new way for attacks

[Noseedam]

firewalls are readily available, bypasses are not, and thats another reason for logs to be in private area :P

[PauloHaddad]

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'

[Noseedam]

once you're cracking, you don't need bypass running no, and thanks for revealing useful secret >.>

[XRay]

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.

[BobbyBob]

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 

[Noseedam]

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

[BobbyBob]

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?

[Noseedam]

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

[BobbyBob]

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

[Noseedam]

>.> 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

[PauloHaddad]

>.> 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.

[virus man]

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.

[Noseedam]

actually it makes sense to me, and just make bypasses and breakers in smaller increments...........

[PauloHaddad]

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.

[Noseedam]

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