Talk:Character Generator Protocol

Talk
I removed the following text, as I have no idea what the hell this is, and the article didn't explain. If it is useful, it could be put back, but certainly some explanation would be in order. Here's what I took out:

$ telnet localhost chargen Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. !"#$%&'*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefgh "#$%&'*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghi $%&'*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijk %&'*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijkl &'*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklm '*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmn *+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmno )*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnop +,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqr ,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrs -./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrst ./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstu /0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuv ^] telnet> quit Connection closed. --Xyzzyplugh 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) $%&'*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghij
 * +,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopq


 * That's just an example of a connection to a chargen server. It's relevant and edifying, but I don't know if it should be in the article raw like that. Kundor 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did chargen go away? chargen has a long history of abuse and that's the reason no one uses it anymore. Spoof a packet from an echo service to the chargen service and enjoy the chaos. I don't really know enough to edit the article but the reason for chargen's demise surely belongs on this page. Here's a couple of good sources that document the DoS potential: http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1996-01.html http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/attacksignatures/detail.jsp?asid=20046 71.30.145.220 (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)