EFF Releases Software to Spot Net NonNeutrality 73
DanielBoz writes in with word of the EFF's new initiative to help consumers detect if their ISP is spoofing packets. From the press release: "In the wake of the detection and reporting of Comcast Corporation's controversial interference with Internet traffic, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a comprehensive account of Comcast's packet-forging activities and has released software and documentation instructing Internet users on how to test for packet forgery or other forms of interference by their own ISPs."
Oblig. (Score:1)
[pause]
Wireshark!
If it's Comcast... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If it's Comcast... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To detect this, simply scan all the RST packets that come in, and try to detect a pattern of forgery. This is easier, of course, if you can ask the server if the RST packet was real.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If it's Comcast... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Bender: "I'm not reading that crap! Sum it up in one word!"
Leela: "Sabotage!"
Important, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you trust the EFF? (Score:1)
1 - You trust X: No need to check for yourself.
2 - You don't trust X: Why would you believe X's software?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, I thought that net neutrality was about being neutral about the source organization of a packet, not being neutral about the type of packet. For example, that the ISP doesn't try to give Google's services a lower priority than
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not tesing is not science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm leaving out any geeky reasons such as viewing the source code (which I don't see if they provide or not) or how simple the process is.
Re: (Score:1)
No trust needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just a thought.
RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Take two packet traces, one from you your computer one from a friend while your two computers are talking. Then compare the TCP sessions captured by each for differences. Differences that don't matter are fragmentation and re-ordering, for example. Difference that do matter are TCP resets, ICMP unreachables, TCP FIN's that are received by one side and not sent by the other.
Sheesh, I can forgive not knowing how networking works, but to post inflammatory comments when you are obviously ignorant is, well, ignorant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your post demonstrates unequivocally that you did not read the article or if you did, you didn't understand it.
I read the article. What I didn't see was that there was a second linked article that described the software.
Sheesh, I can forgive not knowing how networking works, but to post inflammatory comments when you are obviously ignorant is, well, ignorant.
I didn't make the post to be inflammatory. I just wanted to express that giving an application to prove something you're saying is not logical. And no, I didn't know the software existed previously.
Obviously it was inflammatory, judging by the number of replies, but I think it's because from the title, readers were already expecting an offensive post before reading the content.
And, btw, my point wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop misusing "Network Neutrality" (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod Parent Up! (Score:2)
Re:Stop misusing "Network Neutrality" (Score:5, Interesting)
And, of course, the definitions vary in part because people have different opinions on what is "important." Supporters of net neutrality agree that data carriers should at a minimum be source/destination neutral (the version of neutrality you are referring to). However some people do indeed believe that carriers should also be neutral with respect to the devices allowed to connect to the network, and the types of traffic sent over the network.*
So, in short, there is a diversity of opinion about what the term means (or "should" mean, I guess).
[*] As an aside, my mind isn't made up, but I understand the logic for saying that traffic neutrality may be ultimately a good thing. Yes, it prevents certain QoS strategies on shared carrier networks (but not on closed private networks, of course)... but then again, do you trust your ISP (which has its own interests) to pick the QoS strategy that actually works best for you? (Or even for most customers?) Also, any QoS strategy inherently makes a judgment call about what is "important" and what isn't. So, it inherently limits new technologies/protocols we haven't yet dreamed of. And, it would seem inefficient because any QoS which degrades protocols that customers are interested in will be circumvented (e.g. by masking your traffic as a type of traffic that is "approved" for high-speed delivery). Certainly we wouldn't let other carriers discriminate based on the content (e.g. postal service that delivers boxes that contain videotapes slower than boxes that contain paper; phone carrier that delays voice calls to prioritize fax calls...).
Re: (Score:1)
Special Section on Net Neutrality, The International Journal of Communication, http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc [ijoc.org]
Pages and pages, opinions, pros&cons, etc.
CC.
Re:Stop misusing "Network Neutrality" (Score:4, Insightful)
I think how consumers are supposed to select their QoS strategy is with QoS labels. The question is not 'should we have QoS' (I don't know about you, but I would rather have my videoconference packets queued ahead of my ftp packets), it's should the ISP be overriding our choices to satisfy their own policies. This is the same issue as randomly dropped connections: a mechanism to drop connections should exist because the endpoints need it. The carrier should not be invoking it 'on your behalf' and in the face of your desires, or it simply isn't doing what it was paid to do.
