Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13
[#] Mon May 27 2019 19:32:03 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: Citadel behind a switch, switch directly connected to fiber optic

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well, first of all your question isn't really specific to Citadel; this is a legit question for any service you'd care to expose to the public Internet, such as a web or mail server, etc.

If you're talking about a typical residential-grade Internet service, the real problem is that the ISP will usually only allow you to have one IP address at a time. You are referring to a "fiber optic line" so I'm assuming it's a PON such as Verizon FiOS or Google Fiber, so you've probably got an Optical Network Terminal that feeds the WAN port of a router, beyond which is your private LAN. Simply "splitting" the connection from the ONT with a switch will usually result in either your router getting Internet access, or your server computer, but not both.

The common solution is to find the configuration section in your router that lets you map incoming ports. Enter the port numbers you want to permit (such as port 80 for HTTP, 443 for HTTPS, 25 for SMTP, etc) and map them to the same ports on the IP address of your server, which is inside the router on the LAN side.

Once you have it working, you'll generally face two problems:

1. Unless you're on one of the rare ISPs that gives you a static IP address, your public IP address will change from time to time. This is usually solved by signing up for one of the many dynamic DNS providers out there, some of which are free, and running the little program they give you to keep your DNS entry updated from time to time.

2. If you intend to run an email server, many ISPs block port 25, often in both directions. This generally isn't solvable without help from an outside source.

[#] Thu May 30 2019 01:49:56 EDT from ParanoidDelusions @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I've ran mail servers on residential networks before - but this may have been well before ISPs learned to block port 25. 


And I haven't tried recently. The short answer then is to upgrade to a business class service that assigns a static IP *and* allows server hosting - which won't be cheap. 

Or to use an external host... for Citadel - which uses Linux - I suspect there are solutions which are available for as little as $10 a month that will give you all of this. 

My friend used to own a Linux based hosted solution called tuxfarm... 

http://www.tuxfarm.com/

t
here it is... it is probably cheaper and more secure than trying to share the same residential connection you use for your day to day surfing. And you'll be supporting my friend. 

 

Win/Win. 

 

 



[#] Thu May 30 2019 12:05:47 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

My server is already in a really good data center. Before 2007 however, I ran it at home. My ISP was Ace Innovative (acedsl.com) which is very hobbyist-friendly, giving everyone a static IP address and permission to run servers. They got screwed over by Verizon, who decided unilaterally that the portion of the 1996 telecom act that required them to offer DSL circuits as unbundled elements, didn't apply to FiOS, so as everyone moved to fiber we had to get it directly from Verizon and over their IP network.

Ace offers another solution though, one I would consider if I ever moved my servers back home. For a monthly fee, they send you a router which builds a VPN connection back to their network over whatever Internet you have at home, and they give you a block of static IP addresses. Your local ISP doesn't see anything except an outgoing VPN connection, identical to what any telecommuter has running all the time.

[#] Thu May 30 2019 15:37:21 EDT from ParanoidDelusions @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That is pretty cool - and an awesome way to route around the corporate damage that walled gardens create on the Internet. 

I think we'll see more people innovating solutions like that to create those sidenets and mini-dark-nets that are outside the corporate and government radar. 

I'm really surprised someone hasn't developed a roll-your-own router node network that connects via P2P to nearby routers to create an alternate mesh. Long haul between urban areas would be difficult to bridge - but in dense urban and suburban areas, WiFi is so ubiquitous I think at least conceptually, it is plausible. Kind of a SETI-at-home style approach to sharing free bandwidth. 

 



[#] Thu May 30 2019 17:57:59 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's kind of what the ham radio packet networks are for. Perhaps ax25 can tell you all about ax.25 :)

And if the sidenet needs infrastructure, Tor exists today and runs as an overlay over the existing Internet infrastructure. I suppose if the shit really hits the fan, Big Brother will consider the operation of an encrypted overlay as presumption of guilt, but if we get that far, we probably have bigger things to worry about.

