well, at least we got to chat about an interestig topic for a while, but yes, time to end this thread I think.
Printable View
well, at least we got to chat about an interestig topic for a while, but yes, time to end this thread I think.
Hell, I'll do it just to keep this guy from learning anymore than he already has about hiding his intentions.
He's so 3l173 that he had to ask us. :D
Note to Moderator....Thread Closed
Thank you very much and a nice day
if theres a LAN it is for a purpose, and I agree the n/w administrator has the full right to know what is going on in the network.
This is my point: If you do not own the system, and the system belongs in a LAN, no1 has any business installing trojans, modifying anything or even making it invisible to the admin without the admin's permision. I'm having mixed opinions about you _G_. You start off soundind like a script kiddie trying to experiment with sub7, then you tell us how you'd send S7 through the AV, but then again you drop down to a script kiddie level. As 576869746568617 said, it does not add up. I asked you a question in one of my posts, and i have received no answer yet.
Any particular reason why you would need to be invisible to do these?Quote:
I want, for example to listen an mp3, see a movie....., without beeing detected by programs like netwatcher(pro), in fact i don't want them to see me at all.
Why would u install sub7 in a system that you do not own. My guess: You have a computer at home, where u have the server side of the trojan installed. You are trying to experiment and seing what it does. (Not a good Idea since the other system is not yours, and you're doing this without the owner's consent)Quote:
(thought i plan to "install" s7)
What exactly do you mean by this? I strongly believe you're around 16-17 years old, because any adult in the IT world would know how "useless" sub7 has become.Quote:
i just want to be invisible sometimes, because, let's say i'm older.
You're proud :), good for you. I hope you guys come up with something new because indeed sub 7 has become Obsolete.Quote:
and, yes, the s7 is living, in fact i'm proud that s7 was made by romanians (because myself i'm romanian).
Please clear some of my confusion, perhaps we could assist you better.
I have been reading this thread, and an idea popped into my mind......dont know if this would work, but im sure someone could make it work
1) if you had 2 nics, one for receiving packets only, and one for sending packets only. Hooked them up with specially made cables...sending and receiving...
2) using the receiving nic to passively receive the ack packets
3)using the sending nic to send the packets where you want them. Could this, in theory actually work to leave you "hidden" yet able to communicate? There would have to be something tying the nics together. However, you could still be detected because of "unknown traffic" However, you couldnt be found as your "receiving" nic is totally passive. Does this make sense or is it totally stupid? LOL Thanks for any imput. I have no idea how to make it work, but it seems like it could work....just horribly inefficient. Any ideas anyone?
PS. just to let you know, i am currently attending college for my BaS of Information Systems Security.
.
Yes, that in theory would work, IMHO, as it is theoretically and logically sound. The problem is that, as you said, there would still be traffic that would be "unknown", but would still be traceable to the port on the switch depending on the switch. If it's a hub, then there is no really easy way to trace, and if an IP proxy/anonomyzer was used in conjuction with a blanked out MAC address, it would be damn near impossible. What I don't get is why the thread is still open?
..............===========...........................
..............|......................|...........................
.............sss...................S..........................
............u....u.................U..........................
.............bbb..................B..........................
...............s...................S...........................
...........eeeee..............E............................
..........v...vv...v............V............................
.........e....ee...e...........E............................
........n.....nn......n.......N.............................
..............s..s..............S..............................
............ u....u............U...............................
............c.......c...........C...............................
...........k.........k.........K................................
.........ss.........ss.......S................................
................................|.................................
DONKEYBALLSDONKEYBALLSDONKEYBALLS
What do I have to do to get someone to kill this thread. Maybe if we just neg the **** out of him it'll commit suicide!
I can't believe I just did that, but IMHO I think it's the most worthwhile part of this whole thread! :D
ROFL....creative :D
very nice pic...lol
and yes, I thought this was over..
Its Still not over hmmm
FINIS
And the true neighbours of the devil are 664 and 668...............the other buggers are across the road?
