qualified you
>for my plonker list.

  That's your choice; if you're happier reading FUD-spreading mis-reported 
nonsense from people who don't even know the loopback address when they see 
it rather than well-informed posts from people who have done their 
background research and know the field, you're going the right way about it.

  Of course, you're the ever-so-reasonable guy whose posts are full of 
emotive and pejorative terms like "presume we're all lusers", "wild 
assumptions", "must be an idiot", "piece of shit", "satisfy the ego", "stop 
sucking", so I call PKB on you, troll.

>Cheers,
>Frank
>
>PS: zonelabs.com resolves to 208.185.174.44 in case you're still
>wondering about an IP address.

  Your adroitness with nslookup hardly compensates for your not having paid 
any attention to the actual *content* of the discussion you wish to 
contribute to.

>PPS: Of course that's not proof of anything. Packet traces would be
>preferred, but I'd think anyone with Zone Alarm could probably gather
>those easily.

  If you'd care to actually look at this thread, you would have seen that 
that is the main point of my original post.

>(...Why do I even care...)

  You clearly don't care enough to read the thread and try and follow the 
argument you're responding to.  I suggest that if you don't care that much, 
you really shouldn't bother writing a half-baked response that utterly 
misses the point.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....