Pretty crazy that we're closer to 2030, than we are 2005. Where did the time go!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
However, if any bittorrent client had a vulnerability in it, it could be taken advantage of. The scanner program might have picked up an exploit for a different version of a different program, or something. Or, the signature might just suck. I've noticed while using Snort to monitor traffic, when I'm downloading something off BitTorrent, it often picks up on signatures that it sees that are purely coincidental.
Quote from: Sidoh on December 31, 2005, 03:37:29 pmThe data would've been rejected anyway, since bittorrent data is checksum'd as it's recieved.However, if any bittorrent client had a vulnerability in it, it could be taken advantage of. The scanner program might have picked up an exploit for a different version of a different program, or something. Or, the signature might just suck. I've noticed while using Snort to monitor traffic, when I'm downloading something off BitTorrent, it often picks up on signatures that it sees that are purely coincidental.
The data would've been rejected anyway, since bittorrent data is checksum'd as it's recieved.
Quote from: iago on December 31, 2005, 04:08:51 pmHowever, if any bittorrent client had a vulnerability in it, it could be taken advantage of. The scanner program might have picked up an exploit for a different version of a different program, or something. Or, the signature might just suck. I've noticed while using Snort to monitor traffic, when I'm downloading something off BitTorrent, it often picks up on signatures that it sees that are purely coincidental. Haha, yeah. It still makes it that much harder, though!
I'd personally do as Joe suggests
You might be right about that, Joe.
Azureus blows. Big nuts. In hell. I turn off UPnP, I have all the required ports open, and now it's bitching about Distributed Hash Tables. -.-