Jump to content

Sean

Sophist Member
  • Content count

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Speed Test

    My Results
  • Days Won

    50

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Sean reacted to CA3LE in Why is TestMy.net not showing up in Google?   
     
    Originally when I turned https on it was because you wanted to test on SSL and port 8080... I didn't necessarily want the search engines spidering what we hadn't even tested.  I think Google is going to weigh https sites heavier in the future so I'm moving the site over to https.  They already are but I expect it's going to be even more so.  I didn't realize the noindex was still in there... it's now controlled correctly with a separate robots.txt using mod_rewrite to switch the file.
     
    RewriteCond %{SERVER_PORT} ^443$ RewriteRule ^robots\.txt$ robots_ssl.txt [L]  
    ...but I've already disabled that in preparation.
     
    I'll make sure to include a toggle in the new settings with the option to switch between http and https.  But the site itself will completely run on SSL, regardless of the option selected.  And visiting https://testmy.net will no longer trigger that option.  It's really already done, I just want to make sure before I flip it over that I'm not missing anything that will affect pagerank negatively.
     
    I don't think the noindex on the https version was causing the issue though.  TestMy.net is showing up on Google again, before I removed that line.  Could have been one or a combination of the issues we previously talked about.  I'll keep working to find my mistakes. :-/ -- one constant is human error.
  2. Thanks
    Sean got a reaction from CA3LE in Why is TestMy.net not showing up in Google?   
    One possibility is that Google sees too many versions of the index, e.g. uk.testmy.net, dallas.testmy.net, etc.  and only lists a few variants.  I remember this being a pain in the past in the Joomla 1.x days where it would show the same page under various URLs and Google usually ended indexing obscure URL variations of some pages.
     
    Both Bing and DuckDuckGo have the main test.my homepage URL indexed, so it doesn't seem to be something preventing crawlers from indexing it. 
     
    One thing I suggest is adding a Canonical meta header tag to the home page to specify "http://testmy.net" as the preferred URL, as explained here.
  3. Thanks
    Sean got a reaction from CA3LE in Make speed test results available as data downloads   
    On the Results page, there's an 'Export' button just below the graph.  This will export your results history as a CSV file:
     

     
    The resulting CSV can open up as a spreadsheet such as with Excel:
     

  4. Like
    Sean got a reaction from mudmanc4 in cleaning a pc with air compressor   
    As ridiculous as it sounds, most computer components such as the motherboard, PSU and certain expansion cards can survive a full dishwasher cycle.  Obviously that's not how I recommend cleaning a PC.
     
    The following 8-year old video is an example.  The internals were covered in cigarette smoke residue, so he decided to dismantle the components and put them through the dish washer, with the exception of the case, battery and the hard disk. 
     
     
    I also enjoy watching videos on old hardware such as restoration videos.  I have come ones where such hobbyists put components through a dishwasher cycle to clean extensive debris build-up from being left for 10+ years in storage such as a dusty shed.
     
    As long as no moisture remains when the PC is powered up, it should be fine.  I generally clean my PC with an air duster, which is basically an aerosol can filled with propellant gas.  Here in Ireland, humidity is usually on the high side, e.g. I run a dehumidifier to keep the indoor level below 60%.
     
    The only component I may wash is the keyboard.  I have a Corsair Cherry Red Mechanical keyboard that I accidentally knocked a glass of cider on.  I immediately unplugged it, tried wiping off what I could and let it dry.  Once dry, many of the letters were sticking.  When I started removing the keys to try cleaning below, I realised the mechanical switches were jamming.
     
    With what appeared to be a ruined keyboard that I only purchased a few months before the incident, I figured I'll try giving it a bath as we don't have a dishwasher.  I partially filled a wide container with water from our dehumidifier (since it's effectively distilled), soaked the keyboard and pushed each key multiples times to force water through the switches.  I left it to dry for about a week.  It's fully functional again, all keys work and no sticking or other issue since. 
  5. Like
    Sean reacted to mudmanc4 in You know you have a borked up connection when .....   
    Found this chart someone posted today
     

  6. Like
    Sean reacted to Pgoodwin1 in New Router helped my speeds   
    I'm on a Spectrum 100 Mbps down load, 10 Mbps upload plan. I replaced my 100 Mbps wired router with a used $57 5th gen Apple AirPort Extreme Base Station (gigabit Ethernet)
     
    my speeds improved from 80 Mbps average upload to about 116 Mbps. The first pic shows the before and after plot. The second pic is the latest average.
     
    the 3rd pic is one test plot with the old router. 4th pic is one test with plot the new router. 
     
