Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Should I be suspicious of this?

  1. #1
    Bluuuue Rajah
    Guest

    Should I be suspicious of this?


    I'm always suspicious of sex links that point back to lawless or communist
    countries, and somebody posted this link for a nipple slip pic onto agc,
    but the link points back to China.

    http://downunderdaily.com/Entertainm...frankel-shows-
    nipples-in-a-see-through-dress.html

    The link makes it look like they're in Australia, which they aren't, so it
    looks like they've gone to a lot of trouble to cover their trail. Norton
    Security flags it as clean, but I worry that the Chinese are good enough to
    get around Norton and still get a Trojan under the radar.

    Should I be suspicious of this, or am I just being a fraidy cat?

  2. #2
    Onideus Mad Hatter
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:40:34 GMT, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.>
    wrote:

    >
    >I'm always suspicious of sex links that point back to lawless or communist
    >countries, and somebody posted this link for a nipple slip pic onto agc,
    >but the link points back to China.
    >
    >http://downunderdaily.com/Entertainm...frankel-shows-
    >nipples-in-a-see-through-dress.html
    >
    >The link makes it look like they're in Australia, which they aren't, so it
    >looks like they've gone to a lot of trouble to cover their trail. Norton
    >Security flags it as clean, but I worry that the Chinese are good enough to
    >get around Norton and still get a Trojan under the radar.
    >
    >Should I be suspicious of this, or am I just being a fraidy cat?


    If you have the NoScript plugin then you shouldn't have anything to
    worry about since it won't be able to execute any scripts unless you
    allow the domain.

    --

    Onideus Mad Hatter
    mhm ¹ x ¹
    http://www.backwater-productions.net
    http://www.uncensored-inter.net


    Hatter Quotes
    -------------
    "Freedom, true freedom, is nothing more than intellectual advantage over others."

    "When I listen to people I don't really listen to what it is they're
    saying, so much as what they're saying it for."

    "Don't ever **** with someone who has more creativity than you do."

    "You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
    best."

    "I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
    with it."

    "I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

    "Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the **** up!"

    "Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
    bad."

    "The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

    "Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
    of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

    "Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
    that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
    of its relevancy."

    "Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
    creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

    "Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

    "People are pretty ****ing high on themselves if they think that
    they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
    givin em out for free."

    "How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
    properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

    "Those who record history are those who control history."

    "I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
    endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
    don't get sent to me...I come for you."

    "Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
    tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

    "Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
    function?"

    "Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
    Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
    indicates an increase in Webtv users."

    "Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
    gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

  3. #3
    Ant
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    "Bluuuue Rajah" wrote:

    > I'm always suspicious of sex links that point back to lawless or communist
    > countries, and somebody posted this link for a nipple slip pic onto agc,
    > but the link points back to China.


    No, it doesn't. It points to 174.132.105.34 which is owned by
    theplanet.com in the US.

    > http://downunderdaily.com/Entertainm...frankel-shows-
    > nipples-in-a-see-through-dress.html
    >
    > The link makes it look like they're in Australia, which they aren't, so it
    > looks like they've gone to a lot of trouble to cover their trail.


    Hardly. They're using Hostgator.

    $> host downunderdaily.com
    downunderdaily.com has address 174.132.105.34

    $> host 174.132.105.34
    34.105.132.174.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer gator618.hostgator.com.

    $> whois 174.132.105.34
    OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.
    ....
    Country: US
    ....
    NetRange: 174.132.0.0 - 174.133.255.255
    CIDR: 174.132.0.0/15
    OriginAS: AS13749, AS21844, AS30315, AS36420
    NetName: NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-15
    ....etc.



  4. #4
    VanguardLH
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    NOTE: alt.2600 was omitted in my reply. Not interested in participating
    in a warez group. The OP deserves what he gets from there.


    Bluuuue Rajah wrote (on Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:40:34 GMT):

    Time for a new keyboard, Bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue.

    > I'm always suspicious of sex links that point back to lawless or communist
    > countries, and somebody posted this link for a nipple slip pic onto agc,
    > but the link points back to China.


    But sex links elsewhere are perfectly harmless, huh? Yeah, right.

    > http:// downunderdaily. com/ Entertainment/ Celebrity/ bethenny-frankel-shows-
    > nipples-in-a-see-through-dress. html
    >
    > The link makes it look like they're in Australia, which they aren't, so it
    > looks like they've gone to a lot of trouble to cover their trail. Norton
    > Security flags it as clean, but I worry that the Chinese are good enough to
    > get around Norton and still get a Trojan under the radar.


