Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2012 March 2

= March 2 =

Embedded that uses an Intel Atom E6xx that comes with a housing
Have any embedded developers seen an embedded computer that comes with an aesthetic housing like Toradex's Xiilun PC? I contacted them and they say they are not for sale because of heat problems. --Melab±1 &#9742; 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone? I am also trying to order an Intel Atom CE4100. --Melab±1 &#9742; 02:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Boxee Box? Acer Revo 2? --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント  (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I meant the processor package itself that I can swap with one in a Google TV device. --Melab±1 &#9742; 05:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can anyone answer this? --Melab±1 &#9742; 01:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Chrome extensions
Despite my best efforts, Chrome seems to refuse to allow me to remove my Chrome extensions, even when I go to do so specifically from the extensions part of the options menu, they always reappear. Any suggestions on axing them? Mingmingla (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Uninstall then redownload and reinstall Chrome ? StuRat (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If only. This happens on all my instances of chrome when I sync them. Mingmingla (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This makes me wonder if the problem lies with the syncing. If possible, try to double check that you exit Chrome properly on all but one computer (preferably turn the computers off), then use this one instance as your 'master copy'. Enable & disable extensions as needed, then close down Chrome on this computer before opening Chrome in another location. Any good? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming it's working. They haven;t appeared yet. Mingmingla (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would history disappear?
I'm not aware I did anything to cause any of this. I was out of the room when I heard my computer making noises like when there is a Windows update and it shuts itself off. In fact, this is what was happening, and then the computer turned itself back on and I got a screen saying Windows did not shut down normally and asking what I wanted to do. I chose the simplest option, which I believe was to pretend nothing happened and start in the usual way. Without that screen in front of me I don't know exactly what it said. I got Windows back and got the Internet back, and some of the sites I had been on came up, but not all. I was, however, logged out of all sites that I had been logged into, even though in all cases I said I wanted to remain signed in. And when I went to CTRL-H tried to got back to the one site that didn't come back up, I saw no history other than the three sites that had just come back. My only clue about why the computer shut off is that I am doing a full scan with McAfee and it has a check box to say I want the computer turned off if a problem is found, something I'd rather not do in case I need to save something. I have merely seen a message in the past if something was detected when a scan was not going on, and I don't think I have any preferences set that would turn off the computer. But I am careful what sites I go to.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it possible you had a power fluctuation ? Did the lights flicker ?  If you don't have a UPS, this is fairly likely. StuRat (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a surge protector, but it's a basic one. Wait. I just realized. The plugs are so close together the computer kept coming unplugged yesterday. It's really hard to push all those plugs in properly when some larger ones are touching the smaller ones.


 * Also, I should have looked to see if there was a specific error message when the screen saying Windows didn't shut down normally came up. I don't remember the lights flickering and, while the weather has been bad this week, I don't think there was wind of severe weather that day.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that a surge protector doesn't protect your computer from low voltage, only from high voltage spikes (and of course, from guys named Sergio :-) ) . But, one of the plugs coming loose could also be the problem.  I suggest you plug some things in elsewhere, like the printer, to avoid that problem.  Use extension cords if needed. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you still think McAfee could have been responsible, you can check its logs. If it found something and shut the computer down, McAfee should have logged that event.  However, I can't imagine McAfee doing some improper shutdown which would cause your PC to report "Windows did not shutdown properly" at the next reboot.    Astronaut (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * People have told me to Google, and I forgot about that. I tried another forum so we'll see what happens there. Thanks to Astronaut, and when I get home I'll do that.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To StuRat: I decided even though it's cheaper to have my own printer, on those occasions when I want to print, I do it at a library. having my own printer would cause me too many headaches. The power strip or whatever it's called has the modem, the monitor, the computer and my telephone answering machine plugged into it. There are plenty of plugs but the modem and answering machine have very large plugs.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 16:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I take it you mean they have wall warts. In that case, I suggest a short extension cord with a triple outlet at the end, which will allow you to plug the normal-sized extension cord plug into the surge protector, and the wall warts into the outlets on the extension cord.  This should allow you to push the plugs all the way in, preventing intermittent contacts, and also gives you a couple extra outlets.  Make sure you get an extension cord with a ground/earth, if either the modem or answering machine cords have grounds. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked the log but I can't find anything obvious. There was a lot of activity at the time the computer shut itself off but of course that would have been when I went back to the Internet. I don't really know how to read that sutff but I assume that one list shows every time I go to a new web site.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To StuRat again: yeah, that's what they have. The plugs are firmly in place now, though.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are they still jammed right up against each other ? This is bad for another reason: heat.  Those wall warts generate a lot of heat, and need to have space around them to allow air flow, or they will get too hot, shortening their life and possibly posing a fire hazard. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They have some space between them and the others.


 * I just noticed something while McAfee was doing a scan which I didn't start. It said turn off the computer if NO threats are found, which is not what I said. That's actually useful because it's only 38 percent finished. It goes a lot faster but slows everything down if I start the scan.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous
how can i become a member of anonymous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who1200 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have to ask, then you're not eligible. Sorry.- gadfium 22:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Virtual Private Network (VPN) and being anonymous
Services such as TorrentPrivacy and Btguard advertise completely anonymous browsing and torrent traffic. TorrentPrivacy claims to achieve this by using OpenVPN and by not keeping any logs which can associate a particular IP address with particular torrent or web traffic. As TorrentPrivacy stated [http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymity-seriously-111007/? here], ''“We have connection logs, but we don’t store IP addresses there. These logs are kept for 7 days. Though it’s impossible to determine who exactly have used the service.”''  This seems to me as if it should be a truly secure service, but I don't have the technical knowledge to make a determination. I chatted with them, and they first said their service is "practically untraceable," then that it is totally secure:

[Heavily edited]

Q: You told TorrentFreak "We have connection logs, but we don’t store IP addresses there." Is there any possible way any entity could get my IP address while using your service? A: They can't get your original IP, but they can get the encrypted IP created by our SSH Tunnel. Q: Is there any way for me to be traced by any governments or organizations? A: In the United States it is illegal to put torrents on regular connections. It is technically illegal to download a torrent file under piracy act. [Apparently they assume all torrents are illegal, and it's only "technically" illegal] Certain departments track internet crimes and privacy [piracy?]. That,s where our software comes in, by encrypting your orignal IP and keeping you practically untracable. Q: You say "practically untraceable," but under what circumstances could it be traced? A: If you run our software, everything will be encrypted Q: cool... and once everything is encrypted, there is no possible way to trace me? A: Exactly

The claim is first "practically untraceable," then it's completely untraceable. So what's the verdict? Are such services truly secure and anonymous or not? If not totally secure, under what circumstances could the anonymity provided by services like TorrentPrivacy be breached? Be— —Critical 20:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is only as secure as their internal policies permit. Ultimately, IP addresses and whatnot have to be in the clear somewhere or else you wouldn't be able to use these services to connect to anything else.  None of the questions you listed above actually address how they're implementing the technical aspects, what their data retention policies are, where their data is stored, how vulnerable it might be to government seizure, or any of that.  So: something like that is "practically untraceable" by the average internet user.  It is more difficult to trace for the average government agency.  However, it may well be more likely to attract the attention of said government agency (per the "only people with things to be ashamed of use encryption" fallacy that is popular), and so it may not wash out as an improvement.  But "completely" untraceable/secure/etc?  There is no such thing, nor can there be. &mdash; Lomn 22:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So it all boils down to whether they could be 1) hacked or 2) store IPs in such a way that someone could get the IPs by physically taking a computer? I think that's what BtGuard is trying to address in this response:


 * How insecure is that?


 * Also, doesn't the base country, such as Seychelles for TorrentPrivacy have something to do with it?  Or is the country of the server you're using with the service the only important thing?  Be— —Critical  00:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They're being a tiny bit economical when they talk about the logs. They mean they don't habitually keep logs, but if a court or government agency tells them to, they'll have to (subject to due process, in those few countries that still have such things) and they won't be allowed to admit do it. And, for the truly paranoid, how can you know that this (or any other) VPN company isn't run by the FBI? If I were one of those tricksy fellows who provides MPAA and RIAA with technical intelligence, heck, this is exactly what I'd do. 87.114.90.137 (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit paranoid, for example, to think that the people at Pirate Bay are going to be government agents.  Sweden surely has some due process, and this is what they say "If Swedish authorities can prove beyond reasonable doubt, e.g. in murder cases, that they have a case for demanding subscription information from IPredator they have to be of the opinion that if convicted the user will be imprisoned - a fine is not enough... Regarding inquires from other parties than Swedish authorities: IPredator will never hand over any kind of information. IPredator then has to hand over the subscription information entered by you, which is all that we are required to do."  They also say "We took the time to completely overhaul our VPN server infrastructure. The machines are now booting from USB sticks straight into a RAM disk... no more hard drives, no local swap space, and of course no logs. " .  Anyway...  Be— —Critical  04:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's how these services work: instead of sending data in the clear to a target computer, with a return address pointing to your computer, you send encrypted data to the VPN provider, which sends it in the clear to the target with a return address pointing to the VPN provider. Data sent to that return address is encrypted and sent back to you. Everyone above seems to have focused on the possibility that the VPN provider might reveal your identity, but there are plenty of theoretical weaknesses in this system that don't require the provider's cooperation. For starters, your data still goes over the Internet in the clear, and might contain some clue to your identity, such as a browser cookie. Also, the transfer rate of Bittorrent (for example) tends to vary with time, and the rate of data sent between your computer and the VPN will vary in the same way as the rate of data sent between the VPN and the remote peer; with enough traffic information it might be possible to associate you with that P2P connection with high probability. (And note that the VPN doesn't hide the fact that you're using the VPN; this already narrows down the list of suspects by a lot.) -- BenRG (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that I didn't know... so then a "deep packet inspection" of the data sent from the VPN provider to the target would reveal the nature of the data being sent? As to the rest of your post, I think they got an Anonymous hacker by similar correlation combined with the fact that Hide My Ass keeps IP records.  But I don't know.  So it is definitely theoretically vulnerable from a variety of angles: the VPN might reveal logs, traffic patterns provide clues as to which computers are communicating, a government could theoretically turn the VPN into a sting operation even if they weren't one to begin with, they could be hacked, and probably a lot of others which haven't been discussed.  However, what I'm getting from this is that if you are *ahem* a normal user of these services, they provide a level of protection sufficient to prevent extortion trolling, and other forms of mass litigation.  That if everyone had used them, there would never have been the mass lawsuits brought by the MPAA and RIAA, or others trying to get settlements.  VPNs which do not keep IP address records would also provide enough protection for people in China and other oppressive countries to send government secrets, secrets about opposition movements and other information which is illegal in those countries.  However, they might not provide enough protection for example for terrorist activities where the full weight of the VPN's host country's government would be behind acquiring the information?  Is this about correct?   Be— —Critical  07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)