    TestMy helped me identify the potential limitation of the 100 Mbps wired router (it was trying very hard), and testing here documents the improvement. Great site.




  7. Like
    Sean reacted to nanobot in RC4, error growing   
    So I started nmap up, ran some scans (I'm sure @CA3LE won't mind me running some penetration tests against his server) on the SSL ports, and I couldn't find RC4 on the list of ciphers, at all, but then I did on an SMTPS (465) port, but you shouldn't be affected by that.
     
    So I got curious, and researched further, and you said it happens about every 10th website, so I have a few follow up questions:
     
    1. Are you using Wireless?
       a. If so, are you using WEP? Apparently RC4 was used in the WEP security standard (which has been an insecurity standard for years now).
    2. Are you certain there is no MITM attack against you?
     
    For those interested, here's the result of my nmap scan:
     
    Elliotts-iMac:~ elliottbrown$ nmap --script ssl-cert,ssl-enum-ciphers -p 443,465,993,995 www.testmy.net Starting Nmap 7.50 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2017-07-20 18:29 EDT Nmap scan report for www.testmy.net (64.111.22.10) Host is up (0.088s latency). rDNS record for 64.111.22.10: testmy.net PORT STATE SERVICE 443/tcp open https | ssl-cert: Subject: commonName=testmy.net | Subject Alternative Name: DNS:testmy.net | Issuer: commonName=Let's Encrypt Authority X3/organizationName=Let's Encrypt/countryName=US | Public Key type: rsa | Public Key bits: 2048 | Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption | Not valid before: 2017-07-06T06:00:00 | Not valid after: 2017-10-04T06:00:00 | MD5: 415f 2e2b ee78 0642 6813 4e47 743b 9831 |_SHA-1: ecac a111 d818 d982 1039 acea 2fe4 9b6c c975 ca43 | ssl-enum-ciphers: | TLSv1.0: | ciphers: | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: server | TLSv1.1: | ciphers: | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: server | TLSv1.2: | ciphers: | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: server |_ least strength: A 465/tcp open smtps | ssl-cert: Subject: commonName=Plesk/organizationName=Odin/stateOrProvinceName=Washington/countryName=US | Issuer: commonName=Plesk/organizationName=Odin/stateOrProvinceName=Washington/countryName=US | Public Key type: rsa | Public Key bits: 2048 | Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption | Not valid before: 2016-05-03T21:11:36 | Not valid after: 2017-05-03T21:11:36 | MD5: a6bd 9cdc 510e 115e 98b5 bca2 ff64 1af8 |_SHA-1: 47a4 68dd ce19 fa99 e4d2 b60e 94a5 0599 217d c1f9 | ssl-enum-ciphers: | SSLv3: | ciphers: | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - D | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_SHA - F | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_IDEA_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: client | warnings: | 64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | 64-bit block cipher IDEA vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | Broken cipher RC4 is deprecated by RFC 7465 | CBC-mode cipher in SSLv3 (CVE-2014-3566) | Ciphersuite uses MD5 for message integrity | Key exchange (dh 1024) of lower strength than certificate key | TLSv1.0: | ciphers: | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - D | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_SHA - F | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_IDEA_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: client | warnings: | 64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | 64-bit block cipher IDEA vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | Broken cipher RC4 is deprecated by RFC 7465 | Ciphersuite uses MD5 for message integrity | Key exchange (dh 1024) of lower strength than certificate key | TLSv1.1: | ciphers: | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - D | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_SHA - F | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_IDEA_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: client | warnings: | 64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | 64-bit block cipher IDEA vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | Broken cipher RC4 is deprecated by RFC 7465 | Ciphersuite uses MD5 for message integrity | Key exchange (dh 1024) of lower strength than certificate key | TLSv1.2: | ciphers: | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - D | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 - F | TLS_DH_anon_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA - F | TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_SHA - F | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_IDEA_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: client | warnings: | 64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | 64-bit block cipher IDEA vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | Broken cipher RC4 is deprecated by RFC 7465 | Ciphersuite uses MD5 for message integrity | Key exchange (dh 1024) of lower strength than certificate key |_ least strength: F 993/tcp open imaps | ssl-cert: Subject: commonName=Plesk/organizationName=Odin/stateOrProvinceName=Washington/countryName=US | Issuer: commonName=Plesk/organizationName=Odin/stateOrProvinceName=Washington/countryName=US | Public Key type: rsa | Public Key bits: 2048 | Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption | Not valid before: 2016-05-03T21:11:36 | Not valid after: 2017-05-03T21:11:36 | MD5: a6bd 9cdc 510e 115e 98b5 bca2 ff64 1af8 |_SHA-1: 47a4 68dd ce19 fa99 e4d2 b60e 94a5 0599 217d c1f9 | ssl-enum-ciphers: | TLSv1.0: | ciphers: | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - D | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: client | warnings: | 64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | Key exchange (dh 1024) of lower strength than certificate key | TLSv1.1: | ciphers: | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - D | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: client | warnings: | 64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | Key exchange (dh 1024) of lower strength than certificate key | TLSv1.2: | ciphers: | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - D | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: client | warnings: | 64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | Key exchange (dh 1024) of lower strength than certificate key |_ least strength: D 995/tcp open pop3s | ssl-cert: Subject: commonName=Plesk/organizationName=Odin/stateOrProvinceName=Washington/countryName=US | Issuer: commonName=Plesk/organizationName=Odin/stateOrProvinceName=Washington/countryName=US | Public Key type: rsa | Public Key bits: 2048 | Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption | Not valid before: 2016-05-03T21:11:36 | Not valid after: 2017-05-03T21:11:36 | MD5: a6bd 9cdc 510e 115e 98b5 bca2 ff64 1af8 |_SHA-1: 47a4 68dd ce19 fa99 e4d2 b60e 94a5 0599 217d c1f9 | ssl-enum-ciphers: | TLSv1.0: | ciphers: | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - D | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: client | warnings: | 64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | Key exchange (dh 1024) of lower strength than certificate key | TLSv1.1: | ciphers: | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - D | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: client | warnings: | 64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | Key exchange (dh 1024) of lower strength than certificate key | TLSv1.2: | ciphers: | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - D | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (dh 1024) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - C | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (secp256r1) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - C | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (rsa 2048) - A | compressors: | NULL | cipher preference: client | warnings: | 64-bit block cipher 3DES vulnerable to SWEET32 attack | Key exchange (dh 1024) of lower strength than certificate key |_ least strength: D Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 27.86 seconds Elliotts-iMac:~ elliottbrown$  
    The letter after the cipher is a letter from A-F, indicating grade of the cipher (A being best, F being worst), you'll notice there are a few RC4 ciphers under the 465, 993 and 995 ports (graded F appropriately), but all of the TLS ciphers are grade A.
     
    The lowest cipher strength (according to nmap) on https://www.testmy.net/ is a grade A, so Chrome should definitely not be flagging this site. (In fact, based on this information, testmy.net would refuse an RC4 cipher connection, period.)
     
    You definitely have a different issue going on, and I'm curious as to what that is.
     
    Thanks,
    EBrown
  8. Like
    Sean reacted to nanobot in Testmy.net member EBrown is interviewed by the BBC   
    Hah, forgot to post this here. Yeah, they asked me about it on Twitter a week or so ago.
     
    It's an interesting topic, we're discussing things that should never have to be worried about, no one should fear that their ISP can censor what they can see based on the ISP's own political motives. (Hell, just look at the Comcast v. Netflix issue from a couple years ago: Netflix traffic was throttled to unbelievable slow speeds as a result of Comcast wanting to extort them for money.)
     
    Personally, I am anti-government regulation, but in this case it's a necessity.
     