    You already know the cure so why ask us?

    > Should I be suspicious of this, or am I just being a fraidy cat?


    You are really that concerned over what is highly probably a faked
    photo? And of just a nipple (which you have yourself)? Look inside
    your own shirt if you want cheap thrills.


    downunderdaily.com = 174.132.105.34
    downunderdaily.com is registered to Hostgator (Texas, USA).
    174.132.105.34 is allocated to ThePlanet (Texas, USA).

    Traceroute on 174.132.105.34 or downunderdaily.com shows it goes to
    ThePlanet and then Hostgator.

    So you have someone who is using Hostgator's webhosting services who
    uses the Dallas data center of ThePlanet as their ISP. The user paid
    Hostgator for webhosting services, Hostgator registered the domain (so
    they are the registrant and owner of that domain), but Hostgator is a
    3rd tier webhosting service who uses the services of The Planet to get
    Internet access.

    So you have a site that identifies itself as an Australian, ahem, "news"
    site that is using the services of a USA webhost provider who uses the
    services of a USA data center for Internet access. Since Hostgator, the
    webhoster, owns the domain registration, you'll have to find out from
    them who is their client that asked them to register the
    downunderdaily.com domain. The site claims a copyright on the
    Downunderdaily.com domain name. Found no copyright record on
    "Downunderdaily" (since they cannot include .com in a copyrighted name)
    at http://www.copyright.gov/. There is no gov't registration of
    copyrights in Australia (gee, big surprise ... not).

    I didn't bother going to the site to find out to where some URL link
    went to for a nipple slip picture. Not of interest to me. If it headed
    you off to China, well, that's the content that is presented by that
    Downunderdaily.com site. I'm sure their content comes from all over the
    world. Did you see a place to issue a complaint to that site? Any
    contacts listed on their site? Nope. Gee, I wonder why. And that's
    where you go for reputable news? Oops, uh huh, forget that you aren't
    going there for news.

  5. #5
    Bit Twister
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:40:34 GMT, Bluuuue Rajah wrote:

    > Norton
    > Security flags it as clean,


    So tell me, how often is your AV database updated.
    Last stats I saw was about 4,000 new pieces of malware released daily.
    That works out to around 1 ever 30 seconds.

    Then your AV vendor has to catch a copy, test, update their database and you
    get around to downloading it sometime later.

    You might want to click on some of the dates and check detection time at
    http://www.commtouch.com/security-center then
    click the Malware Outbreak Center link.


  6. #6
    Robert James
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    Well, by running *nix based systems like Slackware Linux, PC-BSD and Mac OS
    X, I am not worried to much. Although subscribing to Full Discloser via
    email makes me wonder if I should be...

    Considering that all links to it are posted on forums by newbies I would say
    yes.

    But I went to the site. Ugly old woman... No malware issues on Firefox on a
    updated *nix box


    On 14/06/2009 14:40, in article
    Xns9C2A62711ECE5lkajehoriuasldfjknak@207.115.33.102, "Bluuuue Rajah"
    <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:

    > http://downunderdaily.com/Entertainm...frankel-shows-
    > nipples-in-a-see-through-dress.html


    --
    http://www.robertjames.50webs.com

    This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for
    the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
    disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
    immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
    this e-mail from your system.


  7. #7
    FrozenNorth
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    Robert James wrote:
    > Well, by running *nix based systems like Slackware Linux, PC-BSD and Mac OS
    > X, I am not worried to much. Although subscribing to Full Discloser via
    > email makes me wonder if I should be...
    >
    > Considering that all links to it are posted on forums by newbies I would say
    > yes.
    >
    > But I went to the site. Ugly old woman... No malware issues on Firefox on a
    > updated *nix box
    >

    Just to avoid the top-posting I did a big snip. Thought you had this
    fixed up yesterday.

    She is neither ugly or old, at least by my definition, but there are big
    black rectangles in place of the nips, so the OP shouldn't feel like he
    is missing anything.


    --
    Froz...

