×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Thousands of Publicly Accessible Printers Searchable On Google

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the message-in-a-bottle-on-the-digital-ocean dept.

Google 192

Jeremiah Cornelius writes "Blogger Adam Howard at Port3000 has a post about Google's exposure of thousands of publicly accessible printers. 'A quick, well crafted Google search returns "About 86,800 results" for publicly accessible HP printers.' He continues, 'There's something interesting about being able to print to a random location around the world, with no idea of the consequence.' He also warns about these printers as a possible beachhead for deeper network intrusion and exploitation. With many of the HP printers in question containing a web listener and a highly vulnerable and unpatched JVM, I agree that this is not an exotic idea. In the meanwhile? I have an important memo for all Starbucks employees."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

192 comments

First rule of embedded web servers (4, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#42695297)

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

Re:First rule of embedded web servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695333)

That's relatively easy to get around.

Re:First rule of embedded web servers (3, Insightful)

countach (534280) | about a year ago | (#42695465)

I think the point is, at least it wouldn't be advertised on Google.

Re:First rule of embedded web servers (5, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#42695511)

But at least it keeps the major search engines from indexing your web-accessible device, which is where script kiddies and the malevolently ignorant will go to find strange machines to play with.

Re:First rule of embedded web servers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695505)

Second rule:
No Java.

Re:First rule of embedded web servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695705)

Second rule:
No Java.

Oh hogwash these Java vulnerability headlines only apply to attacker code escaping their sandbox. Java implementing a web server may well be slow, succeptable to various DoS attacks or authorization bypass but good luck stack smashing or otherwise uploading arbitrary bytecode for execution.

Re:First rule of embedded web servers (1)

robmv (855035) | about a year ago | (#42695991)

I think the idea is to hack a printer and serve a malicious applet to the user computer on the administration pages using a Java (or browser, or Flash, etc) vulnerability, not that the JVM is running on the printer

already used for spam... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695303)

I work at a university and the faculty in the department I work for refuse to let us firewall public addresses due to some misplaced fear that it would limit them in some way.

We get attempted spam on an almost daily basis. I say attempted because I believe they are trying to print images (for an ad) and it doesn't work, only giving some code with a URI.

AC for obvious reasons.

This will stop quickly (3, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year ago | (#42695311)

As soon as a spammer figures out how to abuse it.

Re:This will stop quickly (1)

rvw14 (733613) | about a year ago | (#42695625)

I already get enough penny stock tips and vacation offers from the one fax remaining in the office at work, I don't need them printing on my printer as well.

Re:This will stop quickly (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about a year ago | (#42695663)

But what you might really love is the opportunity to re-finance your home at 0.01%!

Re:This will stop quickly (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#42696261)

0.01%? That is a rip off! Refinance now and get -0.25% that's right you will gain money! Dont pay your mortgage! WE PAY YOU!

Re:This will stop quickly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695791)

You don't get the before and after pictures of 'enhancements' on your fax? Lucky you.

Lets just say that last minute fax that was not looked over before handing it to the CEO could have gone over a lot worse. Her response of I could use a set of these but I don't want this while holding them up in the meeting did make for a few laughs. We have been getting these for a while now.

Re:This will stop quickly (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695749)

This may fall under the junk fax laws, USCC 18 paragraph 2701. Unlike that nightmare of deliberately overriding state law with federal law that planted "SPAM ME" on the backside of every email user in the US, the old junk fax law actually had teeth in it because it was costing every fax-owning *business* money and time as their fax machines were run out of paper and toner constantly with all the junk fax. So it's a fairly robust law which might include this as electronic communicaitons to a fax/printer/copier machine in most offices.

Imagine... (4, Insightful)

inode_buddha (576844) | about a year ago | (#42695317)

A little bit of scripting and you can goatse thousands all around the world...

Re:Imagine... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#42695387)

I was just considering that.
Anyone know if there are laws against it?

Re:Imagine... (3, Informative)

t3hfr3ak (2429946) | about a year ago | (#42695451)

Well, some states persecute for sharing offensive material over the internet. I'm sure the courts will say this falls into the category.

Re:Imagine... (4, Funny)

Splab (574204) | about a year ago | (#42695495)

Since you are abusing their equipment, you are probably going to be up for all sorts of fun unlawful computer acts.

And if you are going to prank them, send the "You're fired" from back to the future...

Re:Imagine... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#42695523)

Probably the same laws that say you can't use someone else's computer without their permission. Just because it's unsecured doesn't mean you're allowed to walk in.

