network scanners – is the UDP or TCP protocol best suited for a so called stealth counter scan for open or closed ports

network scanners – is the UDP or TCP protocol best suited for a so called stealth counter scan for open or closed ports – Information Security Stack Exchange

project – I invented a new consensus protocol – how to proceed?

after working for some (long) time, I formulated a proposition for a new consensus protocol in blockchain networks. I wanted to create a protocol that achieves true decentralisation, both in its operation and distribution of coins as rewards (so decentralising wealth). I believe that PoS blockchains can’t do that, because they must distribute coins initially to some small group of investors and then those investors get the block rewards. Protocols using some real-world resources (like hashing in PoW) eventually get centralised, as few entities, using technological optimisation of hardware (ASICs), geographically-dependent advantages (cheap electricity in some parts of the world) or just through economies of scale (buying hardware cheaper) eventually capture the distribution of coins and wealth coming from the system.

My proposition:

-Proof-of-Used-Bandwidth: the more Internet bandwidth a user invests, the more likely he is to become a block producer.

-Geographically-bounded blockchains: there is not just one blockchain; everyone can create a blockchain version that uses Proof-of-Used-Bandwidth, but only the bandwidth originating from a selected geography (from a country or even a region) can be used to compete to produce a block in this blockchain version.

-All geographically-bounded blockchains are interoperable without the need for some central chain over all of them. So even if there are many blockchains, and each one allows to use bandwidth from a specific region, still all form one whole.


-In each blockchain users compete based on same conditions: if it’s the same country, they have similar bandwidth costs (I’m assuming that they are buying bigger amounts of dedicated bandwidth),
similar cost of hardware (no ASICs apply here, because it uses bandwidth, so cannot be optimised like this), same electricity costs, etc. This is a great advantage, because there really is not much that can cause an oligopoly.

-Unlimited scalability, because there are many (theoretically unlimited number) networks, each covering some area, and all are interoperable with each other. No need for central chain over all of them.

I think it can be an interesting idea and I analysed the design that I came up with repetitively for quite some time and couldn’t find a flaw.

However, this design is very complex and it’s described on many pages. What should I do with it now? If it could work, and I believe it could, it would be a very big step forward. But I don’t know anyone in crypto-space and my name is completely unknown. I would like this to become someday a community-driven project.

I don’t want anything from anyone and I’m not trying to promote myself or my idea. I just want a hint from someone “in the know” – how should I progress now? The whitepaper and detailed documentation are on my website:

☑️NEW – Libera protocol Airdrop 🥇 – Ending today – Get 150 $LIB 90USD | NewProxyLists

Libera protocol Airdrop 🥇
💎 Get 150 $LIB protocol by do Tasks (90 USD).
💎 Get 67 $LIB protocol per each User Register with your referral link (40 USD).
🟢Join airdrop here :

🥇 Join Our Telegram Channel
🥈 Follow us on Twitter
🥉 Submit Details
👁 3 refs required
🏆 Done.

email – Fetchmail does not use the indicated protocol

I’m trying to setup fetchmail for download some mail from gmail using pop3. The problem, as you can see, is that fetchmail instead of use the pop protocol will use imap.

For being sure to not have commit any error during the configuration i will summarize the procedure:

  1. I edited the file called “fetchmail” in the folder /etc/default and set the variable demon to “yes”;

  2. Now I created the configuration file “fetchmailrc” in the folder /etc. In this one I wrote:

    set postmaster "root"
    set daemon 600
    poll with proto POP3
        user '' there with password 'secretPWD' is root here options ssl
  3. And then i proceed with a test for see if it works using the command:”fetchmail -d0 -vk”. The response of the command is as follows:

    fetchmail: 6.4.2 querying (protocol auto) at Mon Jul 12 12:43:41 2021: poll started
    fetchmail: 6.4.2 querying (protocol IMAP) at Mon Jul 12 12:43:41 2021: poll started
    Trying to connect to failed.
    fetchmail: connection to ( failed: Connection timed out.
    Trying to connect to failed.
    fetchmail: connection to ( failed: Connection timed out.
    Trying to connect to 2a00:1450:4013:c00::6c/143...connection failed.
    fetchmail: connection to (2a00:1450:4013:c00::6c/143) failed: Network is unreachable.
    Trying to connect to 2a00:1450:4013:c00::6d/143...connection failed.
    fetchmail: connection to (2a00:1450:4013:c00::6d/143) failed: Network is unreachable.
    fetchmail: Connection errors for this poll:
    name 0: connection to ( failed: Connection timed out.
    name 1: connection to ( failed: Connection timed out.
    name 2: connection to (2a00:1450:4013:c00::6c/143) failed: Network is unreachable.
    name 3: connection to (2a00:1450:4013:c00::6d/143) failed: Network is unreachable.
    IMAP connection to failed: Network is unreachable
    fetchmail: 6.4.2 querying (protocol IMAP) at Mon Jul 12 12:48:02 2021: poll                         completed
    fetchmail: 6.4.2 querying (protocol auto) at Mon Jul 12 12:48:02 2021: poll completed
    fetchmail: Query status=2 (SOCKET)
    fetchmail: normal termination, status 2

As I can assume, fetchmail is trying to force the imap protocol instead of pop. I can’t understand at all why is doing something like that.

Maybe my low conoscence are made me missing something. Right now I’m working on the last version of Ubuntu server. Thank you very much for your attention and I’m sorry for my bad English.

P.S. I know that using the root account is discouraged, but for now I’m only doing some tries. When I will understand how to configure fetchmail the next step is to setup a compleat mail server using postfix, dovecot and fetchmail. Also, I already know the existence of getmail and his extreamly easy setup. But now I would like to understand the cause of this error.


Earnings Disclaimer:  All the posts published herein are merely based on individual views, and they do not expressly or by implications represent those of NewProxyLists or its owner. It is hereby made clear that NewProxyLists does not endorse, support, adopt or vouch any views, programs and/or business opportunities posted herein. NewProxyLists also does not give and/or offer any investment advice to any members and/or it’s readers. All members and readers are advised to independently consult their own consultants, lawyers and/or families before making any investment and/or business decisions. This forum is merely a place for general discussions. It is hereby agreed by all members and/or readers that NewProxyLists is in no way responsible and/or liable for any damages and/or losses suffered by anyone of you.

open graph protocol – How can you get a thumbnail when you share a PDF on Facebook

One of my clients writes cookbooks. Some time ago, he wrote an article about the origins of Boston Cream Pie, which he has on his site as a PDF on a page of links to various articles he has written.

I would like to share that PDF on Facebook, but the PDF doesn’t give Facebook any Open Graph tags, so the link is rather ugly

Is there an Open Graph implementation for PDF URLs that would give his readers a good social media link besides creating a new page with text and images that are more Open Graph friendly?

[GET][VIP] – Maximize Your Sales Conversions: The S.I.N. Offer Protocol Training by Todd Brown | NewProxyLists

Attention: Coaches, Consultants, Agency Owners, and Course Creators

“Could This Be the easiest way on earth to
make your Marketing generate More New Clients and Sales?”

Sales Page:

Hidden Content:

You must reply before you can see the hidden data contained here.



Download – Maximize Your Sales Conversions: The S.I.N. Offer Protocol Training by Todd Brown :

Hidden Content:

You must reply before you can see the hidden data contained here.


Hidden Content:

You must reply before you can see the hidden data contained here.


Hidden Content:

You must reply before you can see the hidden data contained here.


transactions – What (if anything) in the bitcoin protocol prevents bias against certain accounts?

The bitcoin protocol allows miners to choose which transactions to include when they create a block. They can’t include any inauthentic transactions, but to allow for an open market of transaction fees, they are allowed to choose which subset of authentic transactions they want to include. The assumption seems to be that miners are interested in maximizing their reward, and therefore would just include the subset of transactions that offer them the highest total transaction fees.

However, a miner with ulterior motivations might want to punish certain addresses. For example, a US government operated node might want to restrict transactions coming from an address that got its bitcoin through ransomware payments. As far as my understanding of the bitcoin protocol goes, it would be perfectly valid for them to never process any transactions from that address – no matter the price offered. With cooperation, they could greatly slow the speed of any transactions that had anything to do with that address. Of course, if there was even one node which didn’t want to restrict the addresses activity, the transactions would eventually get through, but these neutral nodes might notice that that address has a harder time making transactions, so those neutral nodes might realize that they can demand a higher price for transactions from that address.

So the question is, would any of this be considered malicious activity?

Does the protocol consider a node doing this to be a “dishonest” node, from which blocks should be ignored (i.e. there is an explicit mechanism to prevent this kind of activity)? Or instead, are market forces (or some other implicit mechanism I’m not aware of) supposed to be enough to prevent this? Or as a last option, is this kind of behavior considered to be acceptable?

Edit: helped me understand this as well. The answer appears to be that this sort of censorship/discrimination is considered okay, and the capability to hashocratically discriminate means that the network can protect itself from things like market manipulation.

network – How does the root in spanning tree protocol works?

I am studying spanning tree protocol attacks and I would like to understand a thing. The root is on the “top” of the tree, how can we exploit this to put in place an attack? We can, in some way, become the root, but what privileges would we get doing this? I don’t get if the root can read all the packtes, bacause I thought that if two host are connected in a “sub-part” of the tree, the root doesn’t see any message, or am I wrong?

So it would be useful just because I have more chances to read more messages but I will never see ALL the messages, right?

Another thing, how can I put in place an arp spoofing attack being the root?


networking – How to benchmark and analyze a network protocol prototype?

We are currently working with an academic network protocol that modifies and partly encrypts IPv6 packets and establishes circuits to allow sourceless routing.

We got the prototype running, and it works with IPv6 messages if we put the message payload directly in to IP packet payload (e.g. send a hello world).
We can, however, not use well-established tools as ping or iperf3, as the messages receive the destination, but no replies are sent.

We are wondering whether we can benchmark some features of the prototype.
As far as I see it, it does not make any sense to benchmark packet loss, as the protocol itself does not introduce reasons from packet loss other than a node on the route being taken offline.
Also, it does not really seem to make sense to measure data throughput, as this is subject to the link between the two parties.
The protocol itself also does not introduce reasons for jitter, because all messages are handled the same, thus again this would be a network-related attribute.
The latency is also mostly due to network-related issues, but what we could measure is the time the prototype needs to modify a message.
Currently, we are running it on VMs. It uses iptables rules to intercept packets and pass them on to nfqueue, which modifies the packets using python.

I proposed to do a theoretical analysis instead were we calculate the additional bytes that are added on top of regular IPv6-packets, try to calculate the additional performance costs (how?), and try to narrow done, which attacks are feasible and which not, in respect to regular IPv6.

  • What features make sense to benchmark?
  • Apart from packet size and performance costs, what else could be theoretically analyzed?

P.S.: I hope it fits into this caytegory, since it does not seem to fit into network engineering

DreamProxies - Cheapest USA Elite Private Proxies 100 Private Proxies 200 Private Proxies 400 Private Proxies 1000 Private Proxies 2000 Private Proxies 5000 Private Proxies - Buy Cheap Private Proxies Buy 50 Private Proxies Buy 100 Private Proxies Buy 200 Private Proxies Buy 500 Private Proxies Buy 1000 Private Proxies Buy 2000 Private Proxies New Proxy Lists Every Day Buy Cheap Private Proxies; Best Quality USA Private Proxies