[PROXYPER] need a non-TCP/IP personal proxy

Discussion:

Patcat88

2003-05-19 05:16:33 UTC

I have 12 computers (486s to P3s) running the distributed.net client
24/7. They are all conected by ethernet LAN running NetBEUI (no TCP/IP).
I can't have TCP/IP due to security issues and the complecity involved.
Right now they connect to Internet Keyservers via PPPOE on a DSL
connection. PPP over ethernet (PPPOE), a kind of encapulation ao that
PPP packet can go into a ethernet packet. But this connection is
extreamly congested. Keyservers never resolve or just timeout, or have
no entries. I tryed not using the main Keyserver and usinga a smaller
(Wisconsion) keyserver and that didn't work. It never resolved. I was
thinking of using a personal proxy until I found out that it required
TCP/IP. I was thinking of a system that the buffers are on a remote
system mapped to a local drive letter. Each client has their own buffer
on a remote system. The remote system refreshes the buffers when they
become low. Is this possable and is there any software to do this. I was
thinnking this when I found about SneakerNetting.

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to ***@lists.distributed.net

Patcat88

2003-05-19 05:16:33 UTC

Permalink

Messenger, Mark

2003-05-19 05:16:34 UTC

Permalink

Kind of a dumb question, but have you considered running a little NAT action
on your network?

A NAT setup would go something like this:

Assuming you have a Cisco 675/678:
1) Your DSL comes into the Cisco, which acts as your NAT and DHCP server.
(This requires you to set up the Cisco as a DHCP client and server).
2) You connect the Ethernet side of the cisco to your hub/switch.
3) You set all of your client computers (Your Dnet boxen :P ) to use DHCP.
4) All of your client machines receive 10.0.0.* or 192.168.0.* addresses
from the Cisco.
5) All of your client machines should be able to access the 'net (and
thusly, Dnet's servers) without a problem.

If this does not work in your environment due to the "security issues" you
mentioned, you may wish to use a different network model.

Hope this helps.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patcat88 [mailto:***@SNET.Net]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 9:38 PM
To: ***@lists.distributed.net
Subject: [PROXYPER] need a non-TCP/IP personal proxy

I have 12 computers (486s to P3s) running the distributed.net client
24/7. They are all conected by ethernet LAN running NetBEUI (no TCP/IP).
I can't have TCP/IP due to security issues and the complecity involved.
Right now they connect to Internet Keyservers via PPPOE on a DSL
connection. PPP over ethernet (PPPOE), a kind of encapulation ao that
PPP packet can go into a ethernet packet. But this connection is
extreamly congested. Keyservers never resolve or just timeout, or have
no entries. I tryed not using the main Keyserver and usinga a smaller
(Wisconsion) keyserver and that didn't work. It never resolved. I was
thinking of using a personal proxy until I found out that it required
TCP/IP. I was thinking of a system that the buffers are on a remote
system mapped to a local drive letter. Each client has their own buffer
on a remote system. The remote system refreshes the buffers when they
become low. Is this possable and is there any software to do this. I was
thinnking this when I found about SneakerNetting.

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to
***@lists.distributed.net

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to
***@lists.distributed.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.distributed.net/pipermail/proxyper/attachments/20020720/1f7cda2a/attachment.htm

Patcat88

2003-05-19 05:16:34 UTC

Permalink

I don't want people to be able to send packets directly to a unprotected
windows 3.11 WFW system. Yes I know about NAT but I'm afraid that NAT
won't map the DATA back to the originating computer properly. Also NAT
doesn't allow incoming connections which I think will be a problem.

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to ***@lists.distributed.net

waldo kitty

2003-05-19 05:16:39 UTC

Permalink

NAT can/will with the proper software... it is called
"portforwarding"...

Post by Patcat88
I don't want people to be able to send packets directly to a unprotected
windows 3.11 WFW system. Yes I know about NAT but I'm afraid that NAT
won't map the DATA back to the originating computer properly. Also NAT
doesn't allow incoming connections which I think will be a problem.
--

waldo kitty

2003-05-19 05:16:40 UTC

Permalink

NAT can/will with the proper software... it is called
"portforwarding"...

--
_\/
(@@) Waldo Kitty, Waldo's Place USA
__ooO_( )_Ooo_____________________ telnet://bbs.wpusa.dynip.com
_|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____ http://www.wpusa.dynip.com
____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____ ftp://ftp.wpusa.dynip.com
_|_Eat_SPAM_to_email_me!_YUM!__|_____|_____ wkitty42 (at) alltel.net
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to ***@lists.distributed.net

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to ***@lists.distributed.net

Messenger, Mark

2003-05-19 05:16:34 UTC

Permalink

Messenger, Mark

2003-05-19 05:16:34 UTC

Permalink

Your first concern would be addressed by NAT-ing your computers behind your
DSL computer/router. Private IP ranges are considered non-routable, and
thusly, not attackable from the outside world (generally speaking. Yes, I
know there are ways to fool some routers/NAT daemons into faking a session
to an internal host. This is a rare case, as I understand it).

