Forum Overview :: Motherfucking News :: Odds are it's not enabled anyway ..

[quote name="bastage"]If he's got a few systems behind the Linksys then it's probably NAT'ing for him in the first place, and if that's the case then the only way an 'external' system could contact one of the clients behind the Linksys would be if he specically set it up to forward the traffic inbound. (And based on what I've read so far I doubt he did.) RE: the Cisco IOS, overall it's one of the 'more' secure systems out there. The DoS exploit that came out about a month ago was the first I've seen in a long time that <i>didn't</i> center around attacking their http server. (Which anybody in their right mind turns off immediately anyway.) And, if it's a Cisco that touches the Internet it should be ACLed up tight in the first place .. Anyway, SB, I know where you're coming from with your theory on how AIM is handling the problem of both users being firewalled but seriously doubt that's how they're doing it. Not only would that method would be fairly unreliable but why go through the effort of mucking with sequence numbers if you're going to wind up acting as a router for the traffic anyway ..? I'm not an IMer. (Hence my lack of posts .. hehe) Does the Trillian client have the same capability as the new AIM beta ..? It would probably be relatively easy to figure out what's going on if I could take a look at the traffic.[/quote]