Skype does not require a web browser to do NAT piercing. Nor does NAT piercing require a web browser.
You may have misunderstood what I mean when I use the term "publicly reachable". It is not only the static nature of the IP address that make it more suitable for peer-to-peer. It is the ability to accept unsolicited…
"UDP hole punching does not work with all types of NAT..." I think what you mean to say is the STUN and TURN solutions do not work. What else have you tried? I personally do not use those solutions. The last resort is…
You make the problem sound like it's lack of IPv4 address space. That is true in some respects because the method of allocation of these addresses is not straightforward and has its own set of problems. But in actuality…
"I know I have tested this shellcode against a vulnerable machine..." In your article you say arguments to syscalls via interrupt 0x80 are passed in registers. That sounds like Linux and Microsoft. Have you tested this…
Skype does not require a web browser to do NAT piercing. Nor does NAT piercing require a web browser.
You may have misunderstood what I mean when I use the term "publicly reachable". It is not only the static nature of the IP address that make it more suitable for peer-to-peer. It is the ability to accept unsolicited…
"UDP hole punching does not work with all types of NAT..." I think what you mean to say is the STUN and TURN solutions do not work. What else have you tried? I personally do not use those solutions. The last resort is…
You make the problem sound like it's lack of IPv4 address space. That is true in some respects because the method of allocation of these addresses is not straightforward and has its own set of problems. But in actuality…
"I know I have tested this shellcode against a vulnerable machine..." In your article you say arguments to syscalls via interrupt 0x80 are passed in registers. That sounds like Linux and Microsoft. Have you tested this…