3 ms·
He did specify that the listed servers only blocked on evil bits, implying they didn't block when other private bits were used
by TZubiri 3y ago
He did specify that the listed servers only blocked on evil bits, implying they didn't block when other private bits were used
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Terr_ 3y agoPerhaps they were running TempleOS? :P That seems like one stack where the odds of evil-bit packets being deliberately blocked seems very high to me.
- eindiran 3y agoTempleOS has no networking support at all, so I suppose one interpretation is that it drops all packets with the evil bit set.
- jackbondpreston 3y agoI don't see anything saying that in the blog post
- philately 3y ago> After doing scans if I could connect to port 80 from a PC that had no evil bit kernel, and a normal one on the same network, I found the following list of domains that only failed on my evil bit computer
- DaSHacka 3y agoThis seems to be the comparison between a totally regular device and one with the evil bit set, he doesn't mention a device having any other private bits besides the evil bit set.
- bmacho 3y agoI am 100% sure that it was in the article that he listed the sites which only failed on the evil bit, and not on other reserved bits. I've read it 4 times again, and it is not there now. Strange.