  8. #8
    The Daring Dufas
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    FrozenNorth wrote:
    > Robert James wrote:
    >> Well, by running *nix based systems like Slackware Linux, PC-BSD and
    >> Mac OS
    >> X, I am not worried to much. Although subscribing to Full Discloser via
    >> email makes me wonder if I should be...
    >>
    >> Considering that all links to it are posted on forums by newbies I
    >> would say
    >> yes.
    >>
    >> But I went to the site. Ugly old woman... No malware issues on Firefox
    >> on a
    >> updated *nix box
    >>

    > Just to avoid the top-posting I did a big snip. Thought you had this
    > fixed up yesterday.
    >
    > She is neither ugly or old, at least by my definition, but there are big
    > black rectangles in place of the nips, so the OP shouldn't feel like he
    > is missing anything.
    >


    Robbie is a youngster and probably thinks 40 is old.
    Damn, I wish I was that young again. <goes off to
    apply more WD40 to skeletal joints>

    TDD

  9. #9
    Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    In news:h13c7r$rbn$1@news.eternal-september.org,
    VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
    > NOTE: alt.2600 was omitted in my reply. Not interested in
    > participating in a warez group. The OP deserves what he gets from
    > there.


    Whatever gave you the idea that alt.2600 is a warez group?


    > Bluuuue Rajah wrote (on Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:40:34 GMT):
    >
    > Time for a new keyboard, Bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue.
    >
    >> I'm always suspicious of sex links that point back to lawless or
    >> communist countries, and somebody posted this link for a nipple slip
    >> pic onto agc,
    >> but the link points back to China.

    >
    > But sex links elsewhere are perfectly harmless, huh? Yeah, right.
    >
    >> http:// downunderdaily. com/ Entertainment/ Celebrity/
    >> bethenny-frankel-shows- nipples-in-a-see-through-dress. html
    >>
    >> The link makes it look like they're in Australia, which they aren't,
    >> so it looks like they've gone to a lot of trouble to cover their
    >> trail. Norton Security flags it as clean, but I worry that the
    >> Chinese are good enough to get around Norton and still get a Trojan
    >> under the radar.

    >
    > You already know the cure so why ask us?
    >
    >> Should I be suspicious of this, or am I just being a fraidy cat?

    >
    > You are really that concerned over what is highly probably a faked
    > photo? And of just a nipple (which you have yourself)? Look inside
    > your own shirt if you want cheap thrills.
    >
    >
    > downunderdaily.com = 174.132.105.34
    > downunderdaily.com is registered to Hostgator (Texas, USA).
    > 174.132.105.34 is allocated to ThePlanet (Texas, USA).
    >
    > Traceroute on 174.132.105.34 or downunderdaily.com shows it goes to
    > ThePlanet and then Hostgator.
    >
    > So you have someone who is using Hostgator's webhosting services who
    > uses the Dallas data center of ThePlanet as their ISP. The user paid
    > Hostgator for webhosting services, Hostgator registered the domain (so
    > they are the registrant and owner of that domain), but Hostgator is a
    > 3rd tier webhosting service who uses the services of The Planet to get
    > Internet access.
    >
    > So you have a site that identifies itself as an Australian, ahem,
    > "news" site that is using the services of a USA webhost provider who
    > uses the services of a USA data center for Internet access. Since
    > Hostgator, the webhoster, owns the domain registration, you'll have
    > to find out from them who is their client that asked them to register
    > the downunderdaily.com domain. The site claims a copyright on the
    > Downunderdaily.com domain name. Found no copyright record on
    > "Downunderdaily" (since they cannot include .com in a copyrighted
    > name) at http://www.copyright.gov/. There is no gov't registration of
    > copyrights in Australia (gee, big surprise ... not).
    >
    > I didn't bother going to the site to find out to where some URL link
    > went to for a nipple slip picture. Not of interest to me. If it
    > headed you off to China, well, that's the content that is presented
    > by that Downunderdaily.com site. I'm sure their content comes from
    > all over the world. Did you see a place to issue a complaint to that
    > site? Any contacts listed on their site? Nope. Gee, I wonder why.
    > And that's where you go for reputable news? Oops, uh huh, forget
    > that you aren't going there for news.


    --
    Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

    Message-ID: gng3nb$j6i$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
    "BTW: Lionel was no "kookologist". If you knew what you were talking
    about, you'd know that."

    Message-ID: glgh70$g12$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
    "Lionel laurer will be a real kookologist the day after the Sun
    explodes."



  10. #10
    FrozenNorth
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
    > In news:h13c7r$rbn$1@news.eternal-september.org,
    > VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
    >> NOTE: alt.2600 was omitted in my reply. Not interested in
    >> participating in a warez group. The OP deserves what he gets from
    >> there.