Re:Imagine... (2)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year ago | (#42696187)

So, you only visit website for which you have a written invitation?

As a business, if your front door is open, it's an invitation to come in and browse.

Re:Imagine... (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year ago | (#42695651)

Aren't there laws in the US against sending spam faxes because it uses the paper up? That might be used against the sender of the print job.

If the printers are simple JetDirect boxes, there will probably be no logging of where the jobs came from. If they're bigger multifunction machines with hard drives, you'll be logged.

Re:Imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695443)

I would LOOVE to be a fly on the wall of the office where someone is working, then all of the sudden the office printer just starts printing the goatse pic - seemingly by itself.

Re:Imagine... (1)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#42696029)

If their printer is plopped down on the Internet, their IP cameras probably are too. You can even have the fly's point of view!

I was surprised to see in the LinkedIn security industry discussion threads how many of our competitors think nothing of think nothing of making their customers' security cameras, DVR/NVR, or access control/intrusion panel accessible from the Internet. Several posters have gotten quite irate when I point out that if the customer can get to it then so can any script kiddie. I wonder how many of those machines are spewing spam and hosting child porn. "We turned on the firewall!" Feels like 1998 all over again.

Re:Imagine... (4, Interesting)

black3d (1648913) | about a year ago | (#42695997)

Back in the early days of the web when I used to port-sniff for fun, I discovered an FTP enabled printer with an upload to print function so threw "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare" up into it to see what happened. Of course, the file disappeared after a few minutes so I really have no idea, but to this day I wonder if I perhaps unfortunately used up someone's paper. :\

Re:Imagine... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42696421)

You Sir are a knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.

Re:Imagine... (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about a year ago | (#42696269)

the key here is to find a publicly accessible printer, in a location with a publicly accessible security/web camera, so you can witness the revulsion crossing their bewildered faces first hand.

Insert Cheese (5, Funny)

fluffy99 (870997) | about a year ago | (#42695357)

I wonder if any of them are the older HP LaserJets where you could change the display to read funny things like "Insert Cheese" or "Low on Mayo"?
http://community.spiceworks.com/scripts/show/1184-change-a-networked-hp-laserjet-ready-message [spiceworks.com]
http://miscellany.kovaya.com/2007/10/insert-coin.html [kovaya.com]

Re:Insert Cheese (4, Interesting)

JamesTRexx (675890) | about a year ago | (#42695769)

Did this at the previous company I worked for as a 1st of April joke. Nobody had any clue as to how I did that. *lmao*

Or maybe I should have been worried about why nobody had the knowledge about these exploits...

Re:Insert Cheese (4, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#42695831)

I did that to my old department head's printer a few years ago. I think it was asking for $0.25 to be inserted for a few weeks before he asked me to fix it.

Re:Insert Cheese (4, Funny)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#42696033)

i would love to do that, but the knuckleheads i work with would end up jamming quarters into the vents on the printer

Re:Insert Cheese (5, Funny)

Laebshade (643478) | about a year ago | (#42695825)


% cd projects/pevil
% cat pevil
#!/usr/bin/perl

use warnings;
use strict;
use 5.014;
use Printer::HP::Display;

my $printer_ip = "172.30.20.129";
my $printer = Printer::HP::Display->new($printer_ip);

my ($text) = @ARGV;
my $message = "I'm sorry Dave, I can't print that.";
$message = $text if defined $text;

$printer->set_display($message);
say $printer->get_display;

Re:Insert Cheese (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695915)

Postscript is a full programming language http://www.ugrad.math.ubc.ca/Flat/lang.html, so you can set them up to mine bitcoins (or search for ET if you are a nicer person)

Re:Insert Cheese (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42696283)

1997 [vilminko.net] called and wants its "Virus detected!" message back.

Very useful (5, Funny)

scotts13 (1371443) | about a year ago | (#42695389)

(GRIN) At one time, I had dial-in access to the Apple corporate network; back then AppleTalk and PAP were still supported. When I was having trouble getting an employee to answer his email, I'd just print the message to the printer in his office. That would usually get his or her attention.

Re:Very useful (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#42695727)

The modern fix for this isn't that the printers are anymore secure, it's that the employee you're trying to get hold of only speaks Korean.

just one more reason the internet needs regulation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695391)

thank god slashdot shed light on this horrible cyber-security loophole that could be exploited by hackers and terrorists! just one more reason why the internet needs to be regulated!

