Anonymous Servers - Using The Internet To Store Data

Author

Using The Internet To Store Data

Galicean

2005-08-09, 8:47 pm

Local Radio

2005-08-09, 8:47 pm

In article <2oqfytyiahqr$.1s675tc3eb57m$.dlg@40tude.net>
Galicean <TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote:
>
> I have met a colleague who has demonstrated the ability to use the Internet
> as a data storage medium. He does this through the use of a program that
> tracks packets and/or files. These packet headers have been altered so that
> they never land and continuously bounce from server to server until the
> program calls them home. Home is wherever he wants, his computer, another
> IP address, wherever.
>
> He showed me this technology, including the data where each packet had
> traveled, then after 48 hours, he corralled all the data to my computer
> intact. Approximately 10MB. It left from his computer overseas and landed
> on mine in the States.
>
> This ability to circulate data endlessly and then retrieve it is an amazing
> storage concept for any data including data that could not be traditionally
> retrieved in a complete loss of power. That's where the idea came from,
> during the power grid catastrophe in the Northeast US about two years ago.
>
> Comments appreciated especially those that address how it is he
> accomplishes this feat.

BWAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

(PeteCresswell)

2005-08-09, 8:47 pm

Per Galicean:
>Comments appreciated

Sounds like spam may be about to slip down to the #2 problem for ISPs.
--
PeteCresswell

Jörg68

2005-08-09, 8:47 pm

"Galicean" <TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote in message
news:2oqfytyiahqr$.1s675tc3eb57m$.dlg@40tude.net...
>I have met a colleague who has demonstrated the ability to use the Internet
> as a data storage medium. He does this through the use of a program that
> tracks packets and/or files. These packet headers have been altered so
> that
> they never land and continuously bounce from server to server until the
> program calls them home. Home is wherever he wants, his computer, another
> IP address, wherever.
>
That perpetual motion machine he invented; how's that one holding up?

----== Posted via webservertalk.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.webservertalk.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Alan Connor

2005-08-10, 2:46 am

On alt.privacy.anon-server, in
<08vif15n93pju8jl3ikalhap6nmhr39efd@4ax.com>, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

> Per Galicean:
>
>
> Sounds like spam may be about to slip down to the #2 problem
> for ISPs.

No kidding, Pete. I know a little bit about the TCP/IP protocol,
and that scheme does sound feasible.

It also sounds fairly easy to defeat. Packets with the sort of
addressing/flags that would have to be involved would simply be
dumped (if they aren't already).It wouldn't take a lot of massive
data losses to convince the people trying to do this to look
elsewhere.

I think the OP is just speculating. His/her/its post was
obviously very carefully prepared and edited. It wasn't
off-the-cuff. The absence of links is telling.

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

Note: Posts from anonumous sources go unread here. Yes, I can
read the headers without openning the body. A single keystroke
is all it takes. Everyone is anonymous on the Usenet unless
proven otherwise via independent corroboration. I don't want
to hear from people too stupid to realize that.

Do they honestly believe my name is "Alan Connor"? On what
basis? Anyone can put whatever they want in the From line.
Is the person that the Earthlink account I am using belongs
to me? On what basis would anyone assume that? How do they
know I'm not logging into the computer this seems to be
originating from, from halfway around the world. Or just
sending it files and remote commands through a chain of
private shell accounts? They don't.

Nor can they find out. I'm just as anonymous as they are.
Maybe more so, if any of the above are true.

AC

--
alanconnor AT
earthlink DOT net. Use your real return
address or I'll never know you even tried
to mail me. http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp

stingray@trilightzone.org

2005-08-10, 2:46 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Galicean wrote:
> I have met a colleague who has demonstrated the ability to use the Internet
> as a data storage medium. He does this through the use of a program that
> tracks packets and/or files. These packet headers have been altered so that
> they never land and continuously bounce from server to server until the
> program calls them home. Home is wherever he wants, his computer, another
> IP address, wherever.
>
> He showed me this technology, including the data where each packet had
> traveled, then after 48 hours, he corralled all the data to my computer
> intact. Approximately 10MB. It left from his computer overseas and landed
> on mine in the States.
>
> This ability to circulate data endlessly and then retrieve it is an amazing
> storage concept for any data including data that could not be traditionally
> retrieved in a complete loss of power. That's where the idea came from,
> during the power grid catastrophe in the Northeast US about two years ago.
>
> Comments appreciated especially those that address how it is he
> accomplishes this feat.

Well, it sounds interesting ofcourse...
The only way i can think of is that you'd need to own several servers
which keep transmitting the data to each other and for redundancy a
second path changing the order to which server the flow goes and so on.
So the data arrives and is retransmitted without being stored.

My first guess is that if the right software is written (not difficult)
and there is a whole network of servers available to support this with
encryption then yes. Think of the Tor network but then in this scenario ;)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC+ZZLxIyf8ZEFYXARAjJgAKCKY2lWAFpi
BW0bneRsM9f96alGXQCbB8pV
l5s514kHxvmztMHqGBJ1Y6Y=
=dnBR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Regis

2005-08-10, 2:46 am

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:09:43 -0400, Galicean
<TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote:

>I have met a colleague who has demonstrated the ability to use the Internet
>as a data storage medium. He does this through the use of a program that
>tracks packets and/or files. These packet headers have been altered so that
>they never land and continuously bounce from server to server until the
>program calls them home. Home is wherever he wants, his computer, another
>IP address, wherever.
>
>He showed me this technology, including the data where each packet had
>traveled, then after 48 hours, he corralled all the data to my computer
>intact. Approximately 10MB. It left from his computer overseas and landed
>on mine in the States.
>
>This ability to circulate data endlessly and then retrieve it is an amazing
>storage concept for any data including data that could not be traditionally
>retrieved in a complete loss of power. That's where the idea came from,
>during the power grid catastrophe in the Northeast US about two years ago.
>
>Comments appreciated especially those that address how it is he
>accomplishes this feat.

There's so much utter nonsense in that post, that I'm not even going
to bother with addressing it all.

Needless to say, if you want to store data online as a method of
backup, you have several options already available to you, without all
the smoke and mirrors.

1) send the required data as an attachment to one of your e-mail
accounts (size permitting)

2) send the required data to an FTP or web server

3) store the data using one of the many online services dedicated to
this exact purpose

----== Posted via webservertalk.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.webservertalk.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Thrasher Remailer

2005-08-10, 2:46 am

In <2oqfytyiahqr$.1s675tc3eb57m$.dlg@40tude.net>,
TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net wrote:
>I have met a colleague who has demonstrated the ability to use the Internet
>as a data storage medium. He does this through the use of a program that
>tracks packets and/or files. These packet headers have been altered so that
>they never land and continuously bounce from server to server until the
>program calls them home. Home is wherever he wants, his computer, another
>IP address, wherever.
>
>He showed me this technology, including the data where each packet had
>traveled, then after 48 hours, he corralled all the data to my computer
>intact. Approximately 10MB. It left from his computer overseas and landed
>on mine in the States.
>
>This ability to circulate data endlessly and then retrieve it is an amazing
>storage concept for any data including data that could not be traditionally
>retrieved in a complete loss of power. That's where the idea came from,
>during the power grid catastrophe in the Northeast US about two years ago.
>
>Comments appreciated especially those that address how it is he
>accomplishes this feat.

This is snake oil, pure and simple.

The obvious corrolary is that you are a liar.

What you describe is not possible

Frosty Madness

2005-08-10, 7:46 am

The max TTL for an IP packet is 255.

Your friend would have to have a very quick flight.

Frosty.

"Galicean" <TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote in message
news:2oqfytyiahqr$.1s675tc3eb57m$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I have met a colleague who has demonstrated the ability to use the
Internet
> as a data storage medium. He does this through the use of a program that
> tracks packets and/or files. These packet headers have been altered so
that
> they never land and continuously bounce from server to server until the
> program calls them home. Home is wherever he wants, his computer, another
> IP address, wherever.
>
> He showed me this technology, including the data where each packet had
> traveled, then after 48 hours, he corralled all the data to my computer
> intact. Approximately 10MB. It left from his computer overseas and landed
> on mine in the States.
>
> This ability to circulate data endlessly and then retrieve it is an
amazing
> storage concept for any data including data that could not be
traditionally
> retrieved in a complete loss of power. That's where the idea came from,
> during the power grid catastrophe in the Northeast US about two years ago.
>
> Comments appreciated especially those that address how it is he
> accomplishes this feat.

