I ask out of ignorance

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:00:43 -0500, SilverSlimer
wrote:

Whether you like it or not, the Electoral College was designed to ensure
that the entire country got a say over who the president was. There's a
reason why IT was chosen over the popular vote because the founding
fathers knew that it would otherwise result in places like New York and
California, their cities being heavily populated and highly liberal,



Founding fathers and California?

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
...
How do they get through your router?

Exactly. The NAT (network address translation) software in a router should
prevent any unsolicited traffic from reaching one of the PCs on the LAN.
If
your PC requests information (eg a web page, or a list of emails to be
downloaded) the reply will be routed to the PC because it is in response
to
a request that the PC has made. If any other traffic arrives at the
router,
it will not be in response to a request so it will be discarded.

Minor clarification: NAT provides absolutely no security at all. That's
not its function. NAT simply 'translates' one destination address to
another destination address. The part that provides security is the
stateful firewall that's usually present in the NAT router. The behavior
of the stateful firewall is what's being accurately described above.

Apologies. Yes, I tend to think of "the NAT module" as doing both jobs, but
you are absolutely right. It is the firewall that is (usually) part of the
NAT which performs this job.

The NAT simply records which LAN address has issued the request (identified
by an LSAP, TSAP or whatever) so it knows how to readdress the incoming
response (that quotes the same SAP) before copying it from the WAN side to
the LAN side. If the router has an intelligent "switch" (as opposed to
"hub") it will even make sure that the LAN traffic for the given PC is only
output on the Ethernet port that the requesting PC is connected to, to avoid
swamping all the other ports with traffic that is not relevant to them.

The selective Ethernet port situation can be a problem if you want to make a
LAN trace that includes traffic to/from a different LAN port. I believe "LAN
sniffer" software can issue a request to make a router temporarily go into
"promiscuous mode" (*) so it outputs all traffic to all ports, so a sniffer
on one port will see traffic for all other ports as well. The problem is
nicely circumvented if both PCs (the sniffer and the sniffed) are connected
to a dumb hub on the same router Ethernet port, or else are both connected
by wifi. The problem didn't exist in the days of thin or thick (coaxial)
Ethernet because all the devices were connected onto the same physical cable
so all devices saw all traffic, even if a given PC's LAN card may ignore
traffic that is not destined for that PC - again, a sniffer needs to put the
LAN card into promiscuous mode to circumvent this.


(*) A beautifully graphic term ;-)

SilverSlimer wrote:

More than half of the United States is a "stupid Trumper" who voted for
the man

WRONG!! Trump is a minority president. Most voters picked Hilary
Clinton.

--
Tim Slattery
tim at risingdove dot com

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:18:27 -0500, wrote:

Just concerned about my banking and associated password files

Your bank uses passwords? I'd choose another bank. Mine uses a Digipass,
my bank card, PIN code and several other numbers related to transfers
(so they change all the time).

--
s|b

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 07:09:19 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Nothing except your security software, Windows Defender, McAfee, or
what ever you are using

Such as a router with NAT and built-in firewall? (?)

--
s|b

I.Mackie wrote:

On 22/11/2018 10:18, VanguardLH wrote:
Wolf K wrote:

See also Bob Henson's post Shields Up, and I quote:

Visit Gibson research, run Shields Up and it will tell you if you have
anything to worry about. The probability is that you don't.

https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

That will do a probe from outside in. If will find if there are
listeners on your host but you'll have to test the complete range of
ports (64K of them).

If you want to check what are the inside out connections, you need a
tool on your intranet host (e.g., SysInternals TCP View, Nirsoft
SmartSniff or CurrPorts, Wireshark, a 3rd party firewall to show current
outbound connections or history).

Agreed 100%
Shields Up will check at the time you check but that may not be when you
have listener processes running on your host.

FYI, when I use Shields Up in normal course, I have no open ports.

When using a VPN, however, a number of ports ARE shown to be open. Is
this to be expected? If so, why?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2018-11-22 at 12:26:00

Results from scan of ports: 0, 21-23, 25, 79, 80, 110, 113,
119, 135, 139, 143, 389, 443, 445,
1002, 1024-1030, 1720, 5000

2 Ports Open
23 Ports Closed
1 Ports Stealth
---------------------
26 Ports Tested

Ports found to be OPEN we 80, 443

The port found to be STEALTH was: 139

Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED.

TruStealth: FAILED - NOT all tested ports were STEALTH,
- NO unsolicited packets were received,
- A PING REPLY (ICMP Echo) WAS RECEIVED.

You running a web-centric client with VPN. It has to connect out to
whatever VPN service you decided. That also means incoming connections
are allowed normally from the server but I'd check if the VPN client
accepted connects ONLY from the VPN server which doesn't seem so if
Shields Up finds a listener on a port that will send back an ACK (not
stealthed). VPNs are not firewalls but punch through them.