:D
.
is very hard to make a s7 server to be undetected by more a.v. programs.
its very hard to keep te server resident in memory without beeing detected.
s7 doesn't sucks, it's the best. (that's the truth. i'm not just sayng).
to infect someone with s7 is a challenge (assuming that person is not a newbie)
What a bunch of grumps we are... ****...
He/she/you doesn't need us to figure out sub7, infact he wanting to use sub7 is totally not a part of the question at all. He just wants to know a way to be undetected on the network as far as possible. As he's on a wired network an admin could just walk up to a switch and see there's a computer at the end of the wire. Getting mad about subseven etc. is a complete waste of at least my good mood while I spending my time reading this thread. There's like 4 or 5 good replies and this thread is 6 (six) pages long.
Come on, is this antionline?
Your right...It wasn't an issue...at first!
But then, we got insight into why he wanted to know how to do this....Quote:
it's possible to be "un-detected" in a LAN? i'm talking about a small lan (8 computers, 2 switches) , no special server, software....etc (only winxp, maybe sp1 or sp2)
And then his true intentions became clearer....Quote:
don't want to harm people or destroy their data (thought i plan to "install" s7) i just want to be invisible sometimes
And clearer....Quote:
if i binf the server with someting the AV programs doesn't detect him?! i can say that now i'm "working" to a version of the s7 server (i split the server in files from 5KB-100KB, every file is scaned, etc...etc...when you get the optimal size that AV programs detect the trojan code (signatrue), you know that is the samllest size of code that the AV recognize, then must be modified,....etc kinna complex, i don't want to give more details)
Quote:
is very hard to make a s7 server to be undetected by more a.v. programs.
Why this does not add up for you, I don not know, but had this information not lead me to believe his intentions for wanting to be hidden were less than honourable, I would have been more obliged to help.
Last time I checked, This was a security site. I might be mistaken, but Sub7 is far from useful in that respect.
He asked about being invisible on a network and being invisible on a network won't help him installing sub7. Also sub7 is one big pile of security related ****, sub7 or rather trojans in general are responsible for most *DoS attacks where mass packaging things are involved. Instead of throwing arround flames regarding age/scriptkiddies/threadclosings, wich I end up reading, I'd rather spend my time ignoring this thread and looking for beer.
I sound arrogant now, but I was under the impression the majority of posts on antionline where interesting and not flames or birthday threads... Allright, I'm lying now, I lost that impression about 3 years ago.
I see......well, I agree with you on a lot of those points, I just feel that the flaming by myself, Cybr1d, and everone else was warranted in this instance. That's all I have to say. I have my point and you have yours, and I guess we both agree the question that started the thread was valid, even though we don't agree with the rest of it.
I'll shut up now...I've said my piece.
DIE THREAD DIE!
G, if your intentions are honorable, follow the advice given to you by few of the members in this thread. Who knows...i might have been wrong about you. I still get mixed opinion about your inentions. Thats all I got to say, I'm done with this thread. I wish you the best G, and hopefully we get some positive feedback from you in the future. (Meaning giving back to the community :D)
he said small network (8 comps) may be it is a home LAN or soho network he plans on doing this on which is completely legitamate.
i understand everyones reason for being senstive about divulging this type of information, but you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. :D
so he is trying to hide from himself? Also he says about the OS "only winxp, maybe sp1 or sp2" which does indicate that he doesn`t know whats on the network, which indicates that he is not in charge of the network.
I agree with neel in that he did ask a legitiamte question for this forum, however the fact that he wants to do it so he can install a trojan does somewhat go against the point of this (i thought we were here to stop trojans, not tell folks how to hide them?)
ok, now when is this thread over for real?
He refers to it as a block (or building). That's not what I call my house....besides, If it was his, why would he have to be hidden to do what he wants to do. The types of sniffing software that he claims are running on the LAN are not commonly used on home networks, nor are managed switches.
I'd have to say that the evidence in his posts points to other than honorable intent. I will admit I could be wrong....but I doubt it.
Anyhow, I'm done with this thread.....Good Luck _G_, with whatever you are doing. I really don't want to know (plausable deniability :D )
THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED
even i agree with the most of the members, please close the thread...
'Nuff said.