Frosty Madness

2005-08-10, 7:46 am

"Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.invalid> wrote in message
news:pcdKe.3823$RS.943@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> No kidding, Pete. I know a little bit about the TCP/IP protocol,
> and that scheme does sound feasible.

No you don't. Max TTL of an IP packet is 225.

Frosty.

2005-08-10, 7:46 am

Love the 20-line trailer expounding your views on anonymous usenet
posting.

Oops!! - you won't read this - I post anonymously!

TC

Alan Connor

2005-08-10, 7:46 am

On alt.privacy.anon-server, in <21kKe.46775$Di2.33179@fe02.news.easynews.com>, "Frosty Madness" wrote:
>
>
> "Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pcdKe.3823$RS.943@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> No you don't. Max TTL of an IP packet is 225.
>
> Frosty.
>
>

The TTL of a packet can be renewed in the blink of an eye, with
no way to trace the interface where this occurred. Again and
again and again, forever.

Not that this manipulation alone would make the OP's fanciful
scheme workable.

AC

Frosty Madness

2005-08-10, 7:46 am

"Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.invalid> wrote in message
news:OykKe.3961$WD.3621@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

WTF??

You're supposed to have kill filed me. Quit replying to my posts.

And who, or what, pray tell, is going to renew the TTL? If he's talking
about bouncing packets around between 2 tcp servers, well, isn't that about
as trivial as ping pong? And that's hardly using the 'internet' to store
data. It's just bouncing IP packets around.

Frosty.

Jan Panteltje

2005-08-10, 7:46 am

On a sunny day (Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:59:49 GMT) it happened Alan Connor
<zzzzzz@xxx.invalid> wrote in
<pcdKe.3823$RS.943@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:

>On alt.privacy.anon-server, in
><08vif15n93pju8jl3ikalhap6nmhr39efd@4ax.com>, "(PeteCresswell)"
>wrote:
>
>
>No kidding, Pete. I know a little bit about the TCP/IP protocol,
>and that scheme does sound feasible.
TCP packets have a TTL field (time to live, byte 0-255), and every time
it passes a router this will be decremented by that router.
This system ensures packets do not endlessly live.
I dunno if it can be faked so as to not be checked or not decrement.
Storing data on the internet is much easier, all my programs are backed up at
an other public server, easy, as they are GPL.
Some have been there for almost a decade without data curruption.

Alan Connor

2005-08-10, 7:46 am

On alt.privacy.anon-server, in <pcdKe.3823$RS.943@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Alan Connor" wrote:
>

<snip>

"TC"

Why would someone posting from google show up on this thread?

Posting from google is for clueless windoze-weenies playing
with their Mommy's computer.

Because they usually post from somewhere else and are trying
to evade my killfile?

Probably.

The post goes unread, as will any responses to it.

AC

--
People who post through google take and take and never give
back. Ever seen one of them help anyone? If they are asking
about anything but how to use a real newsreader, PLEASE DON'T
HELP THEM. -----------> news.software.readers

Alan Connor

2005-08-10, 7:46 am

On alt.privacy.anon-server, in
<1123669780. b526153347e23d8cc2b5b86d694682aa@teranew
s>, "Jan
Panteltje" wrote:

> On a sunny day (Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:59:49 GMT) it
>happened Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.invalid> wrote in
><pcdKe.3823$RS.943@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>
> TCP packets have a TTL field (time to live, byte 0-255), and
> every time it passes a router this will be decremented by that
> router. This system ensures packets do not endlessly live.

> I dunno if it can be faked so as to not be checked or not
> decrement.

Me either, but it can be incremented by an interface(s)
(functioning as a router) the same way that it is decremented by
a router.

> Storing data on the internet is much easier, all my
> programs are backed up at an other public server, easy, as they
> are GPL. Some have been there for almost a decade without data
> curruption.
>

I agree. The OP's scheme is not a very good one. For lots of
reasons.

He's obviously on a fishing expedition, and there's a lot that
I'm holding back for that reason. If he's too lazy to do his
homework, he's too irresponsible to be taught enough to even
experiment with this idea.

---------

Frosty Madmess!! When am I going to learn that people with
stupid aliases are generally as stupid as the aliases they
hide behind?

AC

Andrew Swallow

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

Alan Connor wrote:

> On alt.privacy.anon-server, in <pcdKe.3823$RS.943@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Alan Connor" wrote:
[snip]

> Posting from google is for clueless windoze-weenies playing
> with their Mommy's computer.
>
> Because they usually post from somewhere else and are trying
> to evade my killfile?

AOL decided to "improve" the service it gives its customers. It stopped
them accessing internet Newsgroups, except those AOL is the monopoly
supplier of.

Knowledgeable AOL users who wish to overcome its maliciously unfit for
purpose product can do so by reading and writing through Google Groups.

Andrew Swallow

(PeteCresswell)

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

Per Andrew Swallow:
>AOL decided to "improve" the service it gives its customers. It stopped
>them accessing internet Newsgroups, except those AOL is the monopoly
>supplier of.

Even via a news reader like Forte's Agent?
--
PeteCresswell

news01@clupeid.demon.co.uk

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> AOL decided to "improve" the service it gives its customers. It stopped
> them accessing internet Newsgroups, except those AOL is the monopoly
> supplier of.
>
> Knowledgeable AOL users who wish to overcome its maliciously unfit for
> purpose product can do so by reading and writing through Google Groups.

(Careful with that logical argument - you're setting yourself up for a
punishment killfiling ;-( )

Some posters are compelled to use servers which drop anything
crossposted to groups they don't carry. Using Google as I'm doing now
is the only way to post to such threads.

Some posters are behind corporate firewalls which insert nonsensical
disclaimers in outgoing emails, imposing impossible conditions on the
moderators of moderated groups. Again, using Google is the only way
under those circumstances to post to such groups.

Jan Panteltje

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On a sunny day (10 Aug 2005 06:49:35 -0700) it happened
news01@clupeid.demon.co.uk wrote in
<1123681775.486690.56720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:

>
>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
>(Careful with that logical argument - you're setting yourself up for a
>punishment killfiling ;-( )
>
>Some posters are compelled to use servers which drop anything
>crossposted to groups they don't carry. Using Google as I'm doing now
>is the only way to post to such threads.
>
>Some posters are behind corporate firewalls which insert nonsensical
>disclaimers in outgoing emails, imposing impossible conditions on the
>moderators of moderated groups. Again, using Google is the only way
>under those circumstances to post to such groups.
From experience:
http://teranews.com/
I signed up for a lifetime for 3$ or something years ago.
You can crosspost to half the universe if you must.
But I use a trick:
I read news via one server, and post via this one.
Because teranews shows a lot of post double.
To READ news there are many freee newsservers.
You need a good newsclient, free agent is OK for MS windows,
use the one I wrote if you use Linux
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/newsflex/index.html
NewsFleX worked for me the last 7 years...

Ralph Bigley

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

In <pcdKe.3823$RS.943@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, zzzzzz@xxx.invalid
wrote:
>On alt.privacy.anon-server, in
><08vif15n93pju8jl3ikalhap6nmhr39efd@4ax.com>, "(PeteCresswell)"
>wrote:
>
>
>No kidding, Pete. I know a little bit about the TCP/IP protocol,
>and that scheme does sound feasible.
>
>It also sounds fairly easy to defeat. Packets with the sort of
>addressing/flags that would have to be involved would simply be
>dumped (if they aren't already).It wouldn't take a lot of massive
>data losses to convince the people trying to do this to look
>elsewhere.
>
>I think the OP is just speculating. His/her/its post was
>obviously very carefully prepared and edited. It wasn't
>off-the-cuff. The absence of links is telling.

It certainly is. It is also indicative of fabrication.
The OP is a minor grade Troll attempting to stir up some shit.

>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Note: Posts from anonumous sources go unread here. Yes, I can
>read the headers without openning the body. A single keystroke

So? Can't everybody?

>is all it takes. Everyone is anonymous on the Usenet unless
>proven otherwise via independent corroboration. I don't want
>to hear from people too stupid to realize that.
>
>Do they honestly believe my name is "Alan Connor"? On what

I dont care what your name is

>basis? Anyone can put whatever they want in the From line.
>Is the person that the Earthlink account I am using belongs
>to me? On what basis would anyone assume that? How do they
>know I'm not logging into the computer this seems to be
>originating from, from halfway around the world. Or just
>sending it files and remote commands through a chain of
>private shell accounts? They don't.
>
>Nor can they find out. I'm just as anonymous as they are.
>Maybe more so, if any of the above are true.