Re:just one more reason the internet needs regulat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695583)

Yes, it needs someone to write a legal document that says that if you put it on the Internet, people can use it any way they can if you don't disallow them to do so in the thing itself. Ts&Cs don't disallow anybody anything on the Internet.

Second, another legal document should says that when somebody sends you an email telling you that your system is full of wholes, you either fix them, or you lose your right to sue any hackers that wonder around and that you could positively identify.

In market terms, that means that if Adobe and MS put 0-days on the backburner for years, people will be very vocal about it. Some things aren't protectable by iptables.

Help! I'm trapped in here! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695399)

I saw a story not too long ago about someone accessing their neighbor's printer to print out messages to the neighbor, pretending the printer was somehow alive; starting with some gibberish it became words and then paragraphs of text.

But you wouldn't do that to any of these printers because (pulls down microphone hidden in lamp suspended from ceiling) that would be wrong!

Highly vulnerable and unpatched JVM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695405)

Wait, the printers can run applets? What?

Not news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695429)

Wow! Somebody took an introduction to GoogleFu! This is not news.

No firewall, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695437)

I'm a little surprised that those devices wouldn't have been firewalled off by default or behind NAT routers. It'd be interesting to see why they ended up on the Internet.

You're Fired (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695439)

You're Fired McFly.

Might be useful... (1)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | about a year ago | (#42695461)

...if these printers were somewhere they could reasonably replace a fax machine. But then, even fax machines are abused/spammed.

And it doesn't have to be deliberate. I supplied the department with a year's worth of scrap paper when I tried to print a postscript file to a laser printer. Something in the Windows-to-Appletalk software got munged and the text of the file got printed instead of the document.

This is why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695473)

My printer sits behind a firewall at the university where I work, and the only traffic that gets through to it is from a whitelist of IPs and specific ports and protocols. It's not exactly secure (no kidding!), but at least the google bot isn't going to find it. People will probably be too busy probing the zillions of network printers elsewhere on campus that don't even have that level of filtering. I remember when I first read the specs on this HP printer. "Web server? Really? They're really asking for trouble. No thank you." It's disabled in the firmware settings. Thank goodness that option was there.

First page of Google results (4, Funny)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year ago | (#42695541)

I pity the people who's printers show up on the first page of Google results.

Re:First page of Google results (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695941)

It is worth noting that there is one and a half page of them. No, really; go check [google.co.uk].

Re:First page of Google results (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about a year ago | (#42696151)

What would be great for the /. clout or any enterprising business looking to get good PR (and the possible follow up stories) is to actually send a helpful fax to those that are open, start with the first page, with instructions how to "fix" it and why it needs to be done and a contact email. Alas, I am not that versed in any related field but would be surprised if a security company didn't take advantage of it.

How did this happen? (5, Interesting)

countach (534280) | about a year ago | (#42695549)

Excuse my ignorance, but how does this happen? Big companies have firewalls and NAT, and everyday people have wi-fi routers and NAT. What sort of people have big swarths of IP address space, but no clue how to manage it?

Re:How did this happen? (3, Insightful)

QuadEddie (459328) | about a year ago | (#42695609)

The number of small companies dwarf big companies. While a big company could potentially have a few of these in the open, they're much more likely to have the resources to have someone competent running the network. A typical small business (under 20 employees) will not have the resources to secure their network and will likely be oblivious to the exposure.

OK, I'm ignorant too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695771)

The number of small companies dwarf big companies. While a big company could potentially have a few of these in the open, they're much more likely to have the resources to have someone competent running the network. A typical small business (under 20 employees) will not have the resources to secure their network and will likely be oblivious to the exposure.

That doesn't address how they were able to access it. Yeah, we got it, small companies don't have the "resources" to have a secure network, but many of these routers and whatnot are defaulted to no let anyone come in.

I have a NAT router (wrt54g) and I put an HP printer on my network plugged into that router with all the default security setting in place.

How would they see this with their "cleverly crafted" google search?

If so, then exactly what am I doing wrong?

Re:How did this happen? (1)

JamesTRexx (675890) | about a year ago | (#42695851)

*nods* Unfortunately most of the small businesses hire someone cheap claiming to know about computers but has no real clue about securing a network or setting it up right.
The lucky ones come into contact with a company like mine before disaster strikes... :-/

Re:How did this happen? (3, Insightful)

black3d (1648913) | about a year ago | (#42696031)

Worse, the "cheap" guys frequently intentionally disable router-based firewalls and DMZ the entire internal network so they can "troubleshoot" remotely having to use only RDP, because they have no experience or knowledge of appropriate secure methods of remote troubleshooting.