Did you try SysInternals' TCP View to see if your VPN was using the
ports that Shields Up found had listeners and sent an ACK in response?

On 22/11/2018 23:36, VanguardLH wrote:
I.Mackie wrote:

On 22/11/2018 10:18, VanguardLH wrote:
Wolf K wrote:

See also Bob Henson's post Shields Up, and I quote:

Visit Gibson research, run Shields Up and it will tell you if you have
anything to worry about. The probability is that you don't.

https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

That will do a probe from outside in. If will find if there are
listeners on your host but you'll have to test the complete range of
ports (64K of them).

If you want to check what are the inside out connections, you need a
tool on your intranet host (e.g., SysInternals TCP View, Nirsoft
SmartSniff or CurrPorts, Wireshark, a 3rd party firewall to show current
outbound connections or history).

Agreed 100%
Shields Up will check at the time you check but that may not be when you
have listener processes running on your host.

FYI, when I use Shields Up in normal course, I have no open ports.

When using a VPN, however, a number of ports ARE shown to be open. Is
this to be expected? If so, why?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

GRC Port Authority Report created on UTC: 2018-11-22 at 12:26:00

Results from scan of ports: 0, 21-23, 25, 79, 80, 110, 113,
119, 135, 139, 143, 389, 443, 445,
1002, 1024-1030, 1720, 5000

2 Ports Open
23 Ports Closed
1 Ports Stealth
---------------------
26 Ports Tested

Ports found to be OPEN we 80, 443

The port found to be STEALTH was: 139

Other than what is listed above, all ports are CLOSED.

TruStealth: FAILED - NOT all tested ports were STEALTH,
- NO unsolicited packets were received,
- A PING REPLY (ICMP Echo) WAS RECEIVED.

You running a web-centric client with VPN. It has to connect out to
whatever VPN service you decided. That also means incoming connections
are allowed normally from the server but I'd check if the VPN client
accepted connects ONLY from the VPN server which doesn't seem so if
Shields Up finds a listener on a port that will send back an ACK (not
stealthed). VPNs are not firewalls but punch through them.

Did you try SysInternals' TCP View to see if your VPN was using the
ports that Shields Up found had listeners and sent an ACK in response?

No, I was using my Apple computer. I'll think about doing that on my
Windows 10 machine tomorrow. Thank you for your comments.

I did check here!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acknow...(data_networks)

On 2018-11-21 9:47 p.m., Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:00:43 -0500, SilverSlimer wrote:

On 2018-11-21 6:57 p.m., Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:17:56 -0500, SilverSlimer wrote:

On 2018-11-21 11:02 a.m., Weatherman wrote:
? Good Guy ? wrote:
All the evidence suggests that you are jobless, high on drugs and
habitual shop-lifter.Â* Who in their right mind would waste time on
you!!!!!!.

How charming. You must be a stupid Trumper.

More than half of the United States

Last I heard, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
That doesn't sound like more than half.

And how many of them were illegal voters, something that Democrats made
sure would be able to vote during the midterms as well?

Whether you like it or not, the Electoral College was designed to ensure
that the entire country got a say over who the president was. There's a
reason why IT was chosen over the popular vote because the founding
fathers knew that it would otherwise result in places like New York and
California, their cities being heavily populated and highly liberal,
deciding the fate of the country regardless of what the smaller areas
wanted. In Canada too, seats decide who leads the country and not the
popular vote because pure Democracy is extremely flawed and very much
prone to abuse as the Democrats keep showing us with their continued
attempts to steal elections, many of which they _certainly_ stole in the
midterms.

Besides, the United States is a _republic_ so the very fact that you
brought up "the popular vote" suggests that you have no idea how your
country works and that you bought into the leftist excuse your media
system has been pushing from day one as to why "The Chosen One" Hillary
didn't win.

Actually, I brought up the popular vote to point out that you were
incorrect when you claimed that "More than half of the United States"
voted for Trump. I know you meant eligible voters and not the entire US
population, but it's still wrong. I could bring up the existence of the
Electoral College, but it appears as if you've heard of it. That makes
your claim above all the more puzzling.

Whereas *I* brought up that there is overwhelming evidence that the
"more than half" that voted for Hillary, in the popular vote, were not
even people who were allowed to vote in the country in the first place.
Dead people tend to lose their ability to vote after death and
non-citizens never earned the right so it's puzzling that they were
allowed to support a candidate in the 2016 American election.


--
SilverSlimer
Minds: @silverslimer

SilverSlimer wrote:
On 2018-11-21 9:47 p.m., Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:00:43 -0500, SilverSlimer wrote:

On 2018-11-21 6:57 p.m., Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:17:56 -0500, SilverSlimer
wrote:

On 2018-11-21 11:02 a.m., Weatherman wrote:
? Good Guy ? wrote:
All the evidence suggests that you are jobless, high on drugs and
habitual shop-lifter.Â* Who in their right mind would waste time on
you!!!!!!.

