Re: [Full-disclosure] Torpark breaks with DEP enabled, and how to break it further so that it works

coderman wrote:
> > Sorry, I'm a noted Windows fanboy and I'm not sure I find that a plus
> you must have w2k server, no WSAENOBUFS [0] hell for you!  *g*
woe onto the unwary developer who uses select on Windows. It is merely a 
concession to portability, not actually meant to be used. Seriously, 
guys, we have had a good laugh about it. But it was all a joke. A prank! 
Stop using it, k? No love lost, we hope
> in any case, i hope you are aware of which claims are actually 
> supported by Torpark and which aren't. [1]
My counter"claim" is that Torpark is "crappy" and "bloated". I tolerate 
it because I am "lazy".

I also seriously, earnestly cannot accept for a fact that nobody else 
has noticed that it breaks with hard-DEP enabled
> that's sick dude!  quit drinking the cool-aid before it's too late!  :P
I used to be the proud owner of a Windows server that NATted a 
PPP-over-LPT connection onto an ISDN line (inexplicably [!], RRAS didn't 
appear to have been designed to support a scenario where you NAT a PPP 
connection into another PPP connection.). A virtual Ethernet interface 
(Microsoft Loopback) also somehow fit in the scheme, if I recall 
correctly. Despite Microsoft's best intentions, the whole Rube Goldberg 
actually worked

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/