Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: J Edgar Hoover (zorchtotally.righteous.net)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 22:33:42 CST
Comcast "transitioned" my city from home about a month ago. In the past
week, they implimented what appears to be an Inktomi Traffic-Server
transparent cache at 22.214.171.124.
This allows them to not only log all http requests, but to also log the
response. Maybe they want to profile their customer browsing history for
subsidiaries or resale to marketers. Maybe they want to do their part in
The War on Freedom. Maybe they just want passwords to porn sites.
Apparently they aren't using it to maximize bandwidth, because it's not
configured to serve cached data.
And yes, they have purchased a lot of the specific, unique hardware that
is required to do all this logging.
If a comcast victim/customer sends a packet to port 80 at any IP address,
it is intercepted by the Inktomi Traffic-Server, the contents of the
packet are examined for the GET url and the "Host:" field. The Inktomi
Traffic-Server then sends the http request on to your destination from
it's address with modified content and headers. It then caches the
returned data, changes both the header and the content, and sends the
packet to your machine with the spoofed IP of the server you had
This allows them to monitor and change (or insert ads into) what
Interestingly, regardless of what IP you address the packet to, the
Inktomi Traffic-Server reads the Host: field to determine where to send
the packet. I sent several packets from my home machine to one of my
office machines, inside the packet was "Host: www.comcast.net". Comcast
illegally intercepted, misinterpreted and altered this packet, and sent it
to www.comcast.com. So, you might say there's a bug in this evil Inktomi
US Code TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 119, Sec. 2511. (2) (a) (i)
"...a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not
utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or
service quality control checks."
Does federal law only apply when a little guy snoops on a big corporation?
Where are the feds now?