    >
    > Whatever gave you the idea that alt.2600 is a warez group?
    >

    He must have got spanked badly here by somebody.
    ;-)
    >
    >> Bluuuue Rajah wrote (on Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:40:34 GMT):
    >>
    >> Time for a new keyboard, Bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue.
    >>
    >>> I'm always suspicious of sex links that point back to lawless or
    >>> communist countries, and somebody posted this link for a nipple slip
    >>> pic onto agc,
    >>> but the link points back to China.

    >> But sex links elsewhere are perfectly harmless, huh? Yeah, right.
    >>
    >>> http:// downunderdaily. com/ Entertainment/ Celebrity/
    >>> bethenny-frankel-shows- nipples-in-a-see-through-dress. html
    >>>
    >>> The link makes it look like they're in Australia, which they aren't,
    >>> so it looks like they've gone to a lot of trouble to cover their
    >>> trail. Norton Security flags it as clean, but I worry that the
    >>> Chinese are good enough to get around Norton and still get a Trojan
    >>> under the radar.

    >> You already know the cure so why ask us?
    >>
    >>> Should I be suspicious of this, or am I just being a fraidy cat?

    >> You are really that concerned over what is highly probably a faked
    >> photo? And of just a nipple (which you have yourself)? Look inside
    >> your own shirt if you want cheap thrills.
    >>
    >>
    >> downunderdaily.com = 174.132.105.34
    >> downunderdaily.com is registered to Hostgator (Texas, USA).
    >> 174.132.105.34 is allocated to ThePlanet (Texas, USA).
    >>
    >> Traceroute on 174.132.105.34 or downunderdaily.com shows it goes to
    >> ThePlanet and then Hostgator.
    >>
    >> So you have someone who is using Hostgator's webhosting services who
    >> uses the Dallas data center of ThePlanet as their ISP. The user paid
    >> Hostgator for webhosting services, Hostgator registered the domain (so
    >> they are the registrant and owner of that domain), but Hostgator is a
    >> 3rd tier webhosting service who uses the services of The Planet to get
    >> Internet access.
    >>
    >> So you have a site that identifies itself as an Australian, ahem,
    >> "news" site that is using the services of a USA webhost provider who
    >> uses the services of a USA data center for Internet access. Since
    >> Hostgator, the webhoster, owns the domain registration, you'll have
    >> to find out from them who is their client that asked them to register
    >> the downunderdaily.com domain. The site claims a copyright on the
    >> Downunderdaily.com domain name. Found no copyright record on
    >> "Downunderdaily" (since they cannot include .com in a copyrighted
    >> name) at http://www.copyright.gov/. There is no gov't registration of
    >> copyrights in Australia (gee, big surprise ... not).
    >>
    >> I didn't bother going to the site to find out to where some URL link
    >> went to for a nipple slip picture. Not of interest to me. If it
    >> headed you off to China, well, that's the content that is presented
    >> by that Downunderdaily.com site. I'm sure their content comes from
    >> all over the world. Did you see a place to issue a complaint to that
    >> site? Any contacts listed on their site? Nope. Gee, I wonder why.
    >> And that's where you go for reputable news? Oops, uh huh, forget
    >> that you aren't going there for news.

    >



    --
    Froz...

  11. #11
    FrozenNorth
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    The Daring Dufas wrote:
    > FrozenNorth wrote:
    >> Robert James wrote:
    >>> Well, by running *nix based systems like Slackware Linux, PC-BSD and
    >>> Mac OS
    >>> X, I am not worried to much. Although subscribing to Full Discloser via
    >>> email makes me wonder if I should be...
    >>>
    >>> Considering that all links to it are posted on forums by newbies I
    >>> would say
    >>> yes.
    >>>
    >>> But I went to the site. Ugly old woman... No malware issues on
    >>> Firefox on a
    >>> updated *nix box
    >>>

    >> Just to avoid the top-posting I did a big snip. Thought you had this
    >> fixed up yesterday.
    >>
    >> She is neither ugly or old, at least by my definition, but there are
    >> big black rectangles in place of the nips, so the OP shouldn't feel
    >> like he is missing anything.
    >>

    >
    > Robbie is a youngster and probably thinks 40 is old.
    > Damn, I wish I was that young again. <goes off to
    > apply more WD40 to skeletal joints>
    >

    Water Displacement Recipe #40 probably won't help joints much.
    ;-)

    --
    Froz...

