DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter Pipeline
| What public IP does it give you?
This all seems well and good, but if all the traffic is being proxied through just a few public IP's, or a contiguous block/range, all this attention just made the ISP's job that much easier.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
shearer
Northern Lights
Premium
join:2002-06-18
Toronto, ON
clubs: | Concur.
All the ISP needs to do is throttle connections to/from SecureIX IPs. |
|
pulp39
Premium
join:2003-01-28
Ottawa, ON
3 edits | VPN beats throttling! :))))
How can ISP do that, legally? It's a VPN service. Also, you can get the same results via any VPN service. We have just busted ISP throttling. I tried it and am getting dang close to my 6000/800 speeds. Poney up the $ for a pay VPN service if SecureIX goes down and you are in a throttle free zone anyways. Say bye bye to Cisco P-Cubes! 
In the mean time, thank you SecureIX for showing us the way!!!  |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | should have spent all that money...
... on upgrading the congested nodes with fiber.
This traffic shaping was a huge waste of dollars |
|
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL |  Why pay?
Why pay when you can use Tor : ) |
|
pulp39
Premium
join:2003-01-28
Ottawa, ON
| said by brianiscool  :Why pay when you can use Tor : ) What's Tor? Another free VPN service? I know of several cheap ones in Europe, but not free. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to brianiscool
said by brianiscool :Why pay when you can use Tor : ) Yeah, sure, abuse Tor... That's nice. That's will surely make Tor operators more likely to shutdown their nodes and reduce the capacity of the network. 
--
Prove it... |
|
JJV
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Seattle, WA
clubs: | reply to brianiscool
Tor is very slow and not intended for large downloads. |
|
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | Tor ---> »tor.eff.org/ free proxy service. This is better than VPN cause they can not trace the source unless you're the government. |
|
pulp39
Premium
join:2003-01-28
Ottawa, ON | Thanks brian, coolness! |
|
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| Funny.
Whats funny is they think that by Creating a VPN, the Intelligence agencies can not monitor your traffic. These are people who have never heard of Desktop/OS Mirroring. An agency with the appropriate taps in place and the right people paid off can monitor exactly what is happening on your PC from virtually anywhere. These agencies also have the ability to decrypt nearly on-the-fly.
SecurIX might also be an organization setup by people who have a vested interest in these "Agencies" to help tie an "IP" Address to specific activity, as well as the person(s) behind that IP. An extra step means 2 extra seams. We all know that the more seams insulation has the more likely it is for heat or cold to escape. Same theory applies here.
If this takes off, expect ISP's to clamp down even further. Starting an user with few or no open ports, and placing all ports on a pay x$ per port setup fee. Once they see enough traffic go over a "Tunneled+Encrypted VPN" they'll be suspect anyway.
So Good Luck. |
|
voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to shearer
Re: What public IP does it give you?
True. But it's one thing to throttle P2P traffic on the basis that it opens up tons of connections and brings your network to a crawl. It's a completely different thing to throttle traffic to a specific site. They'd be entering fairly dangerous legal territory in that case. They'd then be legally held responsible for anything bad done over their network since they're now monitoring what goes on in a very specific way.
The VPN solution seems pretty solid. I don't think the ISPs are willing to cross this new line. |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | reply to pulp39
Re: VPN beats throttling! :))))
How can they do that legally?
Read your TOS...an ISP can shape traffic as it needs or wants... |
|
yaau
| reply to ctceo
Where this could go
95%ile billing models |
|
pulp39
Premium
join:2003-01-28
Ottawa, ON
| reply to AnonProxy
Re: VPN beats throttling! :))))
said by AnonProxy :How can they do that legally? Read your TOS...an ISP can shape traffic as it needs or wants... Traffic shaping is fine but complete throttling of ALL VPN services? No way... |
|
c0de
join:2004-10-14
Richmond, VA
| reply to pulp39
Re: Why pay?
said by pulp39 :said by brianiscool :Why pay when you can use Tor : ) What's Tor? Another free VPN service? I know of several cheap ones in Europe, but not free. Please do not use Tor for your torrenting. As a Tor node operator, I can tell you how bad torrent downloads effect my node, and I have thus had to block a large number of ports and throttle my node because of torrent/Tor abuse. |
|
pulp39
Premium
join:2003-01-28
Ottawa, ON | No problem c0de, I will only use SecureIx/Relakks etc... if Ted decides to throttle my area, was just curious. |
|
pulp39
Premium
join:2003-01-28
Ottawa, ON
4 edits | reply to ctceo
Re: Funny.
said by ctceo :Whats funny is they think that by Creating a VPN, the Intelligence agencies can not monitor your traffic. Don't give a rats ass about that, many just want no throttling. 
VPN = no throttling. Simple as that and all we care about. We always assume Big Brother can see everything if he chooses to work for a LONG time on your properly secured your box. |
|
c0de
join:2004-10-14
Richmond, VA
| reply to ctceo
Paranoid?
Also this technology you speak of, how would one go about a mirror image of what i do on my computer, is this a MS backdoor? Is this exclusive to certian OSes, if so I do not wish to use these products anymore. Or is this just a matter of the said agency tapping in like they do with a phone line, in which case I assume that if they are tapping your internet connection, they would not be able to get a mirror image but only be able to see what is transmitted over that line. And furthermore, if you are using AES encryption or Blowfish or some similar form of 128bit encryption, it would take even the most powerful super computers days to try and find a hash key, assuming they do not have your encryption key. Also most AES/Blowfish encryption is a much much high bit level, making it even harder for it to be cracked. So if you were using point-to-point encryption and VPN or any form of ipsec passthough, the feds would not be able to see what data was being transmitted, only that there is transmission (they wouldnt even be able to get header info or actual size value due to compression). And if they were to find the destination and find out what was coming off that end (out of the hundredes of outgoing/incoming data from different users) they would still have a hard time presenting a case proving it was you transmitting that data, even with the company testifying that you connected. |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| .
This just shows that the great and vast community of internet users basically circumvent these issues for little or no cost.
ISP spends money to implement trafficshaping.
Users go encrypted for free.
ISP spends money to implement encrypted trafficshaping.
Users go to SecureIX/VPN for free.
ISP will now spend money to implement SecureIX blocking.
Users will find some other solution, most likely for free.
ISP will now spend money to block the other solution.
Users will.... well, you know the drill by now. 
The bigger problem here actually is that all that spent money will eventually filter down to the price users pay for their internet connections.
And I actually believe it would have been cheaper for the ISP to just upgrade the darn bandwidth and capacity of their network instead of continuing to try and block stuff. At least that way all users know that their price got jacked up to implement more bandwidth, instead of it being jacked up because they want to implement more restrictions.
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. |
|