I seriously doubt that. you posted your message from an ISP account with
Earthlink. Also involved was Level 3 Communications, Inc. in Broomfield
Co.

Even if you use a false name and email address, the NNTP-Posting-Host,
Message-ID, X-Trace headers would make finding you very easy for someone
who really wanted to do so. The whole point of remailers is that this
information is not available, making it possible for a person to post
something without fear of repisals from Evil businesses and governments.

Remailers are all about free speech. it's that simple.

Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.c
om!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!stamp
er.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!65807237!
not-for-mail

Newsgroups: alt.cotse,alt.privacy,sci.crypt,alt.privacy.anon-server
From: Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.invalid>
Subject: Re: Using The Internet To Store Data
References: <2oqfytyiahqr$.1s675tc3eb57m$.dlg@40tude.net>
<08vif15n93pju8jl3ikalhap6nmhr39efd@4ax.com>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <pcdKe.3823$RS.943@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:59:49 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.242.3.234
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net 1123639189 4.242.3.234 (Tue, 09
Aug 2005 18:59:49 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:59:49 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net

OrgName: General Electric Company
OrgID: GENERA-9
Address: 1 Independence Way
City: Princeton
StateProv: NJ
PostalCode: 08540
Country: US
NetRange: 3.0.0.0 - 3.255.255.255
CIDR: 3.0.0.0/8
NetName: GE-INTERNET
NetHandle: NET-3-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS.GE.COM
NameServer: NS1.GE.COM
NameServer: NS2.GE.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 1988-02-23
Updated: 2002-09-26

TechHandle: GET2-ORG-ARIN
TechName: General Electric Company
TechPhone: +1-518-612-6672
TechEmail: nic.admin@ge.com

OrgTechHandle: GET2-ORG-ARIN
OrgTechName: General Electric Company
OrgTechPhone: +1-518-612-6672
OrgTechEmail: nic.admin@ge.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-08-09 19:10

OrgName: Level 3 Communications, Inc.
OrgID: LVLT
Address: 1025 Eldorado Blvd.
City: Broomfield
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80021
Country: US

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.level3.net:4321

NetRange: 4.0.0.0 - 4.255.255.255
CIDR: 4.0.0.0/8
NetName: LVLT-ORG-4-8
NetHandle: NET-4-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.LEVEL3.NET
NameServer: NS2.LEVEL3.NET
Comment:
RegDate:
Updated: 2004-06-04

OrgAbuseHandle: APL8-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse POC LVLT
OrgAbusePhone: +1-877-453-8353
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@level3.com

OrgTechHandle: ARINC4-ARIN
OrgTechName: ARIN Contact
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-436-8489
OrgTechEmail: arin-contact@genuity.com

OrgTechHandle: TPL1-ARIN
OrgTechName: Tech POC LVLT
OrgTechPhone: +1-877-453-8353
OrgTechEmail: ipaddressing@level3.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-08-09 19:10

Galicean

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:05:53 -0700, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

> Sounds like spam may be about to slip down to the #2 problem for ISPs.

Exactly the comment that was made by the intelligence community.

Galicean

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 01:59:49 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:

>
> No kidding, Pete. I know a little bit about the TCP/IP protocol,
> and that scheme does sound feasible.

It's past feasible.

> It also sounds fairly easy to defeat. Packets with the sort of
> addressing/flags that would have to be involved would simply be
> dumped (if they aren't already).It wouldn't take a lot of massive
> data losses to convince the people trying to do this to look
> elsewhere.

I can't speak for several other trials that were run under the auspices of
MI and similar testers in closed systems and open ones. I have been told
that the results were very satisfactory or very unsatisfactory if you take
the view from the security stand point yet I am like you, it would seem to
be easily defeated but that apparently is not the case. Why, here I am
speculating. Perhaps it is b/c it can happen without much observation since
the data is literally spread to all possible server sources.

> I think the OP is just speculating. His/her/its post was
> obviously very carefully prepared and edited. It wasn't
> off-the-cuff. The absence of links is telling.

No speculations.

Galicean

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:26:02 GMT, Frosty Madness wrote:

> And who, or what, pray tell, is going to renew the TTL? If he's talking
> about bouncing packets around between 2 tcp servers, well, isn't that about
> as trivial as ping pong? And that's hardly using the 'internet' to store
> data. It's just bouncing IP packets around.

All servers possible were used.

Galicean

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:09:13 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:

> He's obviously on a fishing expedition, and there's a lot that
> I'm holding back for that reason. If he's too lazy to do his
> homework, he's too irresponsible to be taught enough to even
> experiment with this idea.

If asking for information that can explain this phenomenon is fishing, then
move over, I'm about to cast again. As to lazy or irresponsible, if you
wold like to point me to something specific, then I would be happy to
review it. What I don't need is a primer course in TCP/IP or cisco routers.

What I would like is to find someone or ones who see the value of this and
can spend time thinking it completely through. That person, with my
assistance, will make a bucketload of money since I am sitting on highly
interested parties who wish to license such technology.

Galicean

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On 10 Aug 2005 20:02:15 -0000, Ralph Bigley wrote:

> It certainly is. It is also indicative of fabrication.
> The OP is a minor grade Troll attempting to stir up some shit.

Since you have the patience of a child, I see no need to carry your weight.

*plonk*

Galicean

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:53:15 +0200, stingray@trilightzone.org wrote:

>
> Well, it sounds interesting ofcourse...
> The only way i can think of is that you'd need to own several servers
> which keep transmitting the data to each other and for redundancy a
> second path changing the order to which server the flow goes and so on.
> So the data arrives and is retransmitted without being stored.

This is true and they would have to be geographically diverse and in one
test that I did not see, a closed system one, that is exactly what they
did.

> My first guess is that if the right software is written (not difficult)
> and there is a whole network of servers available to support this with
> encryption then yes. Think of the Tor network but then in this scenario ;)

I immediately thought of Tor but wondered if the file tracking piece would
get bungled, I don't know, I am sure that the software is easily written
since the author, although very bright, himself is not a coder. He handed
the idea off to two who were and they wrote the code in a couple of weeks
(that is, it took it to work that long).

Galicean

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:27:05 -0400, Regis wrote:

>
> There's so much utter nonsense in that post, that I'm not even going
> to bother with addressing it all.

What's the nonsense?

> Needless to say, if you want to store data online as a method of
> backup, you have several options already available to you, without all
> the smoke and mirrors.
>
> 1) send the required data as an attachment to one of your e-mail
> accounts (size permitting)
>
> 2) send the required data to an FTP or web server
>
> 3) store the data using one of the many online services dedicated to
> this exact purpose

You missed the point. Let me explain then you choose to participate or go
hose yourself.

The idea came from the massive power outages in the NE USA, data was lost
and inaccessible, transportation was limited, etc. This scheme would allow
a defeat to that threat keeping data alive in such a catastrophe.

Galicean

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:44:37 GMT, Frosty Madness wrote:

> The max TTL for an IP packet is 255.

It sure is and can be rebuilt to 255.

Ari Silversteinn

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:12:30 +0800, Dave Turner wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> that you know of

The fact that is not possible is moot. It has been accomplished many times
and I observed it. The fact that Thrasher can't see the possibility
immediately also makes him moot.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

Galicean

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:08:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Swallow wrote:

> Most protocols have a count field that is decremented each time a packet
> is forwarded. When the count gets to zero the packet is discarded.
> Such a count field would cause the entire database to be discarded.
> They may have found a protocol in which only the call setup packets have
> a count field. There are only a few trunk nodes so the system can only
> carry a small amount of data.
>
> Andrew Swallow

Then I would say your challenge is to figure out how it was done.

Thrasher Remailer

2005-08-10, 5:48 pm

In <1123684878. fc240c27e0ddca825ffa6c07f8d149b0@teranew
s>, pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com wrote:
>On a sunny day (10 Aug 2005 06:49:35 -0700) it happened
>news01@clupeid.demon.co.uk wrote in
><1123681775.486690.56720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>
>From experience:
>http://teranews.com/
>I signed up for a lifetime for 3$ or something years ago.
>You can crosspost to half the universe if you must.
>But I use a trick:
>I read news via one server, and post via this one.
>Because teranews shows a lot of post double.
>To READ news there are many freee newsservers.
>You need a good newsclient, free agent is OK for MS windows,

Free Agent is ok if you don't want much.

