Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 311 posts

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#61

Post by autokad »

overgard wrote: post #52
autokad wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ipv6 is such a failure. even if it eventually 'takes over', its still a failure. Its over engineered for something customers didnt ask for (an ip address for every grain of sand in the universe). There's something to be said about a human readable IP address. Where you can't tell a person the address, you have to copy and paste. where you cant infer any information about the IP address just by looking at it. It adds…

Is human readable IP that important though? I mean even though I know about CIDR it's still hard for me to intuitively think about it, and I will say by far the part of kubernetes I dislike the most is figuring out the networking layer design. I feel like the only reason we need human readable IP's in the first place is for understanding all this NAT stuff that we wouldn't particularly need if we had bigger IP ranges

the short answer is yes. the long answer is: are humans involved? yes, then yes.

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#62

Post by c22 »

autokad wrote: post #56
staringback wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It adds unnecessary overhead to small packets Are you forgetting that NAT exists? IPv4 is barely functional based on how many workarounds we've had to implement over the years

NAT means we can work with IPv4 already and makes IPv6 moot. you just supported my argument. Honestly, all they had to do was add alpha characters. Just doing so would have gave us more IP addresses than we ever needed while keeping it human readable.

So use onion routing.

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#64

Post by talent_deprived »

floren wrote: post #55
overgard wrote: post #47

Honest question, why are we not all just on IPV6 now? It seems like at this point almost all the underlying hardware and software should support it? It seems like the only argument for sticking with IPv4 is NAT, but I can't think of a technical reason we couldn't do NAT with IPv6?

NAT is a strong argument against IPv4 -- it's an absolute pain in the ass for bidirectional communication. Yeah, NAT acts as a defacto firewall, but you can just... use a real firewall.

> it's an absolute pain in the ass for bidirectional communication

You're right and that's what I love about NAT, IPv6 in contrast is a hacker/spy tracking digital superhighway right through my front door and straight into my devices.

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#65

Post by NullPrefix »

overgard wrote: post #47

Honest question, why are we not all just on IPV6 now? It seems like at this point almost all the underlying hardware and software should support it? It seems like the only argument for sticking with IPv4 is NAT, but I can't think of a technical reason we couldn't do NAT with IPv6?

I assume IPv6's are less trusted by spam filters

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#66

Post by Aurornis »

DonHopkins wrote: post #14

I know somebody who basically stole a class A IP network many years ago, in the very early days of IPV4. (He wouldn't tell me which one, but he had inside knowledge of how the system worked, and I know his background, so I believe him. ;) The huge company that owned it went out of business, so he registered their domain name, and sent in an email to authorize the transfer. Once you've got a hot class A network on you…

This story is hard to believe as told.

Even back in the early days of the internet, non-government Class A blocks were few and far between. I doubt there was a form you could fill out and authorize a transfer to a random individual by merely having an e-mail address and a domain name.

Even if you could finagle a transfer by impersonating the company via e-mail, that would be a clear case of fraud and theft from the defunct company's assets. You couldn't actually expect to use or sell the block without anyone noticing.

> He ended up trading it under the table to a company that could use it, in exchange for the promise of free service for life.

If the story is true, what likely happened is that they coordinated the actual sale through proper channels and laughed at your friends' fraud, er, antics, choosing to give him a token gesture instead of actually buying anything from him.

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#68

Post by Tao3300 »

avar wrote: post #38
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #6

This highlights something tangential, but interesting nevertheless: Oftentimes getting embroiled in a civil lawsuit will, if impropriety is uncovered via the process of discovery, lead to separate criminal charges. The lesson here is that if you have something to hide, and it looks like you're going to be dragged into civil court (especially Federal civil court,) you should rush to settle or beg for arbitration behin…

Wouldn't it be better to rush to a country without an extradition treaty with the US?

If I had to guess, no.

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#69

Post by axus »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #6

This highlights something tangential, but interesting nevertheless: Oftentimes getting embroiled in a civil lawsuit will, if impropriety is uncovered via the process of discovery, lead to separate criminal charges. The lesson here is that if you have something to hide, and it looks like you're going to be dragged into civil court (especially Federal civil court,) you should rush to settle or beg for arbitration behin…

I wish the lesson were "If something might be criminal, check first and then don't do it".

Makes you wonder if anyone has started an "AI-powered legal database miner as-a-service" for rent to zealous prosecutors.

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#70

Post by _jal »

goalonetwo wrote: post #35
HomeDeLaPot wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a smart entrepreneur he was to commit fraud!

messing up and defrauding that way doesn't negate the fact that you still need to be smart on some level(depending on your definition) to create an IT company. We should definitely punish the fraud. But also look at rehabilitation. In this case, we are taking someone that could under the right circumstance be a net positive for society and putting him in jail for 5 years where he will most probably come out as a dest…

> I will never understand how people desire for revenge negate the bigger picture.

It is more that people tend to be extremely selective about when they see that bigger picture.

There are lots of smart people rotting in prison who committed very similar crimes who never seem to elicit sympathy. Coincidentally, they tended not to be white collar strivers before being busted.

Post reply on HN