There's a secondary issue of whether your operating system provides a good mechanism for QoS policy management at the endpoints (hint: no, it doesn't). But that's something to take up with the O/S vendor, or perhaps—an easier nut to crack—the router in your home. But in any case, it seems reasonably clear that QoS should be honoured or ignored end-to-end, and not randomly messed with in transit to the benefit of third parties.
...Unless I've misunderstood the technical situation completely....
Re: (Score:1)
Ya gotta admit, using "Net Neutrality" however wrongfully, is an attention grabber. It got you talking, didn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Damn debate gene (Score:1)
The postal service in fact does prioritize mail, that's why media mail(boxes of paper as it were) costs less by weight; they don't want to put more effort into heavy, time-insensitive mail, but won't charge as much, for keeping it out of the air.
The phone company does prioritize as we
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is completely acceptable for an ISP to shape traffic based on the customers' requested packet priorities, on a zero-sum basis; some types of packets are very time-dependent, and thus can be sent in a manner that ensures they'll arrive more quickly (in exchange, of course, for losing some overall bandwidth).
However, when an ISP begins prioritizing these things it
Re: (Score:2)
What comcast is doing is stupid for controlling bandwidth because the user can actually tell what happened. They are doing a favor for net neutrality advocates by bei
Re: (Score:1)
This is a very good distinction to make, since dilution and misuse of the term stands to weaken the more important issue. The primary difference here is that of what amounts to an information toll-road, versus QoS traffic shaping. I can understand where Comcast is coming from (I don't necessarily agree with the way they went about their traffic shaping, but I understand why they did it), the latter is primarily a decision that the ISP is making in the majority of its users' best interests, while the former
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of denying what they are doing... (Score:1)
Because that would require accounting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have a FiOS 20MB down/5MB up pipe. If I and my neighbors started consuming all that bandwdi
Re:Instead of denying what they are doing... (Score:4, Interesting)
All of this assumes that you are swayed by the advertising and don't really check up on the claims being advertised. Or, it states things in common everyday language that are backed up by the fine print saying something quite different.
There clearly are two kinds of people - those that understand what is being advertised isn't exactly what is being sold and those that have managed to get through life until their 16th birthday without realizing this. Sorry, time to grow up.
I still want to ask the car salesman about the speedometer. And ask if we can check if the car will really go that fast on the test drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great example. You were listing examples of fraud correct?
Because Western Digital just settled a lawsuit over this. [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
EFF- thanks, it's the thought that counts (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I use WOW as my cable and internet provider, where my options were Satellite + DSL, Comcast Bundle, AT&T Bundle, or WOW. I regularly talk about WOW and their fantastic customer service, support, and quality product at a relatively low price. I know that if I test my connection and find that they're up to the same dirty tricks, making a stink about it will go further with them. They're always trying hard to convince people to switch away from Comcast,
Re: (Score:1)
from http://www1.wowway.com/wow/wow.aspx?ConIdent=28&RCView=False&TermID=2 [wowway.com]
N. Customer will not use or distribute tools designed or used for compromising security, such as password guessing programs, decoders, password gatherers, analyzers, cr
Comcast releases new modem setup diagram (Score:4, Funny)
Will There Be Fasle Positives? (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't only for nefarious purposes where providers spoof packets. Will this software be able to identify the good from the bad? Or will it just assume that all are bad, even in the face of legitimate uses?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We will buy our convenience with innovation, not by sacrificing our freedom.
Replace 'convenience' with 'safety' and it works too
Re: (Score:1)
In any environment where
one might consider employing a PEP for improved performance, an end
user (or, in some cases, the responsible network administrator)
Re: (Score:1)
Test instructions for the few (Score:2)
Each party participating in the experiment must have all of the following:
* a computer capable of running Wireshark, with appropriate privileges to install and run it;
* the ability to connect this computer directly to the Internet, with a public IP address, outside of any firewalls (for example, not via a typical home wireless router);
* the ability to determine the computer's public IP address;
* the ability to disable any firewall software running on the computer itself;
* some appl
Re: (Score:1)
--
Ask not what your country is doing to you...