    One of the arguments I have recently heard in favor of revocation of the net–neutrality law was:
     
     
    This is a false premise, if the ISP's customers want traffic from that source, the ISP should not be throttling it in either direction. If your customers want to watch Netflix all day, you don't get to make additional profit off of that. The customer already pays for a broadband connection, it is the ISP's job to deliver that broadband service in an unbiased manner.
     
    Thanks,
    EBrown
  9. Like
    Sean reacted to mudmanc4 in Testmy.net member EBrown is interviewed by the BBC   
    Our very own @nanobot or EBrown has been interviewed by the BBC on Net Neutrality, here is what he had to say.
     
     
    Very nicely worded Elliot
     
    The full story can be found here
     
    To get more information as to the issues regarding net neutrality, visit or even join the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation)
  10. Like
    Sean got a reaction from mudmanc4 in RC4, error growing   
    One possibility could be an issue with the Internet Security / antivirus software. 
     
    Some Internet Security products intercept HTTPS connections to scan traffic in much the same way they scan regular HTTP traffic.  In order to intercept HTTPS, they need to act as a 'man in the middle'.  As certificates are designed to prevent man in the middle attacks, the security package installs its own root certificate in each browser. 
     
    When the security software decrypts traffic to scan it, it re-encrypts the traffic using its own certificate, which the browser will trust due to the security software discreetly installing the root certificate earlier. 
     
    What I suspect is that Chrome (and in turn Slimjet) may have an older certificate that uses a less secure cypher.  In this case when the security software intercepts and re-encrypts HTTPS traffic, Chrome will try to authenticate that certificate against the obsolete root certificate and present the error. 
     
    What I suggest trying is temporarily disable the web filtering (or the antivirus software altogether) and try accessing an affected site in Chrome.  If it now loads fine (i.e. Chrome sees the proper certificate instead of the security software's one), then I recommend uninstalling and reinstalling the antivirus package. 
  11. Like
    Sean got a reaction from CA3LE in Multithreaded test seems to be using some dead hosts   
    No problem - Multithreaded test with UK server now working fine here...
     

     
    This now brings up the expected ~3.9Mbps for my DSL connection.
     

  12. Like
    Sean got a reaction from CA3LE in Multithreaded test seems to be using some dead hosts   
    I just want to check if anyone had a chance to look at this issue over the past month.
     
    From a quick check, the UK server with the multithread test is still picking unresolvable hosts in each test:
     

     
    The Frankfurt (Germany) one seems to be fine, i.e. not one 502 error after running multiple tests:
     

  13. Like
    Sean reacted to ShakTib in Inaccurate speed results?   
    I personally see the other test guys as bloated fluffy and sprinkled with glitter to make your speed look good.
    TMN currently is my top source for actual answers.
     
    So trying Frankfurt servers with Ookla and getting average 300+, to me is false and completely not possible. I LIVE IN CANADA. My speed SHOULD be lower if I am testing against Europe. I expect that at least some latency or speed drop.
     
    Have you attempted to connect via Ethernet and speed test again this way? Do the results change? Are you getting completely different numbers altogether?
     
    Side note:
    Just to clarify, as it may be called something different here or maybe I am not understanding.
    is WLAN sticks just another name for USB WiFi Adaptors for laptops / desktops that don't have network card with WiFi capability built in or is WLAN sticks the 3G/4G Cellular Network USB sticks? (I assume the former, hence why I suggested Ethernet test, since you would have a modem/router hopefully nearby)
  14. Like
    Sean got a reaction from CA3LE in Why Do My Results Differ From Speedtest.net / Ookla Speed Tests?   
    I have the same experience with 4G (cellular LTE) based broadband connections, such as when positioning a directional antenna.  When the network is quiet (e.g. early on a weekend morning), there can be a large variation between what SpeedTest and TestMy reports if the antenna is not aimed correctly.  Once the antenna is carefully aimed, the TestMy results climb up towards what Speedtest reports.  It's similar also if there are swaying branches in line of sight as Speedtest will again ignore the brief dips as if the bandwidth is sustained. 
     
    If Speedtest measured road trip speeds, their speed test methodology would eliminate traffic lights, construction zones, slow vehicles, busy junctions and everything else that accounted for the slowest 30% of the journey.
     