How charming. You must be a stupid Trumper.

More than half of the United States

Last I heard, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
That doesn't sound like more than half.

And how many of them were illegal voters, something that Democrats made
sure would be able to vote during the midterms as well?

Whether you like it or not, the Electoral College was designed to ensure
that the entire country got a say over who the president was. There's a
reason why IT was chosen over the popular vote because the founding
fathers knew that it would otherwise result in places like New York and
California, their cities being heavily populated and highly liberal,
deciding the fate of the country regardless of what the smaller areas
wanted. In Canada too, seats decide who leads the country and not the
popular vote because pure Democracy is extremely flawed and very much
prone to abuse as the Democrats keep showing us with their continued
attempts to steal elections, many of which they _certainly_ stole in the
midterms.

Besides, the United States is a _republic_ so the very fact that you
brought up "the popular vote" suggests that you have no idea how your
country works and that you bought into the leftist excuse your media
system has been pushing from day one as to why "The Chosen One" Hillary
didn't win.

Actually, I brought up the popular vote to point out that you were
incorrect when you claimed that "More than half of the United States"
voted for Trump. I know you meant eligible voters and not the entire US
population, but it's still wrong. I could bring up the existence of the
Electoral College, but it appears as if you've heard of it. That makes
your claim above all the more puzzling.

Whereas *I* brought up that there is overwhelming evidence that the
"more than half" that voted for Hillary, in the popular vote, were not
even people who were allowed to vote in the country in the first place.
Dead people tend to lose their ability to vote after death and
non-citizens never earned the right so it's puzzling that they were
allowed to support a candidate in the 2016 American election.



You are brainwashed to believe the alt right lies. More democrats were
suppressed by the GOP, much more, dip **** Trumper. **** Trump and ****
you for voting for him. I am so glad I don't live there anymore. I don't
have to put up with Trump's insanity and I don't have to put up with
stupid Trumpers like YOU.

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-11-23 09:03, Weatherman wrote:
SilverSlimer wrote:
[...]
Whereas *I* brought up that there is overwhelming evidence that the
"more than half" that voted for Hillary, in the popular vote, were
not even people who were allowed to vote in the country in the first
place. Dead people tend to lose their ability to vote after death and
non-citizens never earned the right so it's puzzling that they were
allowed to support a candidate in the 2016 American election.



You are brainwashed to believe the alt right lies. More democrats were
suppressed by the GOP, much more, dip **** Trumper. **** Trump and
**** you for voting for him. I am so glad I don't live there anymore.
I don't have to put up with Trump's insanity and I don't have to put
up with stupid Trumpers like YOU.

Silver Slimer lives somewhere in Quebec, Canada.


That's sad, a Trumper in Canada.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:59:29 -0500, SilverSlimer wrote:

On 2018-11-21 9:47 p.m., Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:00:43 -0500, SilverSlimer wrote:

On 2018-11-21 6:57 p.m., Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:17:56 -0500, SilverSlimer wrote:

On 2018-11-21 11:02 a.m., Weatherman wrote:
? Good Guy ? wrote:
All the evidence suggests that you are jobless, high on drugs and
habitual shop-lifter.* Who in their right mind would waste time on
you!!!!!!.

How charming. You must be a stupid Trumper.

More than half of the United States

Last I heard, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
That doesn't sound like more than half.

And how many of them were illegal voters, something that Democrats made
sure would be able to vote during the midterms as well?

Whether you like it or not, the Electoral College was designed to ensure
that the entire country got a say over who the president was. There's a
reason why IT was chosen over the popular vote because the founding
fathers knew that it would otherwise result in places like New York and
California, their cities being heavily populated and highly liberal,
deciding the fate of the country regardless of what the smaller areas
wanted. In Canada too, seats decide who leads the country and not the
popular vote because pure Democracy is extremely flawed and very much
prone to abuse as the Democrats keep showing us with their continued
attempts to steal elections, many of which they _certainly_ stole in the
midterms.

Besides, the United States is a _republic_ so the very fact that you
brought up "the popular vote" suggests that you have no idea how your
country works and that you bought into the leftist excuse your media
system has been pushing from day one as to why "The Chosen One" Hillary
didn't win.

Actually, I brought up the popular vote to point out that you were
incorrect when you claimed that "More than half of the United States"
voted for Trump. I know you meant eligible voters and not the entire US
population, but it's still wrong. I could bring up the existence of the
Electoral College, but it appears as if you've heard of it. That makes
your claim above all the more puzzling.

Whereas *I* brought up that there is overwhelming evidence that the
"more than half" that voted for Hillary, in the popular vote, were not
even people who were allowed to vote in the country in the first place.

