I may be the only evil (bit) user on the internet

Re:I may be the only evil (bit) user on the internet by TZubiri on Wednesday June 14, 2023 @04:00PM (#36331735)

He did specify that the listed servers only blocked on evil bits, implying they didn't block when other private bits were used

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I may be the only evil (bit) user on the internet by Terr_ on Wednesday June 14, 2023 @04:10PM (#36331873)

Perhaps 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I may be the only evil (bit) user on the internet by eindiran on Wednesday June 14, 2023 @04:35PM (#36332213)

TempleOS has no networking support at all, so I suppose one interpretation is that it drops all packets with the evil bit set.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I may be the only evil (bit) user on the internet by jackbondpreston on Wednesday June 14, 2023 @05:34PM (#36333067)

I don't see anything saying that in the blog post

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I may be the only evil (bit) user on the internet by philately on Wednesday June 14, 2023 @08:57PM (#36335056)

> 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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I may be the only evil (bit) user on the internet by DaSHacka on Wednesday June 14, 2023 @09:25PM (#36335264)

This 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I may be the only evil (bit) user on the internet by bmacho on Thursday June 15, 2023 @06:15AM (#36338448)

I 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]