    If TestMy measured road trips, it would run a stopwatch from the moment of departure to the moment of arrival.
     
    Of course like the Speedtest fanatics, there would be those that would argue the same for road trip measurements - "What if that construction zone was not there, those traffic lights were green, no accident on the route, ..." 
  15. Like
    Sean got a reaction from xs1 in Untraceable?   
    I get the impression that the IP address is the victim of a DDoS attack, where Verizon has decided to null route all incoming traffic sent to it on most or all its routers to minimise traffic on its network from the attack. 
    If this is the case, the next hop after your home router would be one of their routers (assuming your ISP is Verizon), hence no reply after your router.  For the Level3 site traceroute, the third hop shown in your screenshot is at Verizon, so the next hop inside their network would also be one of their routers probably configured to null route that IP address.
    A few more tests worth trying would be a TCP traceroute and a UDP traceroute.  If both give a similar result, then it's most likely that IP address is null routed rather than just ICMP filtering to block a trace route to it.
  16. Like
    Sean reacted to tuscan in Manual download testing   
    Hi
     
    By means of an update, I am now obtaining approx. 30Mbps download using 4G from EE.
     
    I have a further question ....
     
    The TP-LINK MR200 router I am using is reporting a 50% signal strength - if I use an antenna to try to increase the signal strength, is it likely I would I obtain a further increase in download speeds and, if so, by approx. how much ?
     
    Thanks in advance.
     
     
  17. Like
    Sean reacted to CA3LE in Why Do My Results Differ From Speedtest.net / Ookla Speed Tests?   
     
    Great analogy!
     
    For those who'd argue "What if that construction zone was not there, those traffic lights were green, no accident on the route, ..." 
     
    Do you want to know how long it might take if everything were perfect... or would you rather know the true amount of time it will take?  Who cares about the time it would take if there were no variables, it's irrelevant if it can never be achieved in the real world.  I don't know about you but if I set off on a road trip and Google Maps said, "6 hours" and then it ends up taking 24 hours because of stop lights, construction and speed limits (all known before)... I'd be really pissed.  I'd rather be told the truth with all things considered so that I can plan accordingly.
     
     
  18. Like
    Sean got a reaction from CA3LE in Why Do My Results Differ From Speedtest.net / Ookla Speed Tests?   
    I have the same experience with 4G (cellular LTE) based broadband connections, such as when positioning a directional antenna.  When the network is quiet (e.g. early on a weekend morning), there can be a large variation between what SpeedTest and TestMy reports if the antenna is not aimed correctly.  Once the antenna is carefully aimed, the TestMy results climb up towards what Speedtest reports.  It's similar also if there are swaying branches in line of sight as Speedtest will again ignore the brief dips as if the bandwidth is sustained. 
     
    If Speedtest measured road trip speeds, their speed test methodology would eliminate traffic lights, construction zones, slow vehicles, busy junctions and everything else that accounted for the slowest 30% of the journey.
     
    If TestMy measured road trips, it would run a stopwatch from the moment of departure to the moment of arrival.
     
    Of course like the Speedtest fanatics, there would be those that would argue the same for road trip measurements - "What if that construction zone was not there, those traffic lights were green, no accident on the route, ..." 
  19. Like
    Sean reacted to tuscan in Manual download testing   
    Happy New Year to you too !
     
    Thanks for your reply.
     
    I tested both my standard and mobile broadband connections using the 3MB test URL you provided.
     
    The tests confirmed that the 4G connection is much faster than the standard broadband connection - we are in a rural location where the standard broadband links are not good !
     
    Time to purchase some pre-loaded SIM cards !!
     
    Thanks again for your help with this.
     
     
     
     
  20. Like
    Sean got a reaction from Assassin5150 in Google Fiber Speed Test   
    From a quick check in TCPView, Google fiber's speed test is multi-threaded.  Based on a test my with my connection (which only peaks about 45Mbps), it made 20 simultaneous connections:
     

    Although TestMy has a multi-threaded test option (default test is a single connection), the 200MB maximum block size is not sufficient to properly test Gigabit connections as the test will complete in under 2 seconds (900Mbps = 112.5MB per second).  So for measuring your peak speed, the Google fibre test will likely be more accurate.
     