If you want true scoreing and filtering power, I strongly suggest using hamster to pull newsgroups from several servers, and xnews to read from your hamster's server side.

that combo rocks HARD

>use the one I wrote if you use Linux
>http://panteltje.com/panteltje/newsflex/index.html
>NewsFleX worked for me the last 7 years...

Galicean

2005-08-10, 8:46 pm

I have met a colleague who has demonstrated the ability to use the Internet
as a data storage medium. He does this through the use of a program that
tracks packets and/or files. These packet headers have been altered so that
they never land and continuously bounce from server to server until the
program calls them home. Home is wherever he wants, his computer, another
IP address, wherever.

He showed me this technology, including the data where each packet had
traveled, then after 48 hours, he corralled all the data to my computer
intact. Approximately 10MB. It left from his computer overseas and landed
on mine in the States.

This ability to circulate data endlessly and then retrieve it is an amazing
storage concept for any data including data that could not be traditionally
retrieved in a complete loss of power. That's where the idea came from,
during the power grid catastrophe in the Northeast US about two years ago.

Comments appreciated especially those that address how it is he
accomplishes this feat.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:32:09 +0200, Morten Dahl wrote:

> Since packet loss is everyday events in an IP network this would make
> for a unreliable data storage - unless there's a server holding a copy
> of the data and re-sending old packets to compensate for the lost ones.

While the packets are tracked and refreshed, there is data in whole set
about geographically to insure that this is the case. I am told that this
is being discontinued as to whether it is a single, secure server or no
"second source" server, I do not know. Since the data had to start from
some place, there is one data storage original but what they are shooting
at, and have said is accomplished, is that all data be circulated around
the Internet so that, in effect, a massive Internet server attack would be
required to disrupt the data storage scheme.

JFB

2005-08-10, 8:46 pm

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:05:23 -0400, Galicean wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:27:05 -0400, Regis wrote:
>
>
> What's the nonsense?

The "store data on the Internet" part. It's either completely bogus, or
very misleading.

The TTL field is specifically designed to prevent packets from bouncing
around the net for ever. When you spew packets out to the net, the very
first router not under your control will assuredly decrement TTL by 1,
the next takes another, and so on. This means that you have to get the
packet back "home" for a TTL refresh at the very least every 255 hops or
255 seconds, whichever comes first. That's always hops in the real world.

But that's not the end of your problems.

The TCP/IP spec calls out 60 as the "standard" for a packet's TTL field.
You are of course free to change that, but a problem arises when your
packet full of data reaches the end of your route and starts the return
trip. Chances are the responder is either going to set TTL to 60, 23, or
in rare cases the TTL on the incoming packet minus 1. And the minus one
scenario is reserved almost exclusively for ping packets (which is why you
can sometimes ping a host but not reach it with FTP/HTTP/WHATEVER).

So...

Your very best chance to "store data on the Internet" is to hide it in a
ping packet with a nonstandard TTL and send it to a host(s) you know don't
decrement the TTL field by more than one, praying that some hop along the
way doesn't "adjust" your TTL to something more conforming. That means in
the BEST case scenario you have exactly 255 seconds to get your machine
back up if it ever goes down before your data is toast. In real life
you're talking 255 hops max, often just 60 or less, with most hops being
in the 100 milliseconds neighborhood. Do the math and you'll see that even
a relative eye blink of a power outage means you loose everything. And
this is the very problem you relate as the reason for "storing data on the
Internet".

*shrug*

Regardless of the technical fishy smell, this is NOT "storing data on the
Internet". This is briefly releasing it and then getting it back again,
refreshing it, and repeating the process for ever. I suppose that in
some bizarre way this could be interpreted as "storage" by the unwashed
masses, but to my little mind it's just what it really is... an easy way
to trash can your data. The only way it might possibly work is if you
owned every router the packet hits, which of course means you're either
the worlds best super-cracker, or you're bouncing things around your own
INTRAnet.

Galicean

2005-08-10, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:03:30 GMT, JFB wrote:

>
> The "store data on the Internet" part. It's either completely bogus, or
> very misleading.

It's neither.

> The TTL field is specifically designed to prevent packets from bouncing
> around the net for ever. When you spew packets out to the net, the very
> first router not under your control will assuredly decrement TTL by 1,
> the next takes another, and so on. This means that you have to get the
> packet back "home" for a TTL refresh at the very least every 255 hops or
> 255 seconds, whichever comes first. That's always hops in the real world.

Or resent the packet again ad infinitum.

> But that's not the end of your problems.
>
> The TCP/IP spec calls out 60 as the "standard" for a packet's TTL field.
> You are of course free to change that, but a problem arises when your
> packet full of data reaches the end of your route and starts the return
> trip. Chances are the responder is either going to set TTL to 60, 23, or
> in rare cases the TTL on the incoming packet minus 1. And the minus one
> scenario is reserved almost exclusively for ping packets (which is why you
> can sometimes ping a host but not reach it with FTP/HTTP/WHATEVER).
>
> So...
>
> Your very best chance to "store data on the Internet" is to hide it in a
> ping packet with a nonstandard TTL and send it to a host(s) you know don't
> decrement the TTL field by more than one, praying that some hop along the
> way doesn't "adjust" your TTL to something more conforming. That means in
> the BEST case scenario you have exactly 255 seconds to get your machine
> back up if it ever goes down before your data is toast. In real life
> you're talking 255 hops max, often just 60 or less, with most hops being
> in the 100 milliseconds neighborhood. Do the math and you'll see that even
> a relative eye blink of a power outage means you loose everything. And
> this is the very problem you relate as the reason for "storing data on the
> Internet".
>
> *shrug*

I see your argument. Let's assume that multiple copies of data set A are
being circulated and refreshed and all this is being tracked. We get a
power out in the NE USA again. Only the data that is on servers in that
region is affected. let's also say the file (packet) tracking software
makes certain that the data is geographically dispersed so to never have
any non redundant data and that all data is available. We don;t care about
power outs in any other region since this region is the one we are
concerned about.

> Regardless of the technical fishy smell, this is NOT "storing data on the
> Internet". This is briefly releasing it and then getting it back again,
> refreshing it, and repeating the process for ever.

Well, when you take data off one source and have it on another source, for
purposes of redundancy and backup/recovery, to me that is storage and your
argument is semantical.

> I suppose that in
> some bizarre way this could be interpreted as "storage" by the unwashed
> masses, but to my little mind it's just what it really is... an easy way
> to trash can your data. The only way it might possibly work is if you
> owned every router the packet hits, which of course means you're either
> the worlds best super-cracker, or you're bouncing things around your own
> INTRAnet.

Then we agree, a closed system is doable so now I ask how did they make it
work across the open Internet?

Alan Swett

2005-08-10, 8:46 pm

Ari Silversteinn <abcarisilverstein@yahoo.comxyz> wrote in
news:vla5i9d0853g.15osjbqrifvoe.dlg@40tude.net:

>
>
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:12:30 +0800, Dave Turner wrote:
>
> The fact that is not possible is moot. It has been accomplished many
> times and I observed it. The fact that Thrasher can't see the
> possibility immediately also makes him moot.

You appear to have mixed up your socks.

aswett

Regis

2005-08-11, 2:48 am

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:05:23 -0400, Galicean
<TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote:

>What's the nonsense?

All of it.
The whole thing.
From start to finish.

>You missed the point. Let me explain then you choose to participate or go
>hose yourself.
>
>The idea came from the massive power outages in the NE USA, data was lost
>and inaccessible, transportation was limited, etc. This scheme would allow
>a defeat to that threat keeping data alive in such a catastrophe.

I didn't miss anything.
You're talking without thinking first.
I have a zero-tolerance rule when it comes to that level of stupidity,
so I'll just sum up your entire idiocy with one simple fact:

In case of massive power outages, guess what happens? That's right,
YOU LOSE POWER. And without power, how is your "magic internet
floating data" going to be found? Last time I checked, routers
require electricity. So do computers. So do internet providers.
That means that until the power comes back, your data might as well be
sitting on the moon, because you won't be accessing it.

----== Posted via webservertalk.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.webservertalk.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

JFB

2005-08-11, 2:48 am

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:24:49 -0400, Galicean wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:03:30 GMT, JFB wrote:
>
>
> It's neither.