Re:How did this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695659)

AT&T

Re:How did this happen? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695693)

governments.

Re:How did this happen? (1)

jdastrup (1075795) | about a year ago | (#42695703)

Schools and some government branches often have devices, esp. printers, on public IP addresses. Several good reasons for it, but of course it can get abused

Re:How did this happen? (3, Funny)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#42695799)

Jimmy: So hows the new real estate agency dad said you started?
Uncle Jim: The whole office is a mess. We've got a bunch of computers, and we got one of those box things to connect them all together at walmart... But it only has 10 plugins and now we've got this new printer...
Jimmy: Uh... I think we can just get a bunch of old network cards, put them in that computer in the basement and install linux on it...
Uncle Jim: Is Linux secure?
Jimmy: It's the best. I think Nasa uses it.
Uncle Jim: Wow, this is great that was going to cost me Twenty...er... hey I'll give you $10 an hour to do it.
Jimmy:Really? Awsome... *starts doing wikipedia searches for linux*

Re:How did this happen? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695845)

Even if you have people too stupid to spend $10 on an off-the-shelf switch instead of a teenager who doesn't know what they're doing, you still haven't explained where the public IPs came from. The GP's point is that there is very little overlap between organizations with more than one public IP (i.e. your normal home or small business customer using a NAT) and organizations that don't have IT staff competent enough to setup a firewall.

Re:How did this happen? (5, Interesting)

Changa_MC (827317) | about a year ago | (#42696105)

I have 1024 public IPs, and I'm the only one who does anything with them: we won't have a network person until the hiring freeze is lifted (read: never).
There' was no NAT here, because that's not part of the IPv4 specs, and didn't even exist when this place was setup.

I've setup basic NAT, my wireless users are on it, and a few desktops, but I can't move everyone onto it because some directors like to print from home to work, and some people require access to a router-to-router VPN to another site that only works if you have a public IP address. I'd love to get a better handle on how access tables on these routers work, but if I did that I'd have to take time away from my day job, and really who wants to get yelled at for working harder?

I have no idea what I'm doing, but I can put anything I want on a public IP because there's literally no-one more knowledgeable to stop me. And I'm not gonna touch those printers because they're on a different subnet from my servers now, so screw it, they're literally not my job to secure.

They've been like that for 20+ years, how bad can it be?

Re:How did this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695827)

People botch the VPN connection, and end up just putting the printer(s) on a separate router that's wide open. I have been tempted to do this myself for situations where the clients were being non-listeners.

Re:How did this happen? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695869)

If you print them a form to send in, you may get enough responses to answer that question.

Re:How did this happen? (1)

Victor_0x53h (1164907) | about a year ago | (#42695877)

I'm presuming these setups are accidental. Is the DHCP scope on their internal, physical network configured to hand out public IP addresses? My mind boggles wondering if that would even work, much less someone would make that decision. The alternative is someone who knows what they're doing intentionally NATs web traffic to the internal address. That raises the oxymoronic "knows what they're doing" and "NATs web traffic to a printer" quandary.

Re:How did this happen? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42696447)

Is the DHCP scope on their internal, physical network configured to hand out public IP addresses? My mind boggles wondering if that would even work, much less someone would make that decision.

Of course it works. The internet was built to work with most machines having real, routeable addresses, and those 'private' addresses mostly for small farms and testing environments. It's only since the internet vastly outgrew the 16,000 or so computers anyone ever expected to see, and the address space got so crowded and so expensive that people started NATing everything. Even today, look at most universities: all those machines get real internet addresses. Some U's don't even have a campus wide firewall. Just plug your computer in and start up your own Usenet node.

Re:How did this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42696011)

I've seen people do it because they had trouble making it work over a site to site VPN. So they made a port forward of TCP 9100 to the remote site and used the public IP on the print server.

I think the original problem was it was trying to NAT the IP when there should have been a NAT exempt rule for the IP / network. They could have still put an ACL on allowed IP addresses if they still couldn't figure it out.

Re:How did this happen? (1)

Wolfraider (1065360) | about a year ago | (#42696035)

I can't remember the name of it but there is some big library software that requires printers with public IP addresses. The printers sit at the clients site but are configured on the companies servers directly. They recommend that no firewall is configured because it might interfere with the print jobs. I only found out because I had to replace a Jet-direct card that was hosed. They finally started allowing printing to locally attached printers last year but most setups are still the old way.