    On the other hand, the normal TestMy linear test will give an idea of what your connection is capable of with a single connection, similar to downloading a very large file with a web browser or FTP transfer.  If you are getting in the 800Mbps range, your connection is fine.  However, if it's much lower, e.g. below 500Mbps, then there is probably something limiting what you can achieve over a single connection, which the multi-threaded speed tests don't show, in which cause you would only be able to achieve the multi-threaded test result with a multi-threaded download manager, e.g. Firefox's DownThemAll plug-in which splits a large download into multiple segments and downloads these segments simultaneously. 
  21. Like
    Sean got a reaction from mudmanc4 in Down & Up Combined Score   
    Test run on the Irish Three 4G network in Donegal town, possibly LTE+ (OnePlus 2 phone):
     

     
    It's also my fastest TestMy download result to date, certainly did not expect to see my first >100Mbps result on a cellular network, let alone the Three network especially with the past experience of prioritising/throttling ports.  As far as I can tell, they treat port 80 and 8080 equally now and the above test was a normal linear HTTP test with the UK server.
  22. Like
    Sean reacted to CA3LE in TID graphs are showing up blank   
    Hey Sean, I didn't see this topic, I got a PM with the same title and ended up responding over there and didn't see this thread.  It was a pretty odd issue that came from an  update of ipb. 
     
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention quickly so I could fix it quickly.
     
    Happy New Year!!
  23. Like
    Sean got a reaction from psyber in Unusual start to Downloads   
    The spike at the start can sometimes be caused by the Internet Security (virus checker) or the browser itself.
     
    For example, many Internet Security products start analysing the data of each connection before passing the data stream to the browser.  In the split second this happens, the data coming in is queued.  Once the Internet security product is satisfied this is not a threat, it passes this chunk along with any queued data to the browser.  To the speed test, this burst of data appears as the spike at the start of the graph.
     
    I often see this happen with the Firefox web browser, which also seems to hold up the data stream near the start of the test.  For example, occasionally when I start a speed test, Firefox stutters and then seems to skip ahead 10% where the speed test script sees this chunk as a speed spike.  The following shows an example of the spike where I did a test on Firefox for Android, in this case over the Meteor LTE (4G) network.
     

  24. Like
    Sean got a reaction from jb847 in Does checking internet speed online, in anyway affects bandwidth?   
    If this advice was given for a mobile Internet connection, what they likely mean is that running speed tests gobbles up the available data allowance.
     
    For example, many of the popular mobile phone packages in Ireland and the UK have a 1GB data allowance, such as the following example I picked from the UK O2 website:
     

    Running a speed test on 4G typically uses up to 100MB per direction per test depending on the 4G speed.  For example, if one is getting around 50Mbps, TestMy will usually download about 60MB in total.  This is double for the uplink direction as TestMy first downloads each block size to run the upload test.  So for a typical 20Mbps uplink, it will use around 40MB in total.  For faster 4G areas such as 20MHz areas or LTE Advanced (or 4G+), these figures double or triple.  Speedtest.net uses a similar amount of data, around 100MB total for a 4G connection delivering about 50Mbps down and 20Mbps up and I'm sure it's much the same with other speed test providers. 
     
    So assuming a speed test uses about 100MB per test (combined up & down) and the user has a 1GB monthly allowance like the above tariff, that person just needs to run the test 10 times to use up their data allowance without doing anything else online. 
     
    Basically, for anyone with a 2GB or lower monthly data allowance on their mobile handset, run the speed tests sparingly on 3G and avoid running speed tests if at all possible on 4G, apart from on the last day of the billing cycle and you have at least 200MB left (500MB for an LTE Advanced / 4G+ area).
  25. Like
    Sean got a reaction from CA3LE in 192.168.2.400   
    192.168.2.400 is not a valid IP address. The individual octets can only go up to 255.
×
Speed Test Version 15.9
© 2017 TestMy Net LLC - TestMy.net - Terms & Privacy
© 2017 TestMy Net LLC - TestMy.net - Forum - Terms & Privacy