http://www.samair.ru/proxy/
Tracker
people, please contact the host of this IP address and ask them if you
can use their proxy server and see what they say. Don’t be so freakin
stupid.
- List of free anonymous proxy servers - Список
бесплатных анонимных прокси серверов -
Самарский Эфир ::СПБО! :: Знакомства в Самаре :: Бизнес-партнерство
:: Реклама у нас :: Администрация
Here is a list of actually working HTTP anonymous proxies. Proxy servers
on the list bellow are put here for educational
purpose only. Use them to improve your privacy online, at your own risk
and not for malicious deeds! Problems\questions?
Maybe our forum will help you.
Ниже приведен список гарантированно рабочих на момент проверки анонимных
HTTP прокси серверов. Эта
информация предоставляется здесь совершенно свободно и в целях повышения
Вашей скорости и
безопасности работы в сети Интернет. Вы не должны использовать прокси
серверы для каких-либо
злонамеренных поступков. Разрешать проблемы связанные с безопасностью и
прокси Вам поможет наш форум.
SOCKS servers :: Proxychecking :: Forum ::
Проксичекер :: Форум
Наш портал бесплатных объявлений: проверено -
ограничений нет!
last check - June 19 2003 total 1 004 proxy
servers (on this page - 1-100)
IP:port Type SSL? Country
203.13.25.50:8000 anonymous Australia
199.8.200.90:8000 anonymous Australia
* + 199.8.200.90
|___ 21 File Transfer Protocol [Control]
|___ 220 FTP server ready...
|___ 80 World Wide Web HTTP
|___ HTTP/1.1 200 OK..Server: WebSTAR/4.5(SSL) ID/70985..Date: Tue, 02
Sep 2003
Tracker
Bit Twister
> http://www.samair.ru/proxy/ Port scanned Sept 03. You knowledgeable
> people, please contact the host of this IP address and ask them if you
> can use their proxy server and see what they say. Don’t be so freakin
> stupid.
You are the security expert, why did you post that crap in the news
group? I guess you are trying to hit the top ten with the abuse dept.
Jason
bwhahaha tracker and security expert?? Now thats an oxymoron if I ever
saw one.
Jason
Mike
"Tracker" <"snailmail(remove/valid)222000"@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F5426E1...@yahoo.com...
> http://www.samair.ru/proxy/ Port scanned Sept 03. You knowledgeable
> people, please contact the host of this IP address and ask them if you
> can use their proxy server and see what they say. Don't be so freakin
> stupid.
What is your point exactly? These lists exist everywhere. I found this one
in a few seconds http://www.proxybench.com/ It lists proxies and open
relays. Far more useful to point people at say
http://mail-abuse.org/tsi/ar-fix.html to tell them how to stop being a
relay.
No big deal.
What would be more useful is telling people how to avoid being on these
lists in the first place by using firewalls and AV software.
If you are going to promote yourself as a 'security expert', tell us
something we don't already know and provide some useful information and not
ramblings about VPNs being placed by hackers to infiltrate your system etc.
BTW, your web site http://www.securityminds2003.com is STILL down.
erewhon
of the o/s and applications leaves them open to compromise.It is criminal in
many countries to access such machines without consent, but that does not
stop such activities.
The reason people buy locks for their houses, is not because it is against
the law to not have a lock, but to prevent the abuse of trust that leaving
it unlocked exposes them to.
In the same way, it is not illegal to connect a 'wide open' machine to the
Internet. However, best practice indicates that you should take similar
preventative steps to reduce compromise.
Use a firewall, patch your o/s and apps, and update anti-virus. It is not
rocket-science.
Bleating 'isn't it terrible that hackers/crackers break into PC's' is not
going to reduce such incidents. Groups such as this which share exploits,
compromises, best practice, left-field thinking, are not the cause of the
problem.
The root cause of the problem are the vendors of the bugged operating
systems and apps which allows this to occur.
The discovery of these holes is a technical challenge to find, to patch & to
exploit.
Cure the disease, not the Doctors.
Whoever
> The reason people buy locks for their houses, is not because it is against
> the law to not have a lock, but to prevent the abuse of trust that leaving
> it unlocked exposes them to.
>
> In the same way, it is not illegal to connect a 'wide open' machine to the
> Internet. However, best practice indicates that you should take similar
> preventative steps to reduce compromise.
You might ask why some OS vendors don't act like housebuilders and provide
effective locks on systems when they build them.
Forgotten Boy
That's a great website, but the proxies don't stay active enough for my
liking. I'm in a situation where I need to have access to a dependable
proxy from either the U.S. or Canada.
Whoever
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309021601300.32711-100000@c941211-a>,
> nob...@devnull.none says...
> There are no effective locks on a house - as long as you have windows
> you are open to the world. All a lock does is slow them down - much like
> a password.
Effective doesn't mean invulnerable or perfect. Most network security
experts will tell you that no individual security measure provides
perfect security. The objective for both locks and computer security is
to:
1. Make the attacker look for an easier target and
2. increase the time required for a successful attack to longer than it
would take to be caught in the act and
3. provide discouragement by making it more likely that a successful (or
unsuccessful) attacker can be identified.
sponge
wrote:
Agreed with the latter part, not with the former.
In this day and age, including locks on the house is necessary. I
don't know of any homebuilder who doesn't, so why shouldn't software
or OS manufacturers?