  12. #12
    The Daring Dufas
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    FrozenNorth wrote:
    > The Daring Dufas wrote:
    >> FrozenNorth wrote:
    >>> Robert James wrote:
    >>>> Well, by running *nix based systems like Slackware Linux, PC-BSD and
    >>>> Mac OS
    >>>> X, I am not worried to much. Although subscribing to Full Discloser via
    >>>> email makes me wonder if I should be...
    >>>>
    >>>> Considering that all links to it are posted on forums by newbies I
    >>>> would say
    >>>> yes.
    >>>>
    >>>> But I went to the site. Ugly old woman... No malware issues on
    >>>> Firefox on a
    >>>> updated *nix box
    >>>>
    >>> Just to avoid the top-posting I did a big snip. Thought you had this
    >>> fixed up yesterday.
    >>>
    >>> She is neither ugly or old, at least by my definition, but there are
    >>> big black rectangles in place of the nips, so the OP shouldn't feel
    >>> like he is missing anything.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Robbie is a youngster and probably thinks 40 is old.
    >> Damn, I wish I was that young again. <goes off to
    >> apply more WD40 to skeletal joints>
    >>

    > Water Displacement Recipe #40 probably won't help joints much.
    > ;-)
    >


    Hell, it stops the squeaking for a little while.

    TDD

  13. #13
    Robert James
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    On 14/06/2009 20:18, in article
    92cZl.320221$641.255290@en-nntp-10.dc1.easynews.com, "FrozenNorth"
    <frozennorth123@gm.nospam.ail.com> wrote:

    > The Daring Dufas wrote:
    >> FrozenNorth wrote:
    >>> Robert James wrote:
    >>>> Well, by running *nix based systems like Slackware Linux, PC-BSD and
    >>>> Mac OS
    >>>> X, I am not worried to much. Although subscribing to Full Discloser via
    >>>> email makes me wonder if I should be...
    >>>>
    >>>> Considering that all links to it are posted on forums by newbies I
    >>>> would say
    >>>> yes.
    >>>>
    >>>> But I went to the site. Ugly old woman... No malware issues on
    >>>> Firefox on a
    >>>> updated *nix box
    >>>>
    >>> Just to avoid the top-posting I did a big snip. Thought you had this
    >>> fixed up yesterday.
    >>>
    >>> She is neither ugly or old, at least by my definition, but there are
    >>> big black rectangles in place of the nips, so the OP shouldn't feel
    >>> like he is missing anything.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Robbie is a youngster and probably thinks 40 is old.
    >> Damn, I wish I was that young again. <goes off to
    >> apply more WD40 to skeletal joints>
    >>

    > Water Displacement Recipe #40 probably won't help joints much.
    > ;-)


    Daring Dufas: meant no offence but ya 40 is a bit old. The point I was
    making is that that Bluuuue Rajah is he's not missing much. Just that's
    she's no Alicia Silverstone, Drew Barrymore or Mira Sorvino. Then again I
    only remember 'em from the 90's so they are all going on 40 anyway... :(

    Onideus Mad Hatter: True, scripting is the cause of a lot of issues, but
    there are several vulnerabilities in plugins, addons, and in some cases the
    browser itself. I like to use a virtual sandbox operating system to do most
    of my online work, and edit out almost everything in about:config.

    Bit Twister: I find that virus and rootkit scanners, with even the best
    heuristics fail often. By compressing, crypting and binding even a well know
    trojan can bypass almost all AVs,,, even when excuted! And unless the
    malware is prevalent then AV companies rarely find or add it.

    FrozenNorth: Was replying in the comp.security.firewalls group, never
    noticed it was also in alt.2600 till I sent a reply. O' and wile WD-40 may
    not work on joints, superglue sure as hell works on my molar's huge tooth
    cavity! Canada, free useless health care, without dental. Underpaid ten
    dollar doctors, and over greedy thousand dollar dentists...

    --
    http://www.robertjames.50webs.com

    This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for
    the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
    disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
    immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
    this e-mail from your system.


  14. #14
    VanguardLH
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    NOTE: Removed Rhonda's attempt to reinsert the alt.2600 scum group.

    Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote (on Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:58:26 -0500):

    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >>
    >> NOTE: alt.2600 was omitted in my reply. Not interested in
    >> participating in a warez group.

