Penetration Testing mailing list archives
Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss
From: Dotzero <dotzero () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:05:01 -0400
On 9/13/07, Vivek P <iamherevivek () gmail com> wrote:
hi thanks for the quick reply my goal is to hide my ip adress, the n/w packets will be pentest related & general stuff!
Is there a particular reason you are trying to hide your IP address? This might aid others in formulating response to your question (or deciding not to answer).
there is no torrent, but FTP, HTTP & regular communications will take place from the setup!
So the pentest is only FTP, HTTP and "regular communications"?
I am looking for a solution with which i can permanently show a different IP adress! (not actual)
Why permanently? Looking forward to your response. I can think of approaches that would fulfill your description. Some are legal, some might be termed "grey" and others would be flat out illegal in many/most jurisdictions. I apologize for sounding cynical but what you have posted so far does not incline me to post approaches to help something that sounds a bit iffy. dotzero ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by: Cenzic Need to secure your web apps NOW? Cenzic finds more, "real" vulnerabilities fast. Click to try it, buy it or download a solution FREE today! http://www.cenzic.com/downloads ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Vivek P (Sep 13)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Utmost Bastard (Sep 13)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Vivek P (Sep 13)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Utmost Bastard (Sep 13)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Vivek P (Sep 13)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Brett Cunningham (Sep 14)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Vivek P (Sep 13)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Dotzero (Sep 14)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Vivek P (Sep 16)
- RE: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Strykar (Sep 16)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Vivek P (Sep 16)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Brett Cunningham (Sep 17)
- RE: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Strykar (Sep 17)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Utmost Bastard (Sep 13)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Dotzero (Sep 17)
- Re: Anonymizing Packets yet ensuring 0 % packet loss Vivek P (Sep 17)