It was probably a campus firewall problem, then - did you check NetSight? A VPN probably wouldn't have helped with a JaNET infrastructural outage and I've been a JaNET user for years and years with very few issues relating to JaNET itself - it's epically reliable in my experience and its infrastructure is sound.
(Original post by Chrosson)
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea. No details were given.
It might have been something to do with the DNS dying, which would explain it (but doesn't explain why the dns cache didn't help).
They don't give details because a) 99.9% of the student population don't understand it, so why bother and b) the 0.1% who do it's none of their business and they should stick to their pointless Java assignments doing things that don't need doing in a way you wouldn't normally do it. These University sysadmins don't like CompSci students poking their noses in and they certainly hated us Security and Ethical Hacking crew for the **** we pulled.
But, again, what do I know?
Last edited by ch0llima; 21-03-2012 at 03:30.
****in' makefiles, how do they work?
I swear, of all the misbegotten creations from the minds of Unix developers, makefiles and autotools rank as one of the worst. If trying to beat them into submission wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious.
It's like a variation of the 'Yo dawg' meme. Just in case one language for your application isn't enough, you get a completely different one to get your application to compile. But sometimes this is too inflexible, so we use configure files. But sometimes editing these by hand is too error-prone, so we generate configure files automatically. Hey guys, how many more abstraction layers can we get in there!? It's so much fun debugging the thousand lines of computer generated garbage! And (of course) you have to know all three layers of this mess to be prepared for other developers.
But then, they're 30 years old and they do have (some) good points. But they could be so much better...which is precisely why there are now alternatives like cmake and scons (and why other languages made their own build mechanisms). But then we all know de-facto doesn't mean good.
Last edited by Chrosson; 21-03-2012 at 16:54.
I think my spacebar is slowly dying. It feels different, sticks a bit and doesn't always respond - probably Starcraft rage
We had our own heavily firewalled network with only port 80 open. Even then, all traffic going to core University systems (WebCT, Webmail etc.) was dropped for security reasons so we needed to use our own laptops and the campus WiFi for that.
The Cisco ASA (or maybe it was a PIX - can't quite remember) was set up to stop all traffic out of the NATted network in the event of serious security alerts against University systems e.g. port scans against central University IT infrastructure. Eventually they rolled out a new IDS policy to lock out individual workstations (we didn't have user accounts - all machines were restorable boxes running as Administrator so we could do what we wanted as long as we restored the base image afterwards) rather than the entire NAT range but it was occasionally fun to lock out the entire lab for lulz.
In short, they didn't like us because we were a lot of extra work and were the exact type of people pre-programmed to make their lives difficult. Someone else also apparently found a 0day in the main portal software.
This is nonsense and whoever told you this should jump in front of a train. You also didn't learn very much.
(Original post by Chrosson)
There were two main things I learnt in security courses
1) Security is hard.
2) Hardware security is really hard.
To quote one guy - "We teach you security so you know you can't go out there and build a secure system. However, we can
sell you a product that does allow you to do this. It's called a PhD."
But then, this was a general CS course.
Careful with rolling your own encryption schemes, algorithms or systems. There's a reason why some of the brightest minds in the world work on that sort of stuff and how it goes through brutal peer review. TrueCrypt is the best I've seen and you can encrypt whole physical volumes with it. However, if you're truly wanting to break away from what has already been used, you're going to have to seriously think outside of the box.
(Original post by Kenny_uk)
Oh I don't disagree, but I just want alternatives if possible, especially if I can find a system that can be embedded within another program/OS. Which i don't know if Truecrypt can be?
I'm beginning to think that your very own hardware solution is probably the key (hurr hurr hurr) to this conundrum of Thor+Ultralisk proportions. I can't currently think of anything which would work straight out of the box, or indeed be adapted straight out of said box, so it's a hugely complex problem and one I can't really go into right now because it requires a very, very serious amount of thought.
Last edited by ch0llima; 21-03-2012 at 23:17.