    >
    > Whatever gave you the idea that alt.2600 is a warez group?


    alt.2600.crack(s|z)
    alt.2600.hackers
    alt.2600.phreakz
    alt.2600.warez

    and as for the alt.2600 parent group itself:

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/alt-2600/survival-guide/
    http://www.outpost9.com/how-to/hackfaq-2600.shtml

    Sorry for being lazy in wrapping all the malcontents, pueriles,
    maleficents, flamers, trolls, pirates, malignant hackers and other
    Usenet scum under the warez moniker. Guess I insulted the warez crowd.
    Oh, I'm soooo sorry. (rolls eyes)

  15. #15
    The Daring Dufas
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    Robert James wrote:
    > On 14/06/2009 20:18, in article
    > 92cZl.320221$641.255290@en-nntp-10.dc1.easynews.com, "FrozenNorth"
    > <frozennorth123@gm.nospam.ail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> The Daring Dufas wrote:
    >>> FrozenNorth wrote:
    >>>> Robert James wrote:
    >>>>> Well, by running *nix based systems like Slackware Linux, PC-BSD and
    >>>>> Mac OS
    >>>>> X, I am not worried to much. Although subscribing to Full Discloser via
    >>>>> email makes me wonder if I should be...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Considering that all links to it are posted on forums by newbies I
    >>>>> would say
    >>>>> yes.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But I went to the site. Ugly old woman... No malware issues on
    >>>>> Firefox on a
    >>>>> updated *nix box
    >>>>>
    >>>> Just to avoid the top-posting I did a big snip. Thought you had this
    >>>> fixed up yesterday.
    >>>>
    >>>> She is neither ugly or old, at least by my definition, but there are
    >>>> big black rectangles in place of the nips, so the OP shouldn't feel
    >>>> like he is missing anything.
    >>>>
    >>> Robbie is a youngster and probably thinks 40 is old.
    >>> Damn, I wish I was that young again. <goes off to
    >>> apply more WD40 to skeletal joints>
    >>>

    >> Water Displacement Recipe #40 probably won't help joints much.
    >> ;-)

    >
    > Daring Dufas: meant no offence but ya 40 is a bit old. The point I was
    > making is that that Bluuuue Rajah is he's not missing much. Just that's
    > she's no Alicia Silverstone, Drew Barrymore or Mira Sorvino. Then again I
    > only remember 'em from the 90's so they are all going on 40 anyway... :(
    >
    > Onideus Mad Hatter: True, scripting is the cause of a lot of issues, but
    > there are several vulnerabilities in plugins, addons, and in some cases the
    > browser itself. I like to use a virtual sandbox operating system to do most
    > of my online work, and edit out almost everything in about:config.
    >
    > Bit Twister: I find that virus and rootkit scanners, with even the best
    > heuristics fail often. By compressing, crypting and binding even a well know
    > trojan can bypass almost all AVs,,, even when excuted! And unless the
    > malware is prevalent then AV companies rarely find or add it.
    >
    > FrozenNorth: Was replying in the comp.security.firewalls group, never
    > noticed it was also in alt.2600 till I sent a reply. O' and wile WD-40 may
    > not work on joints, superglue sure as hell works on my molar's huge tooth
    > cavity! Canada, free useless health care, without dental. Underpaid ten
    > dollar doctors, and over greedy thousand dollar dentists...
    >


    And our own American Commiecrats want socialized medicine.
    It has failed miserably everywhere and BeeHO doesn't
    comprehend it or has some ulterior motive like gaining
    more control over the lives of the citizenry. I believe
    it's a control move and the the people in charge are
    certainly not be going to the same hospitals as the
    the lowly proletariat. It will be just like the old Soviet
    Union when they get their way. Those in charge will live
    in luxury and we the people will drown in vodka. I can't
    wait.

    TDD

  16. #16
    VanguardLH
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    NOTE: In my reply to Frozen, again removed the alt.2600 group due to its
    inclusion in his reply to Rhonda who reinserted the group.

    FrozenNorth wrote:

    > Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
    >>
    >> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>
    >>> NOTE: alt.2600 was omitted in my reply. Not interested in
    >>> participating in a warez group.

    >>
    >> Whatever gave you the idea that alt.2600 is a warez group?

    >
    > He must have got spanked badly here by somebody.


    Usually (but not always) I check the Newsgroups header to see if some
    boob is including UNRELATED newgroups, trying to start flames in them,
    or attempting to divert replies into the *.test bit bucket. Since this
    is a manual process, it is possible that I miss someone including the
    alt.2600, alt.usenet.kooks, *.test and other worthless, unrelated, or
    flame-targeted groups in the list.

