Linked by runjorel on Thu 13th Jan 2011 19:35 UTC
Linux "At the end of 2010, the 'open-source' software movement, whose activists tend to be fringe academics and ponytailed computer geeks, found an unusual ally: the Russian government. Vladimir Putin signed a 20-page executive order requiring all public institutions in Russia to replace proprietary software, developed by companies like Microsoft and Adobe, with free open-source alternatives by 2015."
Thread beginning with comment 458148
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by robojerk
by Laurence on Sat 15th Jan 2011 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by robojerk"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

You miss my point.

What I'm saying is businesses and governments wouldn't have e-mail traffic going from workstations to the internet. They'd have that traffic going to and from the exchange server.

So the firewall would still block your example as only the exchange server would be whitelisted for sending e-mails.


Now I'm not saying that it's impossible to hide data, just that it's unlikely to be happening because of the difficulty in doing so successfully and the backlash when it inevitably gets found out.

Edited 2011-01-15 13:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by robojerk
by Nth_Man on Sat 15th Jan 2011 17:44 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by robojerk"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

What I'm saying is businesses and governments wouldn't have e-mail traffic going from workstations to the internet. They'd have that traffic going to and from the exchange server.

I repeat again, the example of "steganography" in emails was to show that you can send encrypted data through standard ports, through standard protocols. So that quote in the prior discussion
Because anything on a non-standard port or even (and depending on the port) using a non-standard protocol on a standardised port would be firewalled. "

does not apply.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by robojerk
by Laurence on Sat 15th Jan 2011 23:43 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by robojerk"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I got your point, but what I'm trying to say is very little network traffic directly leaves workstations.

While I agree that there theoretically could be steganographical information encoded into standard network traffic, I think the chances are slim. Particularly as the only reliable communications protocol (in terms of likelihood to be usable on the widest variety of instillations) would be HTTP.

Reply Parent Score: 2