I see it more as a little bit of both. The original description lead
readers to believe that the data was disbursed, then traveled independent
of the data owner until it was collected. That's simply not the case, so
it's patently misleading if it actually works at all.

[snippage]

>
> I see your argument. Let's assume that multiple copies of data set A are
> being circulated and refreshed and all this is being tracked. We get a

Nothing at all is being "tracked". You're sending out packets, hoping they
return in tact, and repeating the process. Tracking implies you have some
way to watch and recall packets without handling them. Not possible.

The only redundancy you might achieve is multiple servers sending and
receiving the same packets, or the same data in similar packets. And
limiting packets by region is impossible. Once your packets leave your
machine their routing is influenced by others' routers. That's why they
call them "routers". ;-)

The more data you send and receive from your redundant servers, the more
they're likely to "collide" in a geographical sense. Chances are if a
power outage in the NE whacks data from one server, it will whack data
from another because traffic is routed basically by "best route" methods
no matter where you are. The more packets/data you send and the
more servers you implement, the better your chances for data
loss. Not exactly what you're looking for.

Traceroute something outside your home network and you might be surprised
to see that the email you sent to your next door neighbor who has a
different ISP might go through a server in Taiwan or wherever if
someserver.in.taiwan is running at peak efficiency and low load this
millisecond.

[snippage]

>
> Then we agree, a closed system is doable so now I ask how did they make
> it work across the open Internet?

They did not, at least not the way it's bing described. Sending and
receiving packets with data in them is common place. Repeating the
process indefinitely is trivial. But there's some very real reasons why it
can not, and never will work as advertised. Anything that resembles the
described scenario is nothing more than a creative way to exploit every
day TCP/IP networking for the purposes of a virtual magic act. Trickery,
slight of hand, deception... oil of snake. ;)

Nomen Nescio

2005-08-11, 2:48 am

In <124g4xphjm55l.clqhg4k358rz.dlg@40tude.net>,
TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:03:30 GMT, JFB wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>Then we agree, a closed system is doable so now I ask how did they make it
>work across the open Internet?

No. We do not agree. This was not done. You have been scammed and you're
buying it hook, line and sinker.

Kinda reminds me of the time I had my neighbour convinced that I'd hacked
into the US DOD Computer systems. I didn't of course, I just wrote a
program that made it LOOK like I was in and about to launch a Titan III

2005-08-11, 2:48 am

What a brain surgeon!

You clearly read it anyway.

TC

Andrew Swallow

2005-08-11, 7:46 am

Galicean wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:08:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Then I would say your challenge is to figure out how it was done.

Not interested.

The may be using relay software that messes around with the count field.
If so you risk being kicked off the network when caught.

Andrew Swallow

David Taylor

2005-08-11, 5:48 pm

Galicean <TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:46:30 -0400:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:05:53 -0700, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
>
> Exactly the comment that was made by the intelligence community.

Intelligence? No, more the fact that if everyone started trying
to bounce data round the internet, there'd be no bandwidth left.

--
David Taylor

David Taylor

2005-08-11, 5:48 pm

Galicean <TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:52:02 -0400:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:26:02 GMT, Frosty Madness wrote:
>
>
> All servers possible were used.

None?

--
David Taylor

Jan Panteltje

2005-08-11, 5:48 pm

On a sunny day (Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:56:34 -0400) it happened Galicean
<TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote in
<p6n4p5etmj3s$.19a45bzho2dsy.dlg@40tude.net>:
What I don't need is a primer course in TCP/IP or cisco routers.
>
>What I would like is to find someone or ones who see the value of this and
>can spend time thinking it completely through. That person, with my
>assistance, will make a bucketload of money since I am sitting on highly
>interested parties who wish to license such technology.
OK, and it would be criminal, and an attack on the bandwidth of the internet.
So I strongly advise everyone to NOT provide this person with any data.
Here is something to get the attention of people who do not like that stuff:
OSAMA LADEN NUCLEAR PRESIDENT BOMB NOW AL QAEDA SECRET WHITE HOUSE PLOT
DETONATOR FLIGHT ALTITUDE LOCATION TIMER CELLPHONE DYNAMITE IRAQ PAKISTAN

Regis

2005-08-11, 5:48 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:35:02 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>So I strongly advise everyone to NOT provide this person with any data.
>Here is something to get the attention of people who do not like that stuff:
>OSAMA LADEN NUCLEAR PRESIDENT BOMB NOW AL QAEDA SECRET WHITE HOUSE PLOT
>DETONATOR FLIGHT ALTITUDE LOCATION TIMER CELLPHONE DYNAMITE IRAQ PAKISTAN

LOL
I'd laugh my XXX off if your keywords set off the appropriate
detectors and you ended up being interrogated at Guantanamo as a
result.

----== Posted via webservertalk.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.webservertalk.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Crypto@S.M.S

2005-08-11, 5:48 pm

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:56:34 -0400) it happened Galicean
> <TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote in
> <p6n4p5etmj3s$.19a45bzho2dsy.dlg@40tude.net>:
> What I don't need is a primer course in TCP/IP or cisco routers.
>
>
> OK, and it would be criminal, and an attack on the bandwidth of the internet.
> So I strongly advise everyone to NOT provide this person with any data.
> Here is something to get the attention of people who do not like that stuff:
> OSAMA LADEN NUCLEAR PRESIDENT BOMB NOW AL QAEDA SECRET WHITE HOUSE PLOT
> DETONATOR FLIGHT ALTITUDE LOCATION TIMER CELLPHONE DYNAMITE IRAQ PAKISTAN
>
>

Ooooh, "criminal" ... that should scare everybody off. Not.
Why? Because WRONG == FUN !!!

Galicean

2005-08-11, 5:48 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:54:36 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor wrote:

> Galicean <TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:52:02 -0400:
>
> None?

The number of servers was not limited under the open Internet system
testing, they were limited under the closed system testing but still it was
under the auspices of the military so there were a large number of servers
utilized.

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:35:02 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> OK, and it would be criminal, and an attack on the bandwidth of the internet.
> So I strongly advise everyone to NOT provide this person with any data.
> Here is something to get the attention of people who do not like that stuff:
> OSAMA LADEN NUCLEAR PRESIDENT BOMB NOW AL QAEDA SECRET WHITE HOUSE PLOT
> DETONATOR FLIGHT ALTITUDE LOCATION TIMER CELLPHONE DYNAMITE IRAQ PAKISTAN

The people who do not like that stuff are already aware of it, Jan, so quit
acting like you're telling on your sister's smoking in the bathroom. As to
illegal, under what reasoning? It's no attack, it's circulating data for
recollection.

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:45:12 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor wrote:

> Galicean <TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:46:30 -0400:
>
> Intelligence? No, more the fact that if everyone started trying
> to bounce data round the internet, there'd be no bandwidth left.

And if everybody would send spam emailings by the millions everyday and
nite, you might get the same result. Since so few people have accomplished
this data circulation, and so few have any real need for it, this isn't
much of an argument.

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:12:54 GMT, JFB wrote:

>
> I see it more as a little bit of both. The original description lead
> readers to believe that the data was disbursed, then traveled independent
> of the data owner until it was collected. That's simply not the case, so
> it's patently misleading if it actually works at all.

I stated that the packets were changed, that's not independence, and they
were tracked, that's not independence imo.

> [snippage]
>
>
> Nothing at all is being "tracked".

Reread the OP.

>You're sending out packets, hoping they
> return in tact, and repeating the process. Tracking implies you have some
> way to watch and recall packets without handling them. Not possible.

Possible, done.

> The only redundancy you might achieve is multiple servers sending and
> receiving the same packets, or the same data in similar packets. And
> limiting packets by region is impossible.

Possible, done, demonstrated.

> Once your packets leave your
> machine their routing is influenced by others' routers. That's why they
> call them "routers". ;-)

I understand and I would have agreed if I had not seen it myself. But
whether the data is directed or not is a matter of concern but the bigger
piece is that, in the end, it doesn't matter as long as all the data is
available where power was available. That leaves 90% of the known Internet
world.

> The more data you send and receive from your redundant servers, the more
> they're likely to "collide" in a geographical sense. Chances are if a
> power outage in the NE whacks data from one server, it will whack data
> from another because traffic is routed basically by "best route" methods
> no matter where you are. The more packets/data you send and the
> more servers you implement, the better your chances for data
> loss. Not exactly what you're looking for.

Agree but I had no loss of email or Internet traffic during that time so it
is not a crippling blow.

