Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2008, 11:13:07 PM » |
|
firewalls are readily available, bypasses are not, and thats another reason for logs to be in private area :P
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
PauloHaddad
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2008, 11:30:24 PM » |
|
I agree to the part when you say to split firewall from password. It's not as real as it could be. It's so obvious: bypass firewall is one thing, password it's another! It's wrong on the HP, when you get admin acess you do not need firewall bypass... Edit: 'pass' changed for 'password'
|
|
« Last Edit: July 11, 2008, 11:43:38 PM by PauloHaddad »
|
Logged
|
If I write something wrong, grammatically speaking, please msg me! Thx!
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2008, 11:32:21 PM » |
|
once you're cracking, you don't need bypass running no, and thanks for revealing useful secret >.>
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
XRay
|
|
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2008, 05:50:09 AM » |
|
i dont like the idea that they would only have to bypass your firewall to kill your processes.. That was my very first thought when I read Noseedam's suggestion.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BobbyBob
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2008, 06:20:55 AM » |
|
i dont like the idea that they would only have to bypass your firewall to kill your processes.. That was my very first thought when I read Noseedam's suggestion. yeah
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hiya! I'm a friendly person, and I like to make new friends :]. I'm very helpful and kind, I keep searching for people who would be there for me and talk to me, and in return I will always be there for them. Let me know if you need anything and I will see what i can do.
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2008, 12:54:21 PM » |
|
to see them then? this could go in conjunction with the guest one, i'm trying to suggest is that server be divided into certain areas
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
BobbyBob
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2008, 01:00:38 PM » |
|
to see them then? this could go in conjunction with the guest one, i'm trying to suggest is that server be divided into certain areas
It's already divided to the process and files categories and logs actually. But i think what you're saying is that you only need firewall to reach the processes?
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hiya! I'm a friendly person, and I like to make new friends :]. I'm very helpful and kind, I keep searching for people who would be there for me and talk to me, and in return I will always be there for them. Let me know if you need anything and I will see what i can do.
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2008, 01:10:50 PM » |
|
to see them then? this could go in conjunction with the guest one, i'm trying to suggest is that server be divided into certain areas
It's already divided to the process and files categories and logs actually. But i think what you're saying is that you only need firewall to reach the processes? look at them, so that you can determine if it's being deleted or something, and so overloads are easier to get to
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
BobbyBob
|
|
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2008, 01:12:47 PM » |
|
to see them then? this could go in conjunction with the guest one, i'm trying to suggest is that server be divided into certain areas
It's already divided to the process and files categories and logs actually. But i think what you're saying is that you only need firewall to reach the processes? look at them, so that you can determine if it's being deleted or something, and so overloads are easier to get to huhh
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hiya! I'm a friendly person, and I like to make new friends :]. I'm very helpful and kind, I keep searching for people who would be there for me and talk to me, and in return I will always be there for them. Let me know if you need anything and I will see what i can do.
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2008, 01:19:02 PM » |
|
>.> the big thing on this is the "balance" in power, makes bigger players have to go more on the defensive, and newbies build up defenses (which they should anyway)
tho i was suggesting to split it up into several pieces, public and private being the same, just with firewall buffer added in between, and give SOME functions before you get private
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
PauloHaddad
|
|
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2008, 01:22:37 PM » |
|
>.> the big thing on this is the "balance" in power, makes bigger players have to go more on the defensive, and newbies build up defenses (which they should anyway)
tho i was suggesting to split it up into several pieces, public and private being the same, just with firewall buffer added in between, and give SOME functions before you get private
This shell schema is really plausible.
|
|
|
Logged
|
If I write something wrong, grammatically speaking, please msg me! Thx!
|
|
|
virus man
|
|
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2008, 03:55:02 PM » |
|
to see them then? this could go in conjunction with the guest one, i'm trying to suggest is that server be divided into certain areas
It's already divided to the process and files categories and logs actually. But i think what you're saying is that you only need firewall to reach the processes? look at them, so that you can determine if it's being deleted or something, and so overloads are easier to get to Ok so reading this I think what you are trying to say is something like this. You come across a server that under the current way things are done you have to have both the Firewall Bypass and Password Break running. So if the target has both higher you have to overload both to crack them correct? Now under the way you are talking about it would instead be like this. You come across the same server. You know you can't take it with both programs running even if you overload one or the other or both. So you just run the firewall bypass and overload it to create a hole in the firewall that stays there. Then you kill the firewall bypass and fire up the password break. You overload the password break to get admin. Is that what you are trying to suggest? If so then I would highly disagree with this as it makes it far to easy to get around defenses with no way to counter it except by working within a group to bypass it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
SGP is opening their forums for all. From now on all Tutorials and Help files that SGP releases will be available there. SGP's Forums. New World Order
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2008, 03:59:44 PM » |
|
actually it makes sense to me, and just make bypasses and breakers in smaller increments...........
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
PauloHaddad
|
|
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2008, 04:23:01 PM » |
|
I understood the whole thing in another way.
Now, if you want to get in on John's server, you need to run Firewall Bypass to break any Firewall Protection, and then a Password Break to crack the admin acc on remote. Once the PB is done, you have the admin; if you want to access the server again, you don't need Firewall Bypass neither Password Breaker.
I think the proposal is that, once you have the admin access, you need to run Firewall Bypass if any Protection is running on remote. The Firewall Protection is a protection sheel individually, not mixed with Password's.
That was what I got from it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
If I write something wrong, grammatically speaking, please msg me! Thx!
|
|
|
Noseedam
|
|
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2008, 04:59:33 PM » |
|
not quite what i had in mind, but maybe you should have to run bypass to upload, makes sense to me, and would take up resources (besides bandwidth) making it another idea in and of itself tho
|
|
|
Logged
|
sign the AP petition already!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|