    I don't use the X-No-Archive header so my posts remain archived in
    Google Groups. I just did a Google Groups search and find that, yes, I
    did reply to a post a year ago that went into alt.2600 because I forgot
    to edit the Newsgroups list to remove the scum groups, like alt.2600 and
    alt.usenet.kooks. I performed a search on my prior moniker (I changed
    mine to be polite to another user's identity) and found 3 more. In all
    cases, I never bothered to read or participate in the subsequent noise
    -- so if there were any spanking going on, oh alas and alack, I missed
    it, aw shucks. All were due to me forgetting to review the Newsgroups
    list or not noticing the misuse (which is near always) of the FollowUp-
    To header before submitting my reply.

  17. #17
    Robert James
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    On 14/06/2009 23:34, in article h13tta$hjn$1@news.eternal-september.org,
    "The Daring Dufas" <the-daring-dufas@stinky.net> wrote:

    > Robert James wrote:
    >> On 14/06/2009 20:18, in article
    >> 92cZl.320221$641.255290@en-nntp-10.dc1.easynews.com, "FrozenNorth"
    >> <frozennorth123@gm.nospam.ail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> The Daring Dufas wrote:
    >>>> FrozenNorth wrote:
    >>>>> Robert James wrote:
    >>>>>> Well, by running *nix based systems like Slackware Linux, PC-BSD and
    >>>>>> Mac OS
    >>>>>> X, I am not worried to much. Although subscribing to Full Discloser via
    >>>>>> email makes me wonder if I should be...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Considering that all links to it are posted on forums by newbies I
    >>>>>> would say
    >>>>>> yes.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> But I went to the site. Ugly old woman... No malware issues on
    >>>>>> Firefox on a
    >>>>>> updated *nix box
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Just to avoid the top-posting I did a big snip. Thought you had this
    >>>>> fixed up yesterday.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> She is neither ugly or old, at least by my definition, but there are
    >>>>> big black rectangles in place of the nips, so the OP shouldn't feel
    >>>>> like he is missing anything.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Robbie is a youngster and probably thinks 40 is old.
    >>>> Damn, I wish I was that young again. <goes off to
    >>>> apply more WD40 to skeletal joints>
    >>>>
    >>> Water Displacement Recipe #40 probably won't help joints much.
    >>> ;-)

    >>
    >> Daring Dufas: meant no offence but ya 40 is a bit old. The point I was
    >> making is that that Bluuuue Rajah is he's not missing much. Just that's
    >> she's no Alicia Silverstone, Drew Barrymore or Mira Sorvino. Then again I
    >> only remember 'em from the 90's so they are all going on 40 anyway... :(
    >>
    >> Onideus Mad Hatter: True, scripting is the cause of a lot of issues, but
    >> there are several vulnerabilities in plugins, addons, and in some cases the
    >> browser itself. I like to use a virtual sandbox operating system to do most
    >> of my online work, and edit out almost everything in about:config.
    >>
    >> Bit Twister: I find that virus and rootkit scanners, with even the best
    >> heuristics fail often. By compressing, crypting and binding even a well know
    >> trojan can bypass almost all AVs,,, even when excuted! And unless the
    >> malware is prevalent then AV companies rarely find or add it.
    >>
    >> FrozenNorth: Was replying in the comp.security.firewalls group, never
    >> noticed it was also in alt.2600 till I sent a reply. O' and wile WD-40 may
    >> not work on joints, superglue sure as hell works on my molar's huge tooth
    >> cavity! Canada, free useless health care, without dental. Underpaid ten
    >> dollar doctors, and over greedy thousand dollar dentists...
    >>

    >
    > And our own American Commiecrats want socialized medicine.
    > It has failed miserably everywhere and BeeHO doesn't
    > comprehend it or has some ulterior motive like gaining
    > more control over the lives of the citizenry. I believe
    > it's a control move and the the people in charge are
    > certainly not be going to the same hospitals as the
    > the lowly proletariat. It will be just like the old Soviet
    > Union when they get their way. Those in charge will live
    > in luxury and we the people will drown in vodka. I can't
    > wait.
    >
    > TDD


    Even one is equal, and all equals are in poverty as was in Russia, soon most
    of North America. No, I support the idea of free healthcare, it's just that
    all the bums have abused the system and all the doctors do nothing but
    prescribe drugs ( which is not included in public insurance ). Any good
    doctors move to the states when they get their degree, and we are left with
    candy stripe nurses. But hay, at least the soviets had vodka, here it's
    taxes to high hell like everything else.

    --
    http://www.robertjames.50webs.com

    This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for
    the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
    disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
    immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
    this e-mail from your system.