> Traceroute something outside your home network and you might be surprised
> to see that the email you sent to your next door neighbor who has a
> different ISP might go through a server in Taiwan or wherever if
> someserver.in.taiwan is running at peak efficiency and low load this
> millisecond.

Very aware of that.

> [snippage]
>
>
> They did not, at least not the way it's bing described. Sending and
> receiving packets with data in them is common place. Repeating the
> process indefinitely is trivial. But there's some very real reasons why it
> can not, and never will work as advertised. Anything that resembles the
> described scenario is nothing more than a creative way to exploit every
> day TCP/IP networking for the purposes of a virtual magic act. Trickery,
> slight of hand, deception... oil of snake. ;)

Then they fooled some of the best intelligence minds we have in the USA.
And I don't mean me, either.

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:30:27 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:

> No. We do not agree. This was not done. You have been scammed and you're
> buying it hook, line and sinker.
>
> Kinda reminds me of the time I had my neighbour convinced that I'd hacked
> into the US DOD Computer systems. I didn't of course, I just wrote a
> program that made it LOOK like I was in and about to launch a Titan III

See my answer to JFB. If you want to tackle the answer to the OP, great, if
you want to blow it off since you are incapable, uninterested or have any
other reason, and then try to justify your position by saying it won't
work, go right ahead but do us a favor and drop out of the thread and leave
the discussion to those who are taking the point of attack and trying to
solve the problems.

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:45:21 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Swallow wrote:

>
> Not interested.

Appreciate you dropping out of the discussion then.

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:54:19 -0400, Alan wrote:

> I presume this is what the original poster was talking about :
>
> http://isec.pl/papers/juggling_with_packets.txt

What was your take on this paper as it is quite similar in operation
although I cannot follow all the lingo or the methodology?

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:35:01 +0200, Morten Dahl wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> To me it seems like a waste to have the data circulating on the network
> when there are servers holding copies - but who am I to judge

> If reliable (as in hard to take down) data storage is the goal, there
> are other file systems that provide this without wasting this kind of
> bandwidth.

Such as?

Apparently, the combination of security and complete data accessibility has
solved or addressed some problems that initially were created by the NE
power out.

JFB

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:49:30 -0400, Galicean wrote:

> As to illegal, under what reasoning? It's no attack, it's circulating data
> for recollection.

I have 130,000,000 tons of compost I want to "circulate" to your front
yard. Don't worry, I'll be back for it some day.

If you're true to your own words, you'll have no problem with this.

JFB

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:46:08 -0400, Galicean wrote:

> was under the auspices of the military so there were a large number of
> servers utilized.

Waitaminute. I believe at first this was "a colleague of yours" showing
you how 10 Megs of data bounced around the Internet with no intervention
at all, then was somehow magically corralled and placed on your machine.

Now it's "under the auspices of the military"?

Somehow this looks like virtual embellishment being implemented to prop up
a virtual fish story about virtual storage. Sorry.

JFB

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:01:20 -0400, Galicean wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:12:54 GMT, JFB wrote:
>
>
> I stated that the packets were changed, that's not independence, and they
> were tracked, that's not independence imo.

Baloney.

Here's the original statement...

"These packet headers have been altered so that they never land and
continuously bounce from server to server until the program calls them
home."

Your "opinion" aside, you CLEARLY stated packets left, traveled on their
own indefinitely, and were called back later. That's impossible unless you
own every router those packets hit. PERIOD.

You're either naive enough to be duped by your "colleague", or a bald
faced liar. I'd go with naive if I were you, it's more palatable.

>
> Reread the OP.

"He does this through the use of a program that tracks packets and/or
files."

The more I read it the more silly it becomes. More because of the
dogged way you attempt to defend it with "did tooooo" in spite of the
obvious, than anything else.

> Then they fooled some of the best intelligence minds we have in the USA.
> And I don't mean me, either.

I have this buddy at the NSA... he has this mind reading machine that
tracks galvanometric responses from every keyboard that's attached to
every machine that ever touched anything on the internet, and he tells me
you're making the whole thing up. <chuckle>

If you have proof, post it. I suspect you'll substitute "classified"
or "my friend won't tell me" for anything substantial.

*sigh*

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:33:48 GMT, JFB wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:46:08 -0400, Galicean wrote:
>
>
> Waitaminute. I believe at first this was "a colleague of yours" showing
> you how 10 Megs of data bounced around the Internet with no intervention
> at all, then was somehow magically corralled and placed on your machine.
>
> Now it's "under the auspices of the military"?

I have mentioned several different tests on closed and open systems but I
recounted only the info I have been given and the single test I personally
observed.

> Somehow this looks like virtual embellishment being implemented to prop up
> a virtual fish story about virtual storage. Sorry.

Take from it whatever you want.

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:04:44 GMT, JFB wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:49:30 -0400, Galicean wrote:
>
>
> I have 130,000,000 tons of compost I want to "circulate" to your front
> yard. Don't worry, I'll be back for it some day.
>
> If you're true to your own words, you'll have no problem with this.

Before I relieve myself of your burden, would you care to comment on the
illegality of such a scheme or would you prefer to troll on like an adult
trapped in a child's mind?

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:33:57 GMT, JFB wrote:

>
> I have this buddy at the NSA... he has this mind reading machine that
> tracks galvanometric responses from every keyboard that's attached to
> every machine that ever touched anything on the internet, and he tells me
> you're making the whole thing up. <chuckle>

Invite him to this thread, let's hear his opinions as an expert that is
unless he's clerical like 75% of the NSA.

> If you have proof, post it. I suspect you'll substitute "classified"
> or "my friend won't tell me" for anything substantial.

Take the info as it is given. What you do with it is of no concern to me.

Galicean

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:41:41 GMT, Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:

> Yeah, the idea is an old one.

Didn't sound like such a stunning, novel thing when I heard it either.

> You can't do this in a simple manner, because each hop in any realistic routing protocol
> will decrement the "time to live" counter and discard the packet when it expires.

Either this has been solved or the data is constantly machine gunned out to
keep fresh data available or both. I am only certain of the latter and have
been told of the former.

> Of course, if hosts take an active role in forwarding
> then they can retransmit any received message, in effect resetting the TTL.

I missed that, could you explain please?

> Storage is actually being used, it's just provided (on a temporary basis) by the routing systems.

That's accurate, it is storage since storage has no definition in time
other than there must be some holding of data.

> Here's an idea: why not archive *all* Internet traffic by forwarding
> a copy into such a perpetual routing scheme?

Bandwidth aside, I see no reason, theoretically, that you could not do
this. My experience comes from MB of data but the tests were on TB of data
I am told.

JFB

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:10:30 -0400, Galicean wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:04:44 GMT, JFB wrote:
>
>
> Before I relieve myself of your burden, would you care to comment on the
> illegality of such a scheme or would you prefer to troll on like an adult
> trapped in a child's mind?

Sure thing skippy!

Just like it's your yard because you're making the mortgage payments, and
you'd have a legitimate gripe if I dumped metric buttloads of biosolids in
it, I'd have a legitimate gripe if your fairy tale bouncing data cluttered
up the bandwidth I write checks for every month.

Clear enough that even the "colleague of someone under the auspices of the
military" can understand it, or are we relegated to all single syllable
words this evening?

Don't bother, EOT.

--
( o o )
+------------------.oooO--(_)--Oooo.------------------+
Email Address is Munged, Read Backwards.
Ever stop to think, and forget to start again?

Ben Livengood

2005-08-11, 8:46 pm

> What was your take on this paper as it is quite similar in operation
> although I cannot follow all the lingo or the methodology?

Basically, the idea is to collect three or more objects, since juggling
with two objects is trivial. Practice is required to keep all but two
objects in the air simultaneously at all times, cycling them through
first one hand and then the other. It is generally best to master a
small number of objects and only then progress to a greater number of
objects.

Hint: Don't try it with sharp or hot objects at first.

Nomen Nescio

2005-08-12, 2:46 am

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Galicean <TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:33:48 GMT, JFB wrote:
>I have mentioned several different tests on closed and open systems but I
>recounted only the info I have been given and the single test I personally
>observed.
>Take from it whatever you want.

