Government scrutiny is headed our way

Sun Jun 21 16:26:21 UTC 1998

I have never heard of either of these things, and I don't think they are 
worthy of the NANOG list. I use WinGate at home, it is a Win95 gateway 
program, so you can have a little proxy at home for your other systems with 
only one dialup. I'm sure many of you are familiar with it. I can't even 
imagine how it could generate spoofed packets in its legitimate form ( and 
I don't know of anyone who has modified it to do so). Go to Yahoo or 
win95.com and look up Wingate for more info. As far as I remember the 
reason SMURFING is called SMURFING is because the executable is called 
smurf! How would you "ban that code"? Ban a commercially viable product?

The system.exe file? What is that? I have not heard of that either, I 
assume you are talking about win95 still. Maybe you mean system.dat (system 
registry)? The registry cannot be modified to spoof packets my friend. 
Surely what you are talking about is not true. Neither of these claims is 
worth techical merit. I'll now go back to my normal lurking.

thanks

andrew

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.
                                             - Voltaire

On Sunday, June 21, 1998 5:03 AM, Henry Linneweh 
[SMTP:linneweh at concentric.net] wrote:
> Now that we have gotten down to the nitty gritty here.
>
> AGAIN the main mechanism for spoofing the smurf attacks is A program
> call wingate, ban that code and this problem will be cut more than in 
half.
>
> Next there is a rumor that 8000 users have been infected with a tweaked
> system.exe file that makes that user a smurf amplifier unwittingly. These
> are things to watch for. I wish there was an easier way to break bad 
news.
>
> Henry
>
>