You could be entirely correct when you say that there is overwhelming
evidence of voter fraud, but you have to concede that it's interesting
that exactly zero evidence has actually been produced. I wish the folks
who hold that evidence would bring it to light so it can be examined and
steps taken to prevent the same fraud from happening next time.

Dead people tend to lose their ability to vote after death and
non-citizens never earned the right so it's puzzling that they were
allowed to support a candidate in the 2016 American election.

You'd think if such things actually happened, someone would have
produced evidence by now, but for some reason they're keeping it under
wraps.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:54:49 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

[There was a darkly humorous example awhile back.
A couple of undisputable winners were flying their
private plane to a private luxury cabin getaway, for
a private, luxury, hunting cabin weekend. The
cabin owner turned on the heat via his iPhone
during the trip, so the cabin would be toasty when
they arrived. Very slick. These are winners, after all.
Their whole life is slick.They arrived at the
cabin. Both were dead within minutes. A squirrel had
set up house in the furnace vent and the CO alarm
wasn't working. The two men were suffocated by
high CO levels when they walked into the house,
probably passing out before they even had time to
think.]

that story does not add up.

Nor had the house blown up, which it probably would have if it had a
running furnace inside with as high a level of atmospheric CO as
implied by the story.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| [There was a darkly humorous example awhile back.
| A couple of undisputable winners were flying their
| private plane to a private luxury cabin getaway, for
| a private, luxury, hunting cabin weekend. The
| cabin owner turned on the heat via his iPhone
| during the trip, so the cabin would be toasty when
| they arrived. Very slick. These are winners, after all.
| Their whole life is slick.They arrived at the
| cabin. Both were dead within minutes. A squirrel had
| set up house in the furnace vent and the CO alarm
| wasn't working. The two men were suffocated by
| high CO levels when they walked into the house,
| probably passing out before they even had time to
| think.]
|
| that story does not add up.
|
| Nor had the house blown up, which it probably would have if it had a
| running furnace inside with as high a level of atmospheric CO as
| implied by the story.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...al-5603194.php

I'm not sure if this is the same story, but it looks
like it. In any case, it's very similar and other such
stories can be found. It would have been easy
enough for you to check. But you'd rather heckle
from the peanut gallery.

Also, CO is carbon monoxide. It's not flammable.
CO is not the chemical formula for propane. Houses
don't blow up from high CO levels. But it does
displace oxygen in the bloodstream, so it can
kill quickly in high concentrations.

There were several factors involved in this story.
One factor may have been a faulty furnace repair.
One factor was apparently squirrels nesting in the
vent pipe that blocked exhaust gas. But the point of
the story was the absurdity of unnecessary "smart"
devices. The men died in part because they turned
on the furnace remotely via cellphone. They thought
that was clever. But they were dead before they
were in the house long enough to ralize the furnace
wasn't working right.
They might have still died if they hadn't been
such technophiliacs. But there's a good chance
they wouldn't have. By the time they arrived at
the cabin the CO levels were so high that they
were dead before they had a chance to feel sick
and get out.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 23:38:31 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

Also, CO is carbon monoxide. It's not flammable.
CO is not the chemical formula for propane. Houses
don't blow up from high CO levels. But it does
displace oxygen in the bloodstream, so it can
kill quickly in high concentrations.

We have a CO detector in our house. It was free from British Gas years
ago. It did nothing for year but went off a few nights ago. The alarm
sound got very annoying. It was impossible to stop the noise. Even
when all the doors and windows were open to reduce the CO it wouldn't
stop. When I called the emergency phone number I got a message to do
what I'd already done. The day after I managed to get through a real
human. She said the alarms could not be reset and were disposable. I
smashed it to bits and threw it away. That stopped the noise!

Steve
--
http://www.npsnn.com

"Stephen Wolstenholme" wrote

| She said the alarms could not be reset and were disposable. I
| smashed it to bits and threw it away. That stopped the noise!
|

Maddening, isn't it? They're doing similar in
the US. I had one expire a few months ago.
Built-in battery... Non-replaceable... People are
too stupid to be trusted with replacing batteries.
.....So I had to buy a new one!

We have insanity like that and then talk out
the other side of our mouths about "going green".
I've noticed, too, that the prices have gone way
up since the disposables came in. We're a captive
market.

Even before the disposables, the media here were
instructed to train people to replace all batteries
at daylight savings time, twice a year, just to be
safe. We're too stupid to rplace them without guidance,
so we threw out millions of perfectly good batteries,
just to be safe. But the alarms were designed to
beep about every 3 minutes when the battery got
low. Only a dead person wouldn't have known to
replace the battery.

But as long as you don't have a smart thermostat,
smart furnace, or squirrels in the flue, you should
be OK.