This describes "Galicean" to a tee, tin-foil hat and all:

"Just because I don't know what I'm talking about, that doesn't
mean I'm lying!?"
-The Adventures of Bob & Doug McKenzie: Strange Brew (1983)

That's like saying, I know this "guy" who converts ordinary household lead
into pure 24 karat gold by bouncing altered packets of led atoms randomly
over Internet servers, retrieving them, then recombining them onto his
computer hard drive using a proprietary patented algorithm of his own
devising. Believe me, I saw this "guy" do this with my own two eyes!

This "guy" then burns these recombined files onto CDs, which actually turns
the metal in each burned CD entirely into gold. Once he's burned enough CDs,
he then sells them to the U.S. Treasury department, who pays him handsomely
for his valuable talent.

This "guy" is also connected with the military, and has managed clandestine
computer hacking operations for the C.I.A. for years. This "guy" has his
main computer office set up at NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, CO.

This "guy" was on one of the most recent space shuttle missions, but I
can't tell you which one, or what his name is. I'm sworn to secrecy.

But because I can't explain how this "guy" does it, it's then up to the
reader to solve the riddle of how this "guy" does it. But just because I
don't know how this "guy" does it, that doesn't mean I made the whole
thing up, now, does it? Really, I saw this "guy" turn lead into gold!

So, if you can't prove the negative, then I'm right. Just ask any lawyer.
If you can't prove that it can't be done, then my story is vindicated. ;)

Signed,
Marz "Fizzy Dome" Orkenblatt, Psy. Ops.,
N.S.A., Alien Intelligence Sector Chief

the seventh sign

2005-08-12, 2:46 am

Galicean wrote:
> I have met a colleague who has demonstrated the ability to use the Internet
> as a data storage medium. He does this through the use of a program that
> tracks packets and/or files. These packet headers have been altered so that
> they never land and continuously bounce from server to server until the
> program calls them home. Home is wherever he wants, his computer, another
> IP address, wherever.
>
> He showed me this technology, including the data where each packet had
> traveled, then after 48 hours, he corralled all the data to my computer
> intact. Approximately 10MB. It left from his computer overseas and landed
> on mine in the States.
>
> This ability to circulate data endlessly and then retrieve it is an amazing
> storage concept for any data including data that could not be traditionally
> retrieved in a complete loss of power. That's where the idea came from,
> during the power grid catastrophe in the Northeast US about two years ago.
>
> Comments appreciated especially those that address how it is he
> accomplishes this feat.

Hum 10 meg of obscured data that could be anything from bomb making
instructions, hidden messages inside of perversion, or a virus that
assembles itself piece by piece.

Sounds like a movie plot to me.

H4ck3r5 II 4ny 0n3?

TSS

Risto Lankinen

2005-08-12, 2:46 am

"Galicean" <TomGiarmoIsRyanWhite@use.net> wrote in message
news:2oqfytyiahqr$.1s675tc3eb57m$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> Comments appreciated especially those that address how it is he
> accomplishes this feat.

Dunno, but did you know there's a way to store electricity in an
extension cord: Plug one end to the wall and wait a while. Then
unplug the cord from the wall and /quickly/ plug it to the free end
of the extension cord instead.

Now, when you need some electicity, you can use the electrons
trapped into the extension cord loop by unplugging the loop and
/quickly/ plugging your appliance into the appropriate end of the
cord.

Patent pending.

- Risto -

Thomas J. Boschloo

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Galicean wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:44:37 GMT, Frosty Madness wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It sure is and can be rebuilt to 255.

And the maximum size of an IP packet is 64kB. And if a packet gets lost
on TCP/IP, it needs to be resend by the *sender* (not some router in
your path).

TCP/IP sec is highly unsuited for storing any data for more than a few
millisecs.

Maybe you are confusing TCP/IP with the Java based Freenet network by
Ian Clarke? Or maybe some other p2p network where you trick pl into
downloading your stuff?

I hope your friend uses encryption though..

Sounds like a Hoax,
Thomas
- --
Life is like a videogame with no chance to win - ATR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQvy51AEP2l8iXKAJAQE8qwMeLQoJ/Jrq2zT3bcoG44tP065gzqBIhHaK
1dlYLu6p75utuLYVJKQJ63wLbwNDVfrBjPERfeNA
rPsRW5LMl8hFCsug50Fe/9v4
32ynrularUc1ADemDxNCpnbOpy3V9++VmQZYDg==

=sob1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

GEO Me@home.here

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 04:20:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>This describes "Galicean" to a tee, tin-foil hat and all:

>"Just because I don't know what I'm talking about, that doesn't
>mean I'm lying!?"
>-The Adventures of Bob & Doug McKenzie: Strange Brew (1983)
>
>That's like saying, I know this "guy" who converts ordinary household lead
>into pure 24 karat gold by bouncing altered packets of led atoms randomly
>over Internet servers, retrieving them, then recombining them onto his
>computer hard drive using a proprietary patented algorithm of his own
>devising. Believe me, I saw this "guy" do this with my own two eyes!
>
>This "guy" then burns these recombined files onto CDs, which actually turns
>the metal in each burned CD entirely into gold. Once he's burned enough CDs,
>he then sells them to the U.S. Treasury department, who pays him handsomely
>for his valuable talent.
>
>This "guy" is also connected with the military, and has managed clandestine
>computer hacking operations for the C.I.A. for years. This "guy" has his
>main computer office set up at NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, CO.
>
>This "guy" was on one of the most recent space shuttle missions, but I
>can't tell you which one, or what his name is. I'm sworn to secrecy.
>
>But because I can't explain how this "guy" does it, it's then up to the
>reader to solve the riddle of how this "guy" does it. But just because I
>don't know how this "guy" does it, that doesn't mean I made the whole
>thing up, now, does it? Really, I saw this "guy" turn lead into gold!
>
>So, if you can't prove the negative, then I'm right. Just ask any lawyer.
>If you can't prove that it can't be done, then my story is vindicated. ;)
>
>Signed,
>Marz "Fizzy Dome" Orkenblatt, Psy. Ops.,
>N.S.A., Alien Intelligence Sector Chief

Ah, but yours is a much better story.

Geo

Alan

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

Galicean wrote:
> What was your take on this paper as it is quite similar in operation
> although I cannot follow all the lingo or the methodology?

I believe at least some of what they describe is possible. This could be an
effective way to protect a secret with a sort of dead-man switch effect as
well as deniability. You would need to add some reliability features such
as redundancy / forward error correction, with periodic verification and
replacement of unreliable target servers, etc.

It's a rather bizzare idea, but interesting in that it illustrates how
systems and protocols can be used in unintended ways.

Alan

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

Galicean wrote:
> Bandwidth aside, I see no reason, theoretically, that you could not do
> this. My experience comes from MB of data but the tests were on TB of data
> I am told.

I doubt that volume of data was stored merely by juggling packets. There
must have been some higher-level protocol delivery disk queue involved
(something like the "Class B" storage in the Purczynski / Zalewski paper).

A distributed network of computers under your control (perhaps running
software customized for this purpose) could keep a significant volume of
packets circulating through a network. (providing each participating
computer with random access to the circulating data). But I can't imagine
this reaching the level of a TB of data.

JFB

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:26:31 -0400, Alan wrote:

> Galicean wrote:
>
> I believe at least some of what they describe is possible. This could be

It's no doubt possible in some flavor, in fact I'd wager it could be
simulated with netcat and a home network in a matter of a half hour or so.
Reconfigure two routers to reset TTL to 255, craft a few packets that
have an "unreachable" destination, inject them, and they probably will
bounce around for ever. You can always extract them with Ethereal or
whatever. The problem is that it's going to be highly dependent on boxes
under your control and not the sort of critter the OP described. All that
aside, I have to agree with this...

> an effective way to protect a secret with a sort of dead-man switch

Absolutely! The idea does have some interesting possibilities to offset
it's drawbacks. The "dead man" is something I hadn't thought of. It
could be used to store encryption keys that would "evaporate" if a
connection was cut, for instance, or to set off a nuking of local data if
a "signal" wasn't present. Most useful in a TLA confiscation scenario I'd
imagine.

> effect as well as deniability. You would need to add some reliability

Deniability goes both ways. All those packet bouncing off your boxes point
to you in no uncertain terms, but if your keys evaporated you can tell
them "tough luck" with a straight face. It depends on what you're trying
to plausibly deny. ;-)

--
( o o )
+------------------.oooO--(_)--Oooo.------------------+
Email Address is Munged, Read Backwards.
Ever stop to think, and forget to start again?