Unfortunately, a few OS and software vendors
(*cough*MICROSOFT**coughcough*) cross the line into negligence,
possibly worse. It is one thing not to include a lock with the house,
or a cheap one, but it's another thing entirely to include doors and
windows designed ideally for breaking and entering. This is the
situation with ActiveX and File/Print Sharing. It is unconscionable
that these features should be active by default - particularly, FPS.
Especially when the dangers have been known and actualized for years
and through many releases of the OS.
Sponge
Sponge's Anti-Spyware Source
www.geocities.com/yosponge
Tracker
Forgotten Boy wrote:
Because I walk into my doctors records office and can steal medical records
doesnt give me the right to do so.
The Best Kept Secrets of Backdoors, Cracking, Firewalls, Hacking,
Proxies, The Internet, Trojan Horses, Virtual Private Networks, Virus,
Windows and different types of Servers can be found at:
http://geocities.com/secure2003222000
Tracker
Lee Higdon
>
> Because I walk into my doctors records office and can steal medical
records
> doesnt give me the right to do so.
>
Whitehatter
For the love all that's unholy, would you make up your mind? Either you
agree that unless the host explicitly permits access, access is denied.
Or you agree that any host that does not explicitly deny access permits
it.
First you tell people that using or accessing a system without express
consent is wrong... and then you probe and enumerate someone elses
system, post the information to a series of security and hacking groups,
and then have the gall to request someone ELSE contact the host admin.
Jeebus wept.
Any credibility you might have hoped for (guffaw), you've utterly
destroyed in less than 3 days.
Good job.
n1...@hotmail.com
>
> Because I walk into my doctors records office and can steal medical records
> doesnt give me the right to do so.
>
But closing an account and then using said accout is okay?
Nasty
> situation with ActiveX and File/Print Sharing. It is
> unconscionable that these features should be active by
> default - particularly, FPS.
Dang now I'm confused again. I have win98SE and the File/Print Sharing are
turned off by default. Is it different on other versions of windows? Don't
mean to post such silly question but I really am curious.
--
"Don't Dream It.
Be It"
Dr. Frank-N-Furter
(a scientist)
nu...@zilch.com
<NastyS...@nospamYahoo.com> wrote:
>. This is the
>> situation with ActiveX and File/Print Sharing. It is
>> unconscionable that these features should be active by
>> default - particularly, FPS.
>
> Dang now I'm confused again. I have win98SE and the File/Print Sharing are
>turned off by default.
Perhaps sponge had in mind the default bindings of internet adapters
to NetBios leaving port 139 open.
>Is it different on other versions of windows?
No, starting with Win 95.
Nasty
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 15:48:25 -0400, "Nasty"
> <NastyS...@nospamYahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> . This is the
>>> situation with ActiveX and File/Print Sharing. It is
>>> unconscionable that these features should be active by
>>> default - particularly, FPS.
>>
>> Dang now I'm confused again. I have win98SE and the
>> File/Print Sharing are turned off by default.
>
> Perhaps sponge had in mind the default bindings of
> internet adapters to NetBios leaving port 139 open.
Oh, OK gotcha. I already went in and shut down port 139 and 137
>> Is it different on other versions of windows?
>
> No, starting with Win 95.
>
>
> Art
> http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
Thanks, I may ask some stupid questions sometimes but I want to learn all I
can about windows since it's the most widely used OS. Then I will move on to
Linux and UNIX.
Tracker
Mike
>
>
> n1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Tracker <"snailmail(remove/valid)222000"@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3F557AD1...@yahoo.com>...
> > >
> > > Because I walk into my doctors records office and can steal medical
records
> > > doesnt give me the right to do so.
> > >
> >
> > But closing an account and then using said accout is okay?
>
> For testing purposes, yes
Theft is theft no matter how you dress it up.
Yes officer, I was just tesing to see if I could break into that rental car
I just returned........
Thore Schmechtig
> Proxies, The Internet, Trojan Horses, Virtual Private Networks, Virus,
> Windows and different types of Servers can be found at:
Stop lying.
Mimic
>
>
> n1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Tracker <"snailmail(remove/valid)222000"@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3F557AD1...@yahoo.com>...
> > >
> > > Because I walk into my doctors records office and can steal medical
records
> > > doesnt give me the right to do so.
> > >
> >
> > But closing an account and then using said accout is okay?
>
> For testing purposes, yes
>
>
>
>
So if i break into a major goverment installation to test its security,
thats okay is it ?
...dumbass
--
Mimic
"Without Knowledge you have fear, With fear you create your own nightmares."
"There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand Binary,
and those that dont."
n1...@hotmail.com
>
>
> n1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Tracker <"snailmail(remove/valid)222000"@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:<3F557AD1...@yahoo.com>...
>> >
>> > Because I walk into my doctors records office and can steal
>> > medical records doesnt give me the right to do so.
>> >
>>
>> But closing an account and then using said accout is okay?
>
> For testing purposes, yes
No, it isn't. If you don't inform the provider and receive permission
to do so, you're stealing just like the hackers you claim to oppose.
Cap
"Whitehatter" <reply-to-...@donot.emailme> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.03.08....@donot.emailme...
> Any credibility you might have hoped for (guffaw), you've utterly
> destroyed in less than 3 days.
>
> Good job.
How about 5 years...