Re:How did this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42696045)

Easy, these are people who at some point understood enough about port forwarding to be dangerous. They realized they could print from everywhere if they just opened up the port and pointed to their IP.

Re:How did this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42696049)

Large universities, companies, and anyone else who jumped on the 'net bandwagon back when you could get a /16 chunk easily

Yeah about 86,000 but really only 73 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695579)

As usual google lies. You can only access the first 1000 results from any query so they can put what they want in that box in this instance there are really only 73....
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=inurl%3Ahp%2Fdevice%2Fthis.LCDispatcher&oq=inurl%3Ahp%2Fdevice%2Fthis.LCDispatcher&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=inurl:hp/device/this.LCDispatcher%3Fnav%3Dhp.Print&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&ei=DvcCUeCAPeiq0AWc2IGYBg&start=70&sa=N&filter=0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=a0b2ec51e8be5bd5&biw=1120&bih=607

Re:Yeah about 86,000 but really only 73 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42696057)

You're a moron. There are dozens of pages of results, with hundreds (possibly thousands, I only went to page 17) of unique IPs listed.

Media tray empty, toner low (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695607)

So now we've slashdotted printers. Good job guys.

First Post?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695611)

First Post

Google + inurl: == FUN! (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#42695639)

Gotta love unsecured, web-facing peripherals.


Personally, I prefer searching for IP cameras [slashdot.org]

Re:Google + inurl: == FUN! (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about a year ago | (#42695807)

Yes, now imagine if they were things like coffee makers, toasters, and other small appliances, Java enabled, left open on the Internet.

Have a grudge against somebody? Make their toast extra dark and their coffee extra weak.

MIT security (?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695695)

a subdomain to mit.edu is open, you can even upload firmware

Re:MIT security (?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695817)

Son thats 30 to life for even thinking that

Praeda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695767)

See Praeda - printer security project: http://www.foofus.net/?page_id=218

Not thousands, more like 73 (3, Informative)

Mr. McGibby (41471) | about a year ago | (#42695773)

Just because google says *about* 86,500 results, doesn't mean that it's going to *actually* have that. You'd think someone who can search google that well would know this. If you go to the end of the search query, it's 73 results.

Re:Not thousands, more like 73 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42696133)

If you go to the second page, you get the option to repeat the search with the discarded results.

"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 13 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."

Re:Not thousands, more like 73 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42696141)

Just because google says *about* 86,500 results, doesn't mean that it's going to *actually* have that. You'd think someone who can search google that well would know this. If you go to the end of the search query, it's 73 results.

actually it is abut 86,500 - the 73 results are considered unique, but when you "repeat the search with the omitted results included" at the end, it includes many, many more nodes.

Honeypot (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#42695793)

Considering how are going laws in US, you could end facing years of jail for each page you send to any of those printers. And you could be the one picked to serve as an example for others.

Queued/Printed Documents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42695841)

Do any of these web interfaces allow you to retrieve queued or recently printed documents? That would add a whole other layer to this particular security breach...

Did anyone bother to click through? (1, Insightful)

jabberwock (10206) | about a year ago | (#42696041)

Yes, the search page say 86,700 results, or whatever. But you only get 13 results, and then the:

"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 13 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."

Asking for omitted results gives you a grand total of 73 results, no matter WHAT the top of the results page says ...

So ... nothing to see here, at all. Bullsh*t.

FTP? (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | about a year ago | (#42696069)

I don't know about current HP printers, I do remember using the nice ftp server on them in the past..

Second rule of Internet Club, no connections directly from the Internet to your Intranet.

Fond memories... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42696137)

Fond memories of starting a print job on one side of campus, and walking to the other in time for it to be done, then hanging with friends knowing that my paper was printed and I could party for the night. The only real problem was making sure I didn't drink too much and leave the paper at their place on the way home, or drop it.

The following story is probably fabricated based on the reputation of the person who told it, but here goes. Allegedly back in the 80s he was hacking into dial-up stuff, and found a device that printed out credit cards or something. He couldn't actually get it to send him a card, but he could program the printer to do nothing but print cards. He did this over the weekend, and when they came in on Monday the machine had printed enough cards to block a door. In retrospect, I think the limiting factor on this is that the machine wouldn't have had such an enormous hopper of blank card stock. Most likely, if there is any basis in fact at all it's that he ran out one roll of blank cards and made a little pile before they figured it out.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...