On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:50:21 +0000 (UTC), Dustin 
wrote:

>"p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"  wrote in
>news:1im75a5afjan1fs6qolbfr51bdjn61j56h@4ax.com: 
>
>> Well if you knew it already why the inaccurate initial post.
>
>Post wasn't inaccurate.

You said "The only way you can 'spy' on other computers on the LAN's
traffic is if their using a hub."

Obviously your definition of inaccurate is inaccurate. Not really
surprising.

 
>> probably work, secondhand on Ebay Ł20 for something decent] if you
>> plug your equipment into someone else's switch they *CAN* monitor
>> your traffic. 
>
>Yes, I didn't say otherwise; but unless the switch is security 
>unfriendly and stupid mode settable (like you're describing), 
>They won't just be hardlining into a free port and watching traffic 
>on the other ones. Not directly, anyhow. 

They who. Why not.

>Unless either configuration 
>changes are made, OR, your WAN side connection is tied into a hub 
>just before that switch you wanna snoop traffic on. So it's 
>computers, switch/router, hub, internet. (very basic for everyone 
>reading, poohskie). Tap into HUB, snoop away.

Tap into HUB and they can snoop on you. How ####ing stupid do you feel
now?

>> So you were wrong :) Still it'll give you something to spin and
>> write word walls about until your departure from this life. I'll
>> look forward to skimming them. It's a gas.
>
>I was wrong? How is modifying a switch that might have extra features 
>any different than swapping out for an outright HUB? 

Because with port mirroring nobody has to know you are even there. Duh!

>The result is 
>easier with a HUB. If you don't change default settings (if the 
>switch even offers it) that switch isn't going to let you hardline 
>into port 1 and watch traffic on the other ports it has. 

Complete bollocks.

>A switch, by default (unless you can prove me wrong here) is going to 
>do exactly what I initially said. If you hardline into port 1, you 
>aren't going to be sniffing traffic on ports 2,3,4,etc. Period. Like 
>I ####ing said, originally. Wifi is limited too. You can do some 
>sniffing, but if the wifi seperates hardline LAN from wifi 

What the #### does that even mean. You're talking drivel. WiFi is WiFi
what separates LAN traffic out is either a bridge or a router. You do
understand the components that go into access points and multifunctional
devices don't you. Obviously not.

>connections; you won't be seeing the hardline comms, like I said, 
>again.
>
>Why do you even try this bull####? People can google about this #### 
>themselves, dumbass.

That hasn't worked for you hotshot. You're still an ignorant arrogant
cunt.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

-- 
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, 
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, 
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, 
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, 
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2