JFB

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:14:21 +0000, Risto Lankinen wrote:

> Dunno, but did you know there's a way to store electricity in an extension
> cord: Plug one end to the wall and wait a while. Then unplug the cord
> from the wall and /quickly/ plug it to the free end of the extension cord
> instead.
>
> Now, when you need some electicity, you can use the electrons trapped into
> the extension cord loop by unplugging the loop and /quickly/ plugging your
> appliance into the appropriate end of the cord.
>
> Patent pending.

You left out the part where the extension cord has to be 15 trillion miles
long and tightly wound around a quantum tungsten core, and your outlets
have to supply 6.8 GigaJules.

--
( o o )
+------------------.oooO--(_)--Oooo.------------------+
Email Address is Munged, Read Backwards.
Ever stop to think, and forget to start again?

Ari Silversteinn

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:25:07 GMT, JFB wrote:

> Sure thing skippy!

<plonk>
--
Drop the alphabet for email

Galicean

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:25:07 GMT, JFB wrote:

> Sure thing skippy!
>
> Just like it's your yard because you're making the mortgage payments, and
> you'd have a legitimate gripe if I dumped metric buttloads of biosolids in
> it, I'd have a legitimate gripe if your fairy tale bouncing data cluttered
> up the bandwidth I write checks for every month.
>
> Clear enough that even the "colleague of someone under the auspices of the
> military" can understand it, or are we relegated to all single syllable
> words this evening?

Gosh, you're kind of a tool. Like a battery driven dildo but with no
batteries.

briggs@encompasserve.org

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

In article <5t3Le.54$sq4.2266233@news.sisna.com>, "Alan" <a__l__a__n@hotmail.com> writes:
> Galicean wrote:
>
> I doubt that volume of data was stored merely by juggling packets. There
> must have been some higher-level protocol delivery disk queue involved
> (something like the "Class B" storage in the Purczynski / Zalewski paper).
>
> A distributed network of computers under your control (perhaps running
> software customized for this purpose) could keep a significant volume of
> packets circulating through a network. (providing each participating
> computer with random access to the circulating data). But I can't imagine
> this reaching the level of a TB of data.

Let's say that you pay $18,000 per month for a 45 megabit circuit with
a 20ms round trip latency.

That's 45 million bits * .020 seconds ~= one million bits ~= 125 kilobytes.

I could store ten times as much data on an ordinary 3.5 inch floppy and
it'd be quite a bit cheaper.

For a terabyte of data you'd need, for instance, a 160 terabit link
with 50 ms latency. Or a collection of links adding up to 160 terabits
would do, as long as the latency was 50ms on all of them.

Call it a million trans-continental OC3s unless I've slipped a digit
somewhere.

John Briggs

Galicean

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:01:41 +0200, Thomas J. Boschloo wrote:

>
> And the maximum size of an IP packet is 64kB. And if a packet gets lost
> on TCP/IP, it needs to be resend by the *sender* (not some router in
> your path).
>
> TCP/IP sec is highly unsuited for storing any data for more than a few
> millisecs.
>
> Maybe you are confusing TCP/IP with the Java based Freenet network by
> Ian Clarke? Or maybe some other p2p network where you trick pl into
> downloading your stuff?

TCP/IP.

> I hope your friend uses encryption though..
>
> Sounds like a Hoax,
> Thomas

Sounds, isn't.

Galicean

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:17:28 +0200, Morten Dahl wrote:

>
> At the presentation of Heurika [1] the authors mentioned several other
> (more complete) systems, but I would have to look it up to get the names..
>
> Most of current file sharing systems such as Gnutella and BitTorrent -
> or systems derived from them - would also provide this kind of safety (I
> can't remember if Freenet [2] is in this category too).
>
> [1] http://www.cs.auc.dk/~jasper/dat3/
> [2] http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

I can see your point but there is something about this non p2p approach
that has driven unusual interest. My friend and I discussed this last
night, he is watching this thread, as are others, and we are getting a
giggle out of all the naysayers. But back to your point, I see where these
systems would have value but using TCP/IP in this way, apparently with some
other program(s), creates a pie. That is the best guess we have since the
interest which has been shown has come from highly compartmentalized
sources. Compartmentalized within their org structures, not ours.

Galicean

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:24:51 -0500, the seventh sign wrote:

> Hum 10 meg of obscured data that could be anything from bomb making
> instructions, hidden messages inside of perversion, or a virus that
> assembles itself piece by piece.

In this case, nothing so exciting, some racing image files, a bunch of
text, miscellaneous junk actually. There has been discussion of exactly
that sort as Trojan was mentioned more than once.

Galicean

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:14:21 GMT, Risto Lankinen wrote:

> Dunno, but did you know there's a way to store electricity in an
> extension cord: Plug one end to the wall and wait a while. Then
> unplug the cord from the wall and /quickly/ plug it to the free end
> of the extension cord instead.
>
> Now, when you need some electicity, you can use the electrons
> trapped into the extension cord loop by unplugging the loop and
> /quickly/ plugging your appliance into the appropriate end of the
> cord.

Kewl, and so useful too !!!!!!!!!!!

Galicean

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On 12 Aug 2005 04:22:53 -0000, Crash Override wrote:

>
> I wonder about that. Woudn't something like this qualify as a Denial
> of Service attack if anyone were to actually attempt such a scheme?

This has been mentioned but there is no intent for DoS although I am
uncertain how this could create a DoS issue when the routine is especially
created to restore data. Then again, my understanding of DoS is limited.

Galicean

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On 11 Aug 2005 17:58:45 -0700, Ben Livengood wrote:

>
> Basically, the idea is to collect three or more objects, since juggling
> with two objects is trivial. Practice is required to keep all but two
> objects in the air simultaneously at all times, cycling them through
> first one hand and then the other. It is generally best to master a
> small number of objects and only then progress to a greater number of
> objects.
>
> Hint: Don't try it with sharp or hot objects at first.

You and I read different papers.

Galicean

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:26:31 -0400, Alan wrote:

> Galicean wrote:
>
> I believe at least some of what they describe is possible. This could be an
> effective way to protect a secret with a sort of dead-man switch effect as
> well as deniability. You would need to add some reliability features such
> as redundancy / forward error correction, with periodic verification and
> replacement of unreliable target servers, etc.
>
> It's a rather bizzare idea, but interesting in that it illustrates how
> systems and protocols can be used in unintended ways.

I am unsure about FEC, I believe it was being employed and redundancy (if
you mean duplicated data or multiple servers passing and handling
duplicated data) was part of the scheme.

And yes, it was both bizarre and somewhat simple. Came from sitting around
and throwing out ideas. My friend had returned from a series of meetings
re: the NE power outage, where and with whom I can only guess. We were
talking about this idea at length and I thought it was nothing more than a
mental exercise for both od us. I knew he was fooling around with it then I
got a call and a demonstration.

It failed at first b/c one of the machines was running XP2 and was slower
than Christmas coming. I told him about these problems and he scrapped and
reloaded W2K.

Truthfully, even with the buckets of commercial interest in this
technology, I am unsure what it is he exactly has with it.

Galicean

2005-08-13, 2:47 am

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:55:59 GMT, JFB wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:26:31 -0400, Alan wrote:
>

[vbcol=seagreen]
> It's no doubt possible in some flavor, in fact I'd wager it could be
> simulated with netcat and a home network in a matter of a half hour or so.
> Reconfigure two routers to reset TTL to 255, craft a few packets that
> have an "unreachable" destination, inject them, and they probably will
> bounce around for ever. You can always extract them with Ethereal or
> whatever. The problem is that it's going to be highly dependent on boxes
> under your control and not the sort of critter the OP described. All that
> aside, I have to agree with this...
>
>
> Absolutely! The idea does have some interesting possibilities to offset
> it's drawbacks. The "dead man" is something I hadn't thought of. It
> could be used to store encryption keys that would "evaporate" if a
> connection was cut, for instance, or to set off a nuking of local data if
> a "signal" wasn't present. Most useful in a TLA confiscation scenario I'd
> imagine.
>
>
> Deniability goes both ways. All those packet bouncing off your boxes point
> to you in no uncertain terms, but if your keys evaporated you can tell
> them "tough luck" with a straight face. It depends on what you're trying
> to plausibly deny. ;-)

Are you now trying to plausibly deny your trollabilities?

In order to need to deny, there needs to be something worth denying. Since
no harm comes from the use of this data juggling technology, and no harm
intended, there is nothing to deny. No one has yet made any compelling
argument that this is illegal or could be construed to be a real life DoS
or