As far as Dnet goes, the lack of incoming connections is not a problem. I
have verified that the Dnet client (and the Dnetd personal proxy) will work
just fine on NAT-ed IP addresses. I run this at home on my 5-odd working
machines.

Does this answer your question? If not, let me know :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Patcat88 [mailto:***@SNET.Net]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 6:55 PM
To: ***@lists.distributed.net
Subject: Re: [PROXYPER] need a non-TCP/IP personal proxy

I don't want people to be able to send packets directly to a unprotected
windows 3.11 WFW system. Yes I know about NAT but I'm afraid that NAT
won't map the DATA back to the originating computer properly. Also NAT
doesn't allow incoming connections which I think will be a problem.

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to
***@lists.distributed.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.distributed.net/pipermail/proxyper/attachments/20020720/4454245d/attachment.htm

Patcat88

2003-05-19 05:16:35 UTC

Permalink

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.distributed.net/pipermail/proxyper/attachments/20020720/6b1a9e06/attachment.htm

waldo kitty

2003-05-19 05:16:39 UTC

Permalink

TCP/IP is not just internet oriented... TCP/IP has been used for a lot
of networking stuff long before the internet came about... remember, the
internet (as we know it today) has only been around for a decade or
so... anyway, TCP/IP is not limited just to the internet and one would
be foolish to restrict one's self from using it whenever they can...
look around you... look at the other networks and their protocols...
where are they today? in many cases, they are defunct and obsolete if
they are even still being used at all...

Post by Messenger, Mark
I can easily make a NAT using Linux or my copy of Advanced Server. A
DHCP server will work. I just think that TCP/IP is a internet thing
and should stay exactly that, a Internet thing.

Post by Messenger, Mark
Your first concern would be addressed by NAT-ing your computers
behind your DSL computer/router. Private IP ranges are considered
non-routable, and thusly, not attackable from the outside world
(generally speaking. Yes, I know there are ways to fool some
routers/NAT daemons into faking a session to an internal host. This
is a rare case, as I understand it).
As far as Dnet goes, the lack of incoming connections is not a
problem. I have verified that the Dnet client (and the Dnetd
personal proxy) will work just fine on NAT-ed IP addresses. I run
this at home on my 5-odd working machines.
Does this answer your question? If not, let me know :)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [PROXYPER] need a non-TCP/IP personal proxy
I don't want people to be able to send packets directly to a
unprotected
windows 3.11 WFW system. Yes I know about NAT but I'm afraid that NAT
won't map the DATA back to the originating computer properly. Also NAT
doesn't allow incoming connections which I think will be a problem.
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to

-- To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to

waldo kitty

2003-05-19 05:16:40 UTC

Permalink

-- To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to

Patcat88

2003-05-19 05:16:35 UTC

Permalink

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.distributed.net/pipermail/proxyper/attachments/20020720/6b1a9e06/attachment-0001.htm

Messenger, Mark

2003-05-19 05:16:35 UTC

Permalink

Messenger, Mark

2003-05-19 05:16:35 UTC

Permalink

Fear not, for NAT was designed explicitly for the situation you describe :)

( To allow private networks to have gated Internet access without taking up
gobs of limited IP addresses )

My $.02, anyway.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patcat88 [mailto:***@SNET.Net]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 8:59 PM
To: ***@lists.distributed.net
Subject: Re: [PROXYPER] need a non-TCP/IP personal proxy

I can easily make a NAT using Linux or my copy of Advanced Server. A DHCP
server will work. I just think that TCP/IP is a internet thing and should
stay exactly that, a Internet thing.

"Messenger, Mark" wrote:

Your first concern would be addressed by NAT-ing your computers behind your
DSL computer/router. Private IP ranges are considered non-routable, and
thusly, not attackable from the outside world (generally speaking. Yes, I
know there are ways to fool some routers/NAT daemons into faking a session
to an internal host. This is a rare case, as I understand it).

As far as Dnet goes, the lack of incoming connections is not a problem. I
have verified that the Dnet client (and the Dnetd personal proxy) will work
just fine on NAT-ed IP addresses. I run this at home on my 5-odd working
machines.