I've got to be honest though, I originally wanted all of this as a way to drive traffic to my BBS. A way to get back the users that Facebook stole from me and all the other operators of small sites. If I had access to The Button, I *would* push it and nuke Silicon Valley off the map, just so we could get our Internet back. But ... it's clear that the stakes are bigger now; it's not just about finding a way to effect a diaspora from the big sites (see what I did there?), it's now about reversing the power that the big sites are amassing to literally control the minds of everyone in the world.

Yes, my posts are full of hyperbole but they are directionally accurate.
Online discourse on a global collection of small BBS's was far more stable than things are now.

[#] Fri May 31 2019 02:13:20 EDT from ParanoidDelusions @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I don't think it is hyperbole at all - and I think we should continue to work to drive this to some sort of reality. We might not make a dent in the traffic of mainstream Social Media sites. 

But we might. 

I was a big part of what got labeled "The Digg Bury Brigade," by Ole Olson - a liberal troll. The fact was that the conservative voices were getting buried - they were being censored. Ole created this fantasy that we were burying left leaning stories as an organized group, in order to get Conservative stories to the front page. So they changed the algorithm and did all kinds of things in Digg 2.0 that caused the content to become incredibly one sided and biased - they created an echo chamber. Digg went from "The Front Page of the Internet," to a ghost town - and Facebook and Twitter came in and ate their lunch. 

Facebook and Twitter are currently headed down the same path as Digg - and there is opportunity there once it all falls apart. We just have to figure out how to grow these communities, make them content rich, accessible, and with the features that end users want - and wait for the time to come along... then promote and attract. 

 

Easier said than done. 

 



[#] Fri May 31 2019 11:44:06 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

MeWe seems to be becoming the Facebook alternative.

[#] Fri May 31 2019 14:32:43 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm on MeWe, and it's great in that it's "not Facebook" but there are a couple of problems:

1. It's not a distributed service, so I can't write software to turn Citadel sites into "MeWe nodes".

2. It's not a distributed service, so as soon as it becomes popular it will contract SJW Cancer.

[#] Sat Jun 01 2019 20:10:53 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Facebook isn't the problem, social media is the problem.



[#] Mon Jun 03 2019 10:21:38 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Does that include small BBS type sites?

[#] Thu Jun 06 2019 11:59:00 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Social Media isn't the problem.

People are the problem.

Heh.

[#] Thu Jun 06 2019 13:51:27 EDT from wizard of aahz @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

People are terrible things.

[#] Thu Jun 06 2019 14:01:51 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Thu Jun 06 2019 11:59:00 AM EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

People are the problem.

I can't argue with that.

Social media has given people who shouldn't have a voice a voice.



[#] Fri Jun 07 2019 17:13:12 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yup. The best way I've heard it was that they "give people their fifteen minutes of fame, every fifteen minutes."

[#] Sat Jun 08 2019 01:35:56 EDT from ParanoidDelusions @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Fri Jun 07 2019 17:13:12 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored
Yup. The best way I've heard it was that they "give people their fifteen minutes of fame, every fifteen minutes."

I remember when I was excited about the Democratization of the Web. 

It didn't quite work out. It is a signal to noise ration - combined with the ability of the incumbents to drown out the opposition in the noise. 

We're the opposition, the unwashed masses on social media are the noise, and the mainstream media and social media giants are the incumbents. 

So... we can sit around and bitch about how it is unfair and the game is loaded against us... 

Or we can figure out a way to upset the status quo and turn the table over. 

I'm all for kicking over tables and shit. But I hate it when I start the riot and look behind me and all the blokes who said they would be there have disappeared. 

 

 

 

 



[#] Sat Jun 08 2019 01:36:15 EDT from ParanoidDelusions @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

*ratio

 



[#] Sun Jun 09 2019 15:51:56 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


"The Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it." --John Gilmore, 1993

"Oh yeah? Hold my beer and watch this!" --Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Wojcicki

[#] Thu Jun 13 2019 23:58:52 EDT from ParanoidDelusions @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Sun Jun 09 2019 15:51:56 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

"The Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it." --John Gilmore, 1993

"Oh yeah? Hold my beer and watch this!" --Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Wojcicki

But aren't we doing what the Internet does? I know that there is a very concerted effort to completely de-platform *anyone* that is out of step with the San Jose party line. 