  18. #18
    Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    In news:h13te8$e82$1@news.eternal-september.org,
    VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
    > NOTE: Removed Rhonda's attempt to reinsert the alt.2600 scum group.
    >
    > Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote (on Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:58:26 -0500):
    >
    >> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>
    >>> NOTE: alt.2600 was omitted in my reply. Not interested in
    >>> participating in a warez group.

    >>
    >> Whatever gave you the idea that alt.2600 is a warez group?

    >
    > alt.2600.crack(s|z)
    > alt.2600.hackers
    > alt.2600.phreakz
    > alt.2600.warez


    None of those are alt.2600, which was the subject of your comment.

    > and as for the alt.2600 parent group itself:
    >
    > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/alt-2600/survival-guide/


    "If you are posting looking for commercial software without any intention
    of paying for it, you WILL be flamed. While most newsgroup readers have
    no ethical objection to violating copyright law, software piracy is seen
    as a "lame" thing because of its lack of technical content. alt.2600 is
    not a warez newsgroup."

    > http://www.outpost9.com/how-to/hackfaq-2600.shtml
    >
    > Sorry for being lazy in wrapping all the malcontents, pueriles,
    > maleficents, flamers, trolls, pirates, malignant hackers and other
    > Usenet scum under the warez moniker. Guess I insulted the warez
    > crowd. Oh, I'm soooo sorry. (rolls eyes)


    You become more pedantic, trollish and clueless with every post you make.

    --
    Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

    Message-ID: gng3nb$j6i$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
    "BTW: Lionel was no "kookologist". If you knew what you were talking
    about, you'd know that."

    Message-ID: glgh70$g12$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
    "Lionel laurer will be a real kookologist the day after the Sun
    explodes."



  19. #19
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    In alt.comp.anti-virus, VanguardLH wrote:

    > Usually (but not always) I check the Newsgroups header to see if some
    > boob is including UNRELATED newgroups,


    > User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41


    Click the little plus sign at the left edge of the subject line (in the
    message pane upper border). This will expand that border area to include
    the list of newsgroups (and some other bits like the X-Face).

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows

  20. #20
    Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
    Guest

    Re: Should I be suspicious of this?

    In news:h140eq$8mj$1@news.eternal-september.org,
    VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
    > NOTE: In my reply to Frozen, again removed the alt.2600 group due to
    > its inclusion in his reply to Rhonda who reinserted the group.


    Which means that the person to whom you're replying won't see it.

    > FrozenNorth wrote:
    >
    >> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
    >>>
    >>> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> NOTE: alt.2600 was omitted in my reply. Not interested in
    >>>> participating in a warez group.
    >>>
    >>> Whatever gave you the idea that alt.2600 is a warez group?

    >>
    >> He must have got spanked badly here by somebody.

    >
    > Usually (but not always) I check the Newsgroups header to see if some
    > boob is including UNRELATED newgroups, trying to start flames in them,
    > or attempting to divert replies into the *.test bit bucket. Since
    > this is a manual process, it is possible that I miss someone
    > including the alt.2600, alt.usenet.kooks, *.test and other worthless,
    > unrelated, or flame-targeted groups in the list.
    >
    > I don't use the X-No-Archive header so my posts remain archived in
    > Google Groups. I just did a Google Groups search and find that, yes,
    > I did reply to a post a year ago that went into alt.2600 because I
    > forgot to edit the Newsgroups list to remove the scum groups, like
    > alt.2600 and alt.usenet.kooks. I performed a search on my prior
    > moniker (I changed mine to be polite to another user's identity) and
    > found 3 more. In all cases, I never bothered to read or participate
    > in the subsequent noise -- so if there were any spanking going on, oh
    > alas and alack, I missed it, aw shucks. All were due to me
    > forgetting to review the Newsgroups list or not noticing the misuse
    > (which is near always) of the FollowUp- To header before submitting
    > my reply.


    Get a grip, Vanguard.

    --
    Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

    Message-ID: gng3nb$j6i$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
    "BTW: Lionel was no "kookologist". If you knew what you were talking
    about, you'd know that."

    Message-ID: glgh70$g12$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
    "Lionel laurer will be a real kookologist the day after the Sun
    explodes."



Similar Threads

  1. Re: Outbox activity - suspicious?
    By mikecosta387@gmail.com in forum alt.computer.security
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-09, 10:18 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-17-08, 01:41 PM
  3. I'm a suspicious person it seems...
    By Keg Party in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-27-07, 03:19 PM
  4. Mystery revealed: Canadian Spy Coins
    By minir in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-08-07, 08:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •