Message-Id: <20071013142447.D5243DA81F@mailserver7.hushmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:24:47 -0400
From: <full-disclosure@...hmail.com>
To: <hhoffman@...solutions.net>
Cc: kristian.hermansen@...il.com, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: extension for Firefox to force HTTPS always?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear 3APAPA,

In the English language, the words criticism and suggestion are not
synonyms.  If you could please kindly point out where Vladis makes
a suggestion (anywhere, anytime), or says anything constructive
(anywhere, anytime), or anything remotely clever (anywhere,
anytime) I would greatly appreciate it.

I am however impressed with your use of advanced computer hacking
tools such as host, openssl, and tcpdump in the Linux computer
hacking environment.

I feel your pain on the icmp issue as well.  Some people are just
ratfuck bastards.

Cheers!

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:12:08 -0400 Harry Hoffman <hhoffman@ip-
solutions.net> wrote:
>what is wrong with his suggestion?
>
>If you look at the situation the following things happen:
>
>[hhoffman@...alhost ~]$ host www.cnn.com
>www.cnn.com has address 64.236.16.20
>www.cnn.com has address 64.236.16.52
>www.cnn.com has address 64.236.24.12
>www.cnn.com has address 64.236.29.120
>www.cnn.com has address 64.236.91.21
>www.cnn.com has address 64.236.91.22
>www.cnn.com has address 64.236.91.23
>www.cnn.com has address 64.236.91.24
>Host www.cnn.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>
>
>[hhoffman@...alhost ~]$ openssl s_client -connect www.cnn.com:443
>
>
>[root@...alhost ~]# tcpdump -i wlan0 -ln tcp port 443 and net
>'64.236'
>tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full
>protocol decode
>listening on wlan0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96
>bytes
>22:02:32.427607 IP 192.168.1.103.35113 > 64.236.24.12.https: S
>2923208691:2923208691(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp
>102380687
>0,nop,wscale 7>
>22:02:35.427467 IP 192.168.1.103.35113 > 64.236.24.12.https: S
>2923208691:2923208691(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp
>102383687
>0,nop,wscale 7>
>22:02:41.427496 IP 192.168.1.103.35113 > 64.236.24.12.https: S
>2923208691:2923208691(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp
>102389687
>0,nop,wscale 7>
>22:02:53.427470 IP 192.168.1.103.35113 > 64.236.24.12.https: S
>2923208691:2923208691(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp
>102401687
>0,nop,wscale 7>
>22:03:17.427469 IP 192.168.1.103.35113 > 64.236.24.12.https: S
>2923208691:2923208691(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp
>102425687
>0,nop,wscale 7>
>22:04:05.427466 IP 192.168.1.103.35113 > 64.236.24.12.https: S
>2923208691:2923208691(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp
>102473687
>0,nop,wscale 7>
>22:05:41.427556 IP 192.168.1.103.47627 > 64.236.29.120.https: S
>2954205762:2954205762(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp
>102569687
>0,nop,wscale 7>
>22:05:44.427467 IP 192.168.1.103.47627 > 64.236.29.120.https: S
>2954205762:2954205762(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp
>102572687
>0,nop,wscale 7>
>22:05:50.427472 IP 192.168.1.103.47627 > 64.236.29.120.https: S
>2954205762:2954205762(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp
>102578687
>0,nop,wscale 7>
>22:06:02.428441 IP 192.168.1.103.47627 > 64.236.29.120.https: S
>2954205762:2954205762(0) win 5840 <mss 1460,sackOK,timestamp
>102590687
>0,nop,wscale 7>
>
>
>If there are a ton of addresses associated with the hostname
>record
>you'd be sitting there for a long time, no?
>
>It'd be nice if sites sent a unreachable message but some ppl
>still
>believe that blocking all ICMP is ok...
>
>go figure.
>
>Cheers,
>Harry
>
>
>full-disclosure@...hmail.com wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> MAYBE YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION OR SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO SAY
>AFTER
>> ALL THESE YEARS VLADIS OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
>>
>> YOU AREN'T SMARTER THAN WE THINK YOU ARE
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:55:37 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
>wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:06:14 PDT, Kristian Erik Hermansen said:
>>>> I just wanted to clarify that I am looking for an extension
>that
>>> will
>>>> rewrite all encountered HTTP references in Firefox to HTTPS.
>I
>>> would
>>>> already have a firewall or some other layer7 filtering device
>>> blocking
>>>> unencrypted traffic.  The addon "Better Gmail" does something
>>> similar
>>>> to this, with the "force HTTPS" option, but not exactly...
>>> What should this hypothetical extension do if it automagically
>>> redirect
>>> http: to https:, but the target server is something that is
>only
>>> listening
>>> on port 80 because it doesn't have https: enabled?
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com just sorta sits there for me.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Note: This signature can be verified at
>https://www.hushtools.com/verify
>> Charset: UTF8
>> Version: Hush 2.5
>>
>>
>wpwEAQECAAYFAkcQJ40ACgkQ+dWaEhErNvQjfAQAhvRta2YldG0s+RPwOOYQJhmavq4
>c
>>
>uo/dTsCd3EQy6yQru6oGcmWR7CdCo8EvwoTpB0EwLgVW4z7/lujiayEMECV4zejTNzt
>w
>>
>NSabygNoko5I8wh5trmqvoSb4RfPW79qEWLgTosECR1dsCu5FfXuKZhgQwbweWpi09g
>h
>> zDPTvGg=
>> =jxe7
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Charset: UTF8
Version: Hush 2.5

wpwEAQECAAYFAkcQ1S8ACgkQ+dWaEhErNvTKWQP9FkS3CGP5+EN4cTf8WUbmbJfbJ4cP
ZfizqYMy71CpaBYa/Nrwb8k4rGuuy6A3dOOErMTFrei9y7nj8NJCTAc7xjgQQnsibq2u
WlC4FqPqciFs614cbQskiX6za88UGz6SktWGMz8N29UD4Y02SDHwbalER153pGfGCey8
wTOFQaI=
=mH+r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists