Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Do websites like Google store all the packets that they send and receive..


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 kurtgillis12

kurtgillis12

  • Members
  • 116 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:30 AM

Posted 30 May 2017 - 01:18 AM

..for security purposes?

 

I read that it can help show attempted and successful attacks at a given time. Would sites with a HUGE amount of traffic like Google or Youtube be storing these packets for a pre-determined amount of time?



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 6,883 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 30 May 2017 - 12:07 PM

Highly unlikely, for precisely the reason that the volumes are huge and you couldn't reasonably keep everything that comes through Google, for instance, for any significant period of time.  

 

If someone knows otherwise I'd like to see a citation of a reputable source making this claim.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (my website address is in my profile) Windows 10 Home, 64-bit, Version 1709, Build 16299

       

    Here is a test to find out whether your mission in life is complete.  If you’re alive, it isn’t.
             ~ Lauren Bacall
              

 


#3 kurtgillis12

kurtgillis12
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 116 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:30 AM

Posted 16 June 2017 - 02:21 PM

Highly unlikely, for precisely the reason that the volumes are huge and you couldn't reasonably keep everything that comes through Google, for instance, for any significant period of time.  

 

If someone knows otherwise I'd like to see a citation of a reputable source making this claim.

 

Besides a couple people on reddit, I've never seen a legit source say this either. I was prompted to ask this question after reading about the heartbleed expoit.

 

I thought it was weird that Google said nobody had to change their password after the discovery of it, even though the only way they could tell if they had been hit with this bug (from 2012-2014) was by examining the size of certain packets in traffic logs. So naturally, I thought "Boy if they are so confident nobody has to change their passwords, they must know nobody used this exploit on them" hence maybe they kept these traffic logs.

 

I'm with you though, it seems like way too much to store. They must have known nobody got to them, I just don't understand how. 



#4 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 6,883 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 16 June 2017 - 02:53 PM

 

They must have known nobody got to them, I just don't understand how. 

 

 

And that's probably for the best.  Although it can't be used as a primary defense mechanism "security by obscurity" still has its place in the grand paradigm.

 

I don't want "the great unwashed" being told how some of these determinations are made simply because you can be assured that the nefarious portion of "the great unwashed" will use this sort of information for their own advantage.

 

There are a number of very good reasons for "trade secrets" in a number of trades, and security (whether cyber or otherwise) being one of these.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (my website address is in my profile) Windows 10 Home, 64-bit, Version 1709, Build 16299

       

    Here is a test to find out whether your mission in life is complete.  If you’re alive, it isn’t.
             ~ Lauren Bacall
              

 


#5 kurtgillis12

kurtgillis12
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 116 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:30 AM

Posted 16 June 2017 - 11:06 PM

 

 

They must have known nobody got to them, I just don't understand how. 

 

 

And that's probably for the best.  Although it can't be used as a primary defense mechanism "security by obscurity" still has its place in the grand paradigm.

 

I don't want "the great unwashed" being told how some of these determinations are made simply because you can be assured that the nefarious portion of "the great unwashed" will use this sort of information for their own advantage.

 

There are a number of very good reasons for "trade secrets" in a number of trades, and security (whether cyber or otherwise) being one of these.

 

 

 

Well said.

 

Just out of curiosity, are familiar with this heartbleed bug? Do you believe Google knew they were in the clear, or do you think they were just trying to "save face" so to speak? 



#6 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 6,883 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:02:30 AM

Posted 17 June 2017 - 09:20 AM

I am not familiar enough with it to answer the second question definitively.

 

I would say that Google cares a lot more about its long term reputation than "saving face" on this one issue.  Look what's happened with Yahoo announcing, several years after the fact and several years after they knew about it, a major compromise to their accounts.  That serves as a big object lesson to other players.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (my website address is in my profile) Windows 10 Home, 64-bit, Version 1709, Build 16299

       

    Here is a test to find out whether your mission in life is complete.  If you’re alive, it isn’t.
             ~ Lauren Bacall
              

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users