Does this answer your question? If not, let me know :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Patcat88 [ mailto:***@SNET.Net <mailto:***@SNET.Net> ]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 6:55 PM
To: ***@lists.distributed.net
Subject: Re: [PROXYPER] need a non-TCP/IP personal proxy

I don't want people to be able to send packets directly to a unprotected
windows 3.11 WFW system. Yes I know about NAT but I'm afraid that NAT
won't map the DATA back to the originating computer properly. Also NAT
doesn't allow incoming connections which I think will be a problem.
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to
***@lists.distributed.net

-- To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to
***@lists.distributed.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.distributed.net/pipermail/proxyper/attachments/20020720/138a13f4/attachment.htm

Messenger, Mark

2003-05-19 05:16:35 UTC

Permalink

Messenger, Mark

2003-05-19 05:16:40 UTC

Permalink

The Dnet client does not need incoming connections to function.
To allow this would be a mild security risk, anyway.

-----Original Message-----
From: waldo kitty [mailto:***@alltel.net]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:53 PM
To: ***@lists.distributed.net
Subject: Re: [PROXYPER] need a non-TCP/IP personal proxy

NAT can/will with the proper software... it is called
"portforwarding"...

***@lists.distributed.net
--
_\/
(@@) Waldo Kitty, Waldo's Place USA
__ooO_( )_Ooo_____________________ telnet://bbs.wpusa.dynip.com
_|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____ http://www.wpusa.dynip.com
____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____ ftp://ftp.wpusa.dynip.com
_|_Eat_SPAM_to_email_me!_YUM!__|_____|_____ wkitty42 (at) alltel.net
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to
***@lists.distributed.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.distributed.net/pipermail/proxyper/attachments/20020722/b943b8a3/attachment.htm

Messenger, Mark

2003-05-19 05:16:40 UTC

Permalink

According to http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history2.shtml
TCP/IP replaced NCP on the net in 1983, roughly 20 years ago :)

The original ARPANet (the Internet's early name) was created circa 1968
wayyyyyy before TCP was even thought up.

A quick google search for "Internet history TCP/IP" should yield you a fair
bit of background reading.

Hope this helps ya.

-----Original Message-----
From: waldo kitty [mailto:***@alltel.net]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:57 PM
To: ***@lists.distributed.net
Subject: Re: [PROXYPER] need a non-TCP/IP personal proxy

TCP/IP is not just internet oriented... TCP/IP has been used for a lot
of networking stuff long before the internet came about... remember, the
internet (as we know it today) has only been around for a decade or
so... anyway, TCP/IP is not limited just to the internet and one would
be foolish to restrict one's self from using it whenever they can...
look around you... look at the other networks and their protocols...
where are they today? in many cases, they are defunct and obsolete if
they are even still being used at all...

Post by Messenger, Mark
Your first concern would be addressed by NAT-ing your computers
behind your DSL computer/router. Private IP ranges are considered
non-routable, and thusly, not attackable from the outside world
(generally speaking. Yes, I know there are ways to fool some
routers/NAT daemons into faking a session to an internal host. This
is a rare case, as I understand it).
As far as Dnet goes, the lack of incoming connections is not a
problem. I have verified that the Dnet client (and the Dnetd
personal proxy) will work just fine on NAT-ed IP addresses. I run
this at home on my 5-odd working machines.
Does this answer your question? If not, let me know :)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [PROXYPER] need a non-TCP/IP personal proxy
I don't want people to be able to send packets directly to a
unprotected
windows 3.11 WFW system. Yes I know about NAT but I'm afraid that
NAT
won't map the DATA back to the originating computer properly. Also
NAT
doesn't allow incoming connections which I think will be a problem.
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to

-- To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to

--
_\/
(@@) Waldo Kitty, Waldo's Place USA
__ooO_( )_Ooo_____________________ telnet://bbs.wpusa.dynip.com
_|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____ http://www.wpusa.dynip.com
____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____ ftp://ftp.wpusa.dynip.com
_|_Eat_SPAM_to_email_me!_YUM!__|_____|_____ wkitty42 (at) alltel.net
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe proxyper' to
***@lists.distributed.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.distributed.net/pipermail/proxyper/attachments/20020722/5d4cf0b8/attachment.htm

waldo kitty

2003-05-19 05:16:40 UTC

Permalink

Post by Messenger, Mark
According to http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history2.shtml
TCP/IP replaced NCP on the net in 1983, roughly 20 years ago :)

yup... its as i said <<GG>>

Post by Messenger, Mark
The original ARPANet (the Internet's early name) was created circa
1968 wayyyyyy before TCP was even thought up.
A quick google search for "Internet history TCP/IP" should yield you a
fair bit of background reading.
Hope this helps ya.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [PROXYPER] need a non-TCP/IP personal proxy
TCP/IP is not just internet oriented... TCP/IP has been used for a lot
of networking stuff long before the internet came about... remember, the
internet (as we know it today) has only been around for a decade or
so... anyway, TCP/IP is not limited just to the internet and one would
be foolish to restrict one's self from using it whenever they can...
look around you... look at the other networks and their protocols...
where are they today? in many cases, they are defunct and obsolete if
they are even still being used at all...

This