Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch > #3220 > unrolled thread

Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch

Contents

  Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-28 19:49 -0700
    Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2011-08-28 23:32 -0400
    Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2011-08-28 23:49 -0400
      Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 08:59 -0700
        Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2011-08-29 12:40 -0400
          Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 12:00 -0700
          Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 12:00 -0700
            Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-08-29 21:31 -0400
            Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2011-08-29 22:12 -0400
              Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2011-08-30 09:38 -0400
              Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2011-08-30 10:51 -0400
            Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-30 13:53 +0200
              Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-30 06:59 -0700
                Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2011-08-30 10:23 -0400
                  Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-08-31 08:04 -0500
                    Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2011-08-31 10:26 -0400
                    Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-31 18:58 +0100
                Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-30 14:58 +0100
                Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-31 10:25 +0200
                  Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2011-08-31 10:01 -0400
                    Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2011-08-31 12:15 -0400
      Re: Somewhat off-topic: comp-arch.net cloned, possibly hacked "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 08:59 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#3304

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> in the mid-90s, the major certification authorities were circulating
> busines plans on wallstreet that every person in the country would
> have an annually renewed digital certificate @$100/annum (minimum
> $20B/annum industry revenue). The claim was that it would be justified
> by the financial industry requiring a certificate appended to every
> financial transaction. The problem was that even abbreviated digital
> certificates had payload size that was 100 times larger than existing
> payment transaction payload ... and the processing MIPs for digital
> certificate was 100 times larger than existing payment transaction
> processing ...  which was redundant and superfluous.

circa 2000, there was a large financial house with 20m accounts that
were convinced by a major certification authority that they could move
to certificate-based infrastructure for online/internet operations.

a group did a $30m pilot ... and then they told the board that they had
to get each account to register a public key (which was then stored in
the account record), then a copy of each account record would be sent to
the certification authority ... who would re-arrange the account record
bits into a digital certificate and return them (for forwarding to the
account owner) and would only charge $100/account.

The board asked why they should pay $2B to the certification authority for
re-arranging bits in the account record ... the account owner could
digitally sign everything ... and rather than validating the digital
signature from the public key in an appended digital certificate ... why
couldn't they validate the digital signature with the public key on-file
in the account record. I believe the board allowed everybody involved in
the $30m pilot to look for employment elsewhere.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3235

On 8/28/2011 8:49 PM, EricP wrote:
> Andy "Krazy" Glew wrote:
>>
>> But I also found another website, waboba.info, that seems to be a
>> clone of comp-arch.net.
>
> Hmmm... did a nslookup on waboba.info and got IP 69.163.174.83
> which is the same as semipublic.comp-arch.net
>
> Looked that up and it reports as semipublic.comp-arch.net
> located in the California, city BREA.
> http://ip-address-lookup-v4.com/lookup.php?ip=69.163.174.83
>
> Eric

Interesting.

I had already done the whois.

But I had not thought to do the nslookup.

(I suppose the times that I could see differences between my site and 
the other site may have just been caching effects.)

Now, why would somebody direct THEIR site to MY comp-arch.net site? 
What's the advantage in that?

The suspicious part of me suspects prepping for something nefarious.

(Of course, it might always be a DNS takeover, resulting in MY site 
being directed to HIS.  ...  No, doesn't seem to be, since that is the 
only site that I pay for a "unique IP" on (Dreamhost doesn't do static 
IPs), and that is what Dreamhost, accessed across HTTPS, reports.  I 
suppose it is possible that they have taken over Dreamhost. )

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch

csiph-web