The Tech Help Thread

Try creating a brand new user and logging in as them.

 

Odds are they will block vpn creation from inside your network.

 

Now that I'm at my computer I'll add a bit to that...

Basically, when different applications connect over the network, they do so using specific network protocols and ports. When you (as a network admin or device) watch that network traffic, you can identify the various things that are going on by that network signature and negotiation. A browser going to a web site is very different than an SSH connection or a VPN tunnel being created, and they are very easily distinguishable. The firewalls that watch over all of these network connections and behaviours can react based on those network signatures.

While a network admin can't see what data is going over a VPN, they sure as fuck can notice when that VPN tunnel is created in their network, and where the two end points are.

Most firewalls follow a "block everything by default, only allow _____" set of rules, where it will allow connectivity to a web site, but won't let you open a VPN tunnel. These rules can be assigned to everybody or only specific IP addresses. They can also be very, very complicated rules where you can say, "allow them to connect to a web site, but only the ones that are on this list", or keep records of what sites each computer/IP/User goes to.

When it comes to big companies or governments, I assume that they are watching everything, and even if they don't allow the connection, it will raise an alarm... assuming that the network admins have their shit together.

Network security is basically the front lines for online/computer security, so most places have at least that shit locked down fairly well.

I tend not to try to explore the options too much from my own computer in such scenarios... but if a "friend" leaves their computer unlocked, game on.

 

Just as an addendum to the above, the most likely traffic to circumvent the firewall is an SSH tunnel on port 443, which can be bought commercially, built yourself on a cheap server, or even sometimes done at home depending on your ISPs policies.

The traffic is indistinguishable from HTTPS traffic to the casual observer, which is frankly what a lot of companies have as a firewall guy. There will be a lot more traffic than normal, and it's all to one IP, so it can absolutely be identified, but it could also fly under the radar since there are very few signatures on it that trigger alarms.

Not saying you should do it, just providing some info - all depends on your situation. But it's possible to do and I could explain how if you're interested.

 

I'd basically do that to remote into the other box and surf from there... if you use it as a VPN-like end point, then all of your DNS requests and other such supporting traffic will be done within your government/corporate network. I know when I was doing work for the BC government, they forced all DNS to be done in-house, and they tracked and reported on that stuff.

If you're going to do the remote box thing, then I'd set up a VNC or X window type solution and tunnel just the window through SSH, ensuring all network requests/etc were done on the remote box.

 

Someone please just tell me which television to buy. I'm hoping for:

- Size = 50"- 55"
- Apps already installed, like Netflix, Crave, etc.
- I don't need it for gaming.

There's one at Walmart for $289, and there's one at Best Buy for $4500. So...yeah. WTF. Obviously I'd like as inexpensive as possible, but I don't want one that lasts 30 days and has black lines all through it, either. I've had an Aquos for almost 7 years now and it's been good as gold. What do I buy please help.

 

Yeah I have a 32" Sharp Aquos that's been good as gold for 7 years. I'm kind of leery of buying the ultra cheap ones for the main house tv.

 

Samsung manufactures a huge number of the panels used in a lot of different TVs, and I generally think they've got a pleasing color. I've bought Samsung TVs for several years now.

Within the Samsung range, usually the specs will highlight the differences between price points. IMO, 4k isn't worth it unless you're a real movie junky or something.

Also, you could skip the "smart" TVs and just get a Roku or a Chromecast or something. You'll get a cheaper TV that isn't at the whims of a TV manufacturer's updates.

 

I've been very satisfied with the LG screens that I've had over the years, enough that I'm pretty loyal to the brand.

And agree on the SMART stuff... it's never worth it, and there are a ton of security problems with them these days. Some small print explains that EVERY sound that the TV hears is being broadcast up to the parent company. Never mind the fact that their software is usually shit, and well behind in features.

Personally, I have a "dumb" TV with the latest gen AppleTV, and it rocks. I have a PLEX server in the house, and it has a PLEX client, as well as a number of other, modern, up to date apps.

If you aren't in the Apple ecosystem, then (as Binary mentioned) Chromecast is a great way to go.

Personally, I can't stand ROKU, and preferred my Western Digital Live box instead... way better interface, faster, etc.

 

Yes, unless you paid stupid money for a specialty wifi and network card, the bandwidth will be way, way less than a hard-wired connection.

Think of it as the difference between a fire hose and a garden hose.

Depending on the wifi and devices attaching to it, it could give each device full available wifi bandwidth (which is much lower than hard-wired bandwidth), but more than likely you'll have multiple devices fighting for that garden hose of water/bandwidth.

If the signal starts to go wonky (neighbours using similar frequencies/channels, or other devices in the house conflicting with the radio signal), the wifi will basically decrease the transfer speed to improve reliability and quality. Basically, the relationship is "the lower the speed, the higher the quality, and the higher the speed, the more flaky or unreliable". There are some internal quality algorithms that cause it to detect shit performance and reliability and drop down the transfer rate, and sometimes they are rather bad at turning the speed back up when things get better. You restarting the modem causes it to start back up at the top speed. Also, those network devices are usually pretty shitty, and sometimes get bogged down due to bad internal memory management, too many processes or network connections for the hardware, that kind of thing... restarting the device causes it to clean all that stuff up and start fresh, only to get bogged down slowly over time.

Older wifis used to use the 2.4Ghz which was the same frequency as cordless phones and some microwaves, so when the phone would ring or someone would use the microwave, the wifi would die.

Higher frequencies in use now (5 Ghz) allow for more overlap between different devices (other wifis, phones, etc), so you can get a bit more reliability and performance.


In the end, not all wifi is the same. Your cheap Best Buy piece of crap will be minimal in performance, whereas something like the high-end (and relatively expensive) Amplifi LR is fantastic.

https://www.amazon.ca/AmpliFi-Long-...e=UTF8&qid=1492101828&sr=8-1&keywords=amplifi

Apple's Airport Extreme is also a very solid performer.

 

A lot of it comes down to what hardware you purchase. If you spent $100, it's probably shit... if you spent $300 or more, odds are it's a "good one".

For most people, the "shit" one is probably good enough.

It could be set up perfectly but still perform like shit just because of the underlying hardware.