Why is this strange IP address in Network connections?

[01micko]

To be fair, I don't think anikin meant he modded the source .. just the "modded" source as I uploaded.

Just a note. The source is set up to build a pet for woof-CE based puppy, with the new autostart feature conforming to the Free Desktop standard. Legacy pups will need a modification in /root/Startup. Maybe that's the mod anikin is talking about? No use me downloading atm as I'm using x86_64.

PS: Oh, just seen post, disregard.

[mavrothal]

The source is set up to build a pet for woof-CE based puppy, with the new autostart feature conforming to the Free Desktop standard. Legacy pups will need a modification in /root/Startup.

Also I believe that it has the new svg icons hardcoded and should not display in anything older than slacko-5.6.3 (sorry can not test currently).
If it is the case, you can get the original source and patch it as indicated above. Should work with all older puppies with similar functionality.

[01micko]

Icons are supplied in source

As well as a readme (icons are referenced), and a warning in the compile script .

[mavrothal]

Icons are supplied in source

Right.
But they are not in the pet from what I can see

[Atle]

So here is a chance to have someone with indisputable stand on Linux that likes to have a look at the code that this and so many other threads are about.

If I am not mistaking we talk about 3 different things that does the same thing... Says hello "under the hood" for a disputable reason?

Please feel free to PM me or email me at skaperen AT hotmail DOT com if you like to do it in private.

Just to clarify... I have no skills what so ever to say that it should be like this or that. But what made me think was all the old threads that ignored on the issue and now its a bug, and then its not... Also me personally dont like that my computer connects to various private corporations without me knowing it.

If it was www.eff.org I would not react to it, but I hear about icanhazip, google and another corporation mentioned in the very beginning of the thread..

I think its better to do it like this as this will be a final end to what is what regarding this issue as it seems to just roll on and on...

[mavrothal]

So here is a chance to have someone with indisputable stand on Linux that likes to have a look at the code

So, there is someone or you are asking for someone?

[Atle]

There is a someone...

And that someone just needs to get the facts and the code to audit it from a technical and ethical perspective.

There is serious accusations floating around in this and other threads and I guess the code is the facts?

But I am not the person to know what part of the code its about, as there its mentioned that the part of the code disputed is found in 3 different programs.

I think that is fair and might just set the record straight...

[Atle]

Not related to the thread, but just some fresh news from the world of computer spying...

[mavrothal]

There is a someone...

Oh, good.
Do you have any indication if name and qualifications may come with the review?

[Atle]

I leave namedropping to others. I did not ask to give out the name of the person. But I will if there is anything more to talk about.

I am now reaching out to those that has skills and can prove or indicate any wrong doing. Thats all.

[James C]

I leave namedropping to others. I did not ask to give out the name of the person. But I will if there is anything more to talk about.

I am now reaching out to those that has skills and can prove or indicate any wrong doing. Thats all.

Can we assume that you have no knowledge of the GNU General Public Licence?

Might consider educating yourself before continuing to spread FUD.

Just for the record...anyone was free to inspect the code at any time from before the start of this thread.

[Atle]

Its a bit funny when you look at this thread, one might think that the issue is not the case on is discussing, but the WAY people are discussion.

Must be very impressive for newcomers to see the "style" and level...

And so solution oriented...

[Atle]

Its always to bring the topic away from the topic...

Try to read this and other related threads and it comes out clear...

[James C]

Its a bit funny when you look at this thread, one might think that the issue is not the case on is discussing, but the WAY people are discussion.

Must be very impressive for newcomers to see the "style" and level...

And so solution oriented...

Discussion and accusation of nefarious intent are a bit different........

[James C]

http://bit.ly/1m77j16

[Atle]

One moment its a bug, then its not... Sound perfectly normal to me;-)

[Atle]

Whats your age anyway James? That thing was funny like 5 years ago.

Do you think the average Puppy user is a law maker and a Open Software nerd or some one that likes to get away from Windows?

This GNU link of yours is SO unrelated to the thread.

Since your such a guru, you might tell me if its a bug or not?

[James C]

Whats your age anyway James? That thing was funny like 5 years ago.

Since some of you seem unable or unwilling to do a simple search for a few facts I felt it was appropriate.

D[o you think the average Puppy user is a law maker and a Open Software nerd or some one that likes to get away from Windows?

This GNU link of yours is SO unrelated to the thread.

Totally related......allows for inspection/modification/deletion/etc. of the code in question.

Since your such a guru, you might tell me if its a bug or not?

Since I've never claimed to be a "guru" I guess you're attempting to be sarcastic.Or insulting...... you'll need to do much better than that...
I'll defer to 01micko from here
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 016#751016

Now you distort things... the bug is in firewallstate, where it it is not really meant to connect until called, lets get the facts right!

[Atle]

Well.. its not a bug, but perfectly written clean code that does exactly as intended.

And that is the core of the problem.

Micko kan read and learn about bug HERE and then continue to claim its a bug:-)

If micko is right we need to contact Wikipedia and change reality.

[mavrothal]

Well, let's give it a rest.

As I understand an outside linux expert has been contacted to evaluate if 3 scripts by BK, tazmod and radky querying icanhazip.com for the external IP of the puppy and another one by BK ping'ing google to see if the network is working,
a) expose user identity and data, or bridge security,
b) connect to sites possibly known or suspected to utilize the specific kind of queries for other purposes
c) if this activity is hidden from the user
and I guess offer his/her opinion on if in addition to the transparency of the code the user should be explicitly asked if these connections should be made, before they are attempted.

The scripts are pretty simple and even the entire Puppy code base is pretty small. Should not take long.