"p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"  wrote in
news:8hld5a1no57fn588831m9efle4g2fiv4nl@4ax.com: 

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

Ahh. lexicon spin. Cute, but your known for doing this already. I 
want to see something new!
 
>>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! 

Again, this isn't a default setting right? So the switch is going to 
behave like I intially said, right? AND you have to make sure the 
switch your using can do these things right? After all, if it's just 
a switch with no extras, it won't let you do the snooping on the 
other ports, like I said. A HUB would, though. With no configuration 
(ehehehe) changes necessary to do it.

As far as people not being aware you're snooping; that's desperation 
on your part. Most non IT people won't know the difference between a 
hub and switch even if their sitting beside each other. Hell, most of 
them don't even know what happens when they plugin, so long as 
facebook comes up.

Give it up... You aren't going to spin and deflect on this one, 
stooge.
 
>>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.

Be specific, not ambiguous. I'm tired of filling in the blanks for 
you. If I have a standard say, 8 port switch, I'm not going to be 
able to tie into port 1 and monitor the activities on the other 7 
ports from here. It's a switch, not a dumb hub. I have to go out of 
my way to make the switch act more like a hub, IF the switch allows 
me to do that. Right? With me so far?
 
>>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.

Umm...

Lemme explain something to your dumbass, quick and easy. I'll use a 
very old and at one point, very ####ing common residential router. A 
linksys WRT54G (it was popular as hell, it'll do for this example).

It's a 4 port router with wifi. Nothing fancy, but it'll do just fine 
for this example. 

You can isolate the wifi from the hardlined computers. It will not 
let the wifi connected machines have anything to do with the ones 
that are physically connected to it via ports if you tell it to 
isolate the wifi. **At no time is this router going to let me plug 
into port 1 and snoop traffic on ports 2 3 and 4. If I want to snoop 
ALL of the traffic on wifi and hardline with this router, I'd put a 
HUB (not a switch) in front of it and tie in to that hub. Then, I can 
watch everything the router is sending/receiving wireless and wired.

I'll explain the limited wifi snooping you can do. If I have wifi set 
as isolated, you'll ONLY be snooping unencrypted wifi traffic; You 
will not have access to the traffic coming and going from the 
machines that are hardwired to the router. IE: You can't connect via 
wifi and snoop the entire LAN. 

Other routers have two wifi's. A guest network as well as another 
network. You can select to isolate them from everything else, each 
other, etc. I can elect to isolate the guest network from the other 
wifi network AND hardwired side of the network. So if you connect 
with the guest network, you can only snoop traffic for other users on 
the same little network. You have no access to the other wifi network 
or the hardwired devices on the network.

** Assuming I haven't modified the firmware/replaced it with 3rd 
party. Out of the box here, linksys (cisco) firmware. It'll do what I 
said and nothing more. Figured I'd be sure to put this into words 
before you tried to spin 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 ####.

Some people have googled things and taken you to task already. This 
won't be any different.

Speaking of ignorant AND arrogant though; how many substations did 
you find that are affected in the American Power Grid as I said they 
were? Nine, right? :) This discussion is no different. It's clear to 
me that you don't know networking as well as you like to pretend 
here. 

You're writing bull#### but trying to be techie as you do it. Likely 
hoping to goad people who know even less than you about this into 
thinking you're right? Much like you did with the exevalid threads 
and the demo threads created afterwards. You play/depend on other 
peoples ignorance of the subjects you troll. 

Another exevalid thread in the making pooh?



-- 
If you can read this, Thank a teacher.
If you're reading it in english, Thank a soldier!


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2