LIT and security

[Bluesboy2]

Lance I would like to see your thoughts on this thread.

This one here.

 

[LukkyKnight]

Your debating skills leave me underwhelmed. Here's why:

I reacted to Draco's comparison of this login mechanism to various messengering alternatives, including ICQ. It's a comparison which misses the point owing to the difference in the protocols. Nothing definitive or insightful about the cause of the service failures has been stated, only speculation.

I suggested the venue for the conversation was not merely inappropriate but could be construed as actively subverting the presumed thrust of the conversation, enhancing the security of this site. I've also explained that directly above here for you, what was so hard to understand?

I skipped the part about copyrights, and what's revealed thereby. Anybody with half a lick of sense or technical expertise can figure out everything revealed there in other ways. I'm very glad nobody's chosen to reveal those here, but it didn't seem to merit additional discussion - unless something about that confuses you, of course.

Your technical prowess is evidenced by your choice of points to repsond to and the manner in which you do so. Your talent for misdirection may serve your self-image, but it does nothing to enhance or further the debate, which you in fact seem intent on controlling for your own reasons.

 

[phrodeau]

This is another non-issue.

Do you think that by "logging in to an account" here that you're doing anything more than adding a cookie to your own computer?

Enter the right password and Lit's server sends you a cookie. Click on a link and it sends you a page. Then, it has nothing more to do with you until you click on another link. It doesn't matter which or how many computers you use, as long as you've got the cookie on each one.

The security of your account isn't just up to Lit. You need to make sure those cookies are only where you want them to be.

 

[Lancecastor]

Your debating skills leave me underwhelmed. Here's why:

I reacted to Draco's comparison of this login mechanism to various messengering alternatives, including ICQ. It's a comparison which misses the point owing to the difference in the protocols. Nothing definitive or insightful about the cause of the service failures has been stated, only speculation.

I suggested the venue for the conversation was not merely inappropriate but could be construed as actively subverting the presumed thrust of the conversation, enhancing the security of this site. I've also explained that directly above here for you, what was so hard to understand?

I skipped the part about copyrights, and what's revealed thereby. Anybody with half a lick of sense or technical expertise can figure out everything revealed there in other ways. I'm very glad nobody's chosen to reveal those here, but it didn't seem to merit additional discussion - unless something about that confuses you, of course.

Your technical prowess is evidenced by your choice of points to repsond to and the manner in which you do so. Your talent for misdirection may serve your self-image, but it does nothing to enhance or further the debate, which you in fact seem intent on controlling for your own reasons.

Whether you are underwhelmed or not is neither a here nor there to me, LK...I didn't post to impress or sway you or to debate with you, but to add my thoughts and views to the thread based upon my opinions, thoughts and experiences.

If you wish to compete for technical superiority or Internet Kung Fu honors, I suggest you go find Ishmael's thread about me. Like you, he enjoys a good dick measuring match.

Plus, you can join him in bashing me to your heart's delight without any concern about my trying to control your mind or the discussion.

The rest of what you have said above is noted and noted as repetitive and stale to me, as I've already stated my views more than once in response to your points of "debate".

If you have something new to add on Lit Security, I look forward to reading it in the hopes that we will find it interesting and possibly helpful.

Lance

 

[LukkyKnight]

Whether you are underwhelmed or not is neither a here nor there to me, LK...I didn't post to impress or sway you or to debate with you

Then why quote me, oh posing one?

I've added points you clearly don't apprehend. When you do it might prove instructive to go further, but since you clearly don't grasp the relevance of the protocol to the discussion there's no way you'll get the concept.

The repetitions you object to were merely in response to your own post, a normal debating technique, but you may now by all means have the last word. I'm not going to tutor you on either the technical or the rhetorical, though I realize others may point out that I did provide you with information on both in the course of this exchange.

 

[Lancecastor]

Then why quote me, oh posing one?

I've added points you clearly don't apprehend. When you do it might prove instructive to go further, but since you clearly don't grasp the relevance of the protocol to the discussion there's no way you'll get the concept.

The repetitions you object to were merely in response to your own post, a normal debating technique, but you may now by all means have the last word. I'm not going to tutor you on either the technical or the rhetorical, though I realize others may point out that I did provide you with information on both in the course of this exchange.

If you have something new to add on Lit Security, I look forward to reading it in the hopes that we will find it interesting and possibly helpful.

Lance

 

[The Heretic]

It's all done with cookies

Remember the time I logged on as four different people at the same time? I could do the same with one ID. This is probably how Shitface did his multiple thread temper tantrum that one night.

This isn't a security hole since it doesn't get you someone's password if you don't already have it, and it doesn't make it any easier to hack their password or their PMs or any other confidential info - it just makes it easier to throw temper tantrums.

On a different subject; as for the security holes in MS products vs. Linux etc. - there have been more security alerts for Linux products than for MS products, bother by the vendors themselves and by independent sources such as CERT. The MS holes make the news because it is so popular and MS is the company that people love to hate. I am not defending them; even though they are virtually my neighbors, I don't like many of their business practices either - but the reason most people don't like them is that they are popular, they are successful and they do make good software - in essence they are jealous even if they won't admit it.

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: It's all done with cookies

Remember the time I logged on as four different people at the same time? I could do the same with one ID. This is probably how Shitface did his multiple thread temper tantrum that one night.

Does this mean that those who used to use Unregistered for trolling could be logged in under multiple ID's at once?

Lance

 

[Duckman PD]

Does this mean that those who used to use Unregistered for trolling could be logged in under multiple ID's at once?

Lance

Yes. I am not going to go into details of how to do it as I don't want to tell people who don't know how, but yes the way I do it is easy. I imagine there are other ways to do it too.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Does this mean that those who used to use Unregistered for trolling could be logged in under multiple ID's at once?

Lance

Yes. I am not going to go into details of how to do it as I don't want to tell people who don't know how, but yes the way I do it is easy. I imagine there are other ways to do it too.

 

[The Heretic]

Re: Re: It's all done with cookies

Does this mean that those who used to use Unregistered for trolling could be logged in under multiple ID's at once?

Lance

Yes. I am not going to go into details of how to do it as I don't want to tell people who don't know how, but yes the way I do it is easy. I imagine there are other ways to do it too.

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: Re: It's all done with cookies

Yes. I am not going to go into details of how to do it as I don't want to tell people who don't know how, but yes the way I do it is easy. I imagine there are other ways to do it too.

As I thought, there really are only 6 people here, aren't there?

 

[The Heretic]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's all done with cookies

As I thought, there really are only 6 people here, aren't there?

If you include me, myself and I - yes.

 

[phrodeau]

I heard the Seattle Lit-together happened on a tanning bed.

 

[Draco]

Finals in Windows 2000 Active Directory are coming up.

I so dont envy you.

LK...if you dont like the thread content, dont reply, its really that simple. Ypu have your opinion, I have mine. If I want to start a thread over any subject I want, I will, with or without your permission.

I raised a salient point over something...too bad you dont like it.

 

[Draco]

Quote: I don't like many of their business practices either - but the reason most people don't like them is that they are popular, they are successful and they do make good software - in essence they are jealous even if they won't admit it. Endquote:

Finally, someone see's it the way I do.....

About bloody time.

 

[Draco]

The ONLY reason I used the references to ICQ Yahoo etc is...they use password protection, and if you try to log in from a second machine, they detect the log-in attempt and block it. I didn't want a discussion on what protocols each one uses, what their respective CEO's had for breakfast or whatever. I was simply quoting them as examples.

 

[lilfrk]

Yes it let's you log in from 2 totally different places at once. I did it yesterday with someone from another state. Then I changed my password.

 

[Never]

Draco:
"I raised a salient point over something..."

Questionable.

 

[Draco]

Yeah, I now know. I tried it today with two machines here on seperate phone lines. I had figured that would be the case.

We ARE Not secure....

 

[Draco]

Draco:
"I raised a salient point over something..."

Questionable.

My opinion and thats all that matters.....as I said earlier to others...if you dont like it, dont respond. I'm getting sick of the whole "holier than thou" attitude around this place.
So many "experts" that slam everyone else opinions...at times I wonder why we all bother.

NOTE: General rant, not aimed at any one person in particular.

 

[Never]

I did that the third time I logged on. It took you over a year?

Lit. allows users to access their accounts from as many computers and locations as they desire. Or, if you want, access as many accounts as you wish from one computer at one location at the same time.

You still haven’t told us how it’s insecure.

 

[Never]

Draco
“My opinion and thats all that matters.....”
It matters to you, yes. To others, not so much.

“as I said earlier to others...if you dont like it, dont respond.”
The only people who should respond to your posts are the ones that like your opinion? If that’s what you want why post it on a public message board? Why not write it in Word and stare at it while muttering, “You’re right Draco. You’re so smart.”

”I'm getting sick of the whole "holier than thou" attitude around this place.”
I’m not holier, though I’d say I’m superior.

“So many "experts" that slam everyone else opinions...at times I wonder why we all bother.”
No, most of the experts seem to be slamming your opinion. If you notice, the experts that aren’t slamming you are focusing on security issues. Not your “salient” point.

 

[Draco]

You still haven’t told us how it’s insecure.

Jeez, what is it with you people?

IN MY OPINION: Any website that uses Security (Username & Password) then lets you log in again into that same account while already logged in IS UN-SECURE.

Is that simple enough for you....?

Many of the other SECURE sites I belong to wont let a second log in happen, either from a networked machine or a whole seperate loctaion (IP). And one of them happens to be a V-Bulletin site.

 

[Lancecastor]

Jeez, what is it with you people?

IN MY OPINION: Any website that uses Security (Username & Password) then lets you log in again into that same account while already logged in IS UN-SECURE.

Is that simple enough for you....?

Many of the other SECURE sites I belong to wont let a second log in happen, either from a networked machine or a whole seperate loctaion (IP). And one of them happens to be a V-Bulletin site.

You're still right, Draco.

Despite Their childish "You're either with Laurel or against her" heirarchical closed-shop nonsense, you're still right.

Thanks for raising it.

Lance