I was working out at the gym tonight, watching Fox - and I saw a piece on Google and Facebook blacklisting people based on their *real world* actions, purchases, affiliations - and having closed door meetings about how to de-platform people for these actions. 

So, I wrote this: 

https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/update-google-knows-where-youve-been-and-they-might-be-holding-your-encryption-keys/

W
hich got picked up worldwide overnight, as far as Germany. 

Later on, it got revisted by some bigger guns in the blogging community: 

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2474851/android-google-knows-nearly-every-wi-fi-password-in-the-world.html

However, this story has, on the whole, flown under the radar. Most tech outlets didn't cover it (Ars Technica and The Register being exceptions) for reasons that escape me.  

1) Google knows where you've been and they might be holding your encryption keys. June 21, 2011 by Donovan Colbert for TechRepublic. This is the first article I was able to find on the subject. Colbert was not happy, writing:

 ... my corporate office has a public, protected wireless access point. The idea that every Android device that connects with that access point shares our private corporate access key with Google is pretty unacceptable ... This isn't just a trivial concern. The fact that my company can easily lose control of their own proprietary WPA2 encryption keys just by allowing a user with an Android device to use our wireless network is significant. It illustrates a basic lack of understanding on the ethics of dealing with sensitive corporate and personal data on the behalf of the engineers, programmers and leadership at Google. Honestly, if there is any data that shouldn't be harvested, stored and synched automatically between devices, it is encryption keys, passcodes and passwords.


https://gizmodo.com/google-knows-the-wi-fi-passwords-of-all-android-users-1324036508

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/google-wifi-passwords-android_n_3936809




[#] Fri Jun 14 2019 00:08:35 EDT from ParanoidDelusions @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Since then, the company I was managing in Ohio got bought out by a San Jose based medical company and I got laid off. 

Tech Republic had a reorg, and along with most of the staff, I got cut. 

I've been unable to get picked up by any technology media outlets. I had a couple of gigs for Android Authority. At one point, Jason Perlow of ZDNet and Robert Scoble both scolded me that my right leaning opinions were killing my tech blogging career. Since then, both have de-friended me over Trump. 

I met a guy out here who worked for HP. He was very excited about my experience and skills and wanted to have me come on as part of his team. I submitted my resume, and never heard from him again. 

I'm pretty convinced that if the company is based in San Jose or part of the network of Silicon Valley tech companies - my career is pretty much over - and that it has a lot to do with my politics. 

I haven't been kind to Intel, either, who was a former employer. I applied for a job out here in Arizona when I first moved back - and I was qualified, I tapped people I knew inside - I have previous Intel blue-badge experience which has traditionally been a BIG asset when they are hiring, because they don't really have to put you into Intel U for "WAI" (Working at Intel) orientation or teach you about the company values and all that indoctrination. Never heard back from them. Interestingly, every single last person I maintained good relationships with at Intel got laid off in their last round of cuts. I don't think that has anything to do with me - it has to do with all of them being white guys over 40 except for one Indian guy who is almost 40 who grew up in New Jersey and always hung out with the Intel White Guys cliques. 


So... the point is... The San Jose left does seem to have a lot of reach... 

 
At the very least, I think working at Intel actually did cause me some post traumatic stress disorder. Every couple of years I have horrible nightmares where I have gone back to work there. 

Image result for tin foil hat


 



[#] Sat Jun 15 2019 08:03:50 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

waitwaitwhat ... go back to that Android thing.

I knew about Google maintaining a list of wireless networks, their SSIDs and MAC addresses. I consider that to be public information because when you operate a wireless network you're basically *broadcasting* that information to anyone who has a radio on that frequency. And the value of that information for geolocation is pretty clear.

But ... encryption keys? When you connect to wifi from an Android device, your encryption key is captured and sent to Google? That's over the line, and it's enough to flip my opinion on whether that is acceptable behavior.
On what basis do they claim this has any value to the customer?

Go to page: First ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13