Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #372658 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-24 18:23 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-25 02:20 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-24 18:23 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-25 01:24 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <mareknovotry@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:30 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:36 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-24 18:48 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-25 10:18 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-24 19:56 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-24 21:55 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 05:52 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-24 23:32 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 06:53 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 00:21 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-25 10:21 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-25 12:16 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 07:55 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 15:52 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 08:59 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 16:20 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 09:27 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 16:42 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 17:39 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:16 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 14:56 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 16:43 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 09:55 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 17:03 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 10:10 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 17:18 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 20:38 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 13:50 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 21:46 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 14:52 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-25 12:15 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.nospam> - 2016-09-25 18:56 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-25 18:12 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-26 08:28 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-26 12:20 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-26 19:17 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-26 13:50 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-26 20:22 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-26 18:20 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-27 02:45 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-27 08:53 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-27 14:19 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-27 10:35 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-27 14:44 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-27 10:01 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 08:45 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-27 11:59 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-26 13:50 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-26 20:44 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-26 16:57 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-26 22:08 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-26 18:37 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-27 02:22 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-27 08:50 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-27 13:47 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-27 09:55 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-27 14:26 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-27 10:39 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-27 12:04 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 08:44 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 14:25 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-09-27 05:45 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 08:32 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-27 18:24 +0200
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 10:17 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-27 20:03 +0200
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 11:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-27 19:44 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-28 00:49 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-28 07:08 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-09-28 14:24 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 11:53 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-28 17:56 +0200
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 12:25 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-28 18:27 +0200
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 12:30 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-28 20:37 +0200
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 15:26 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-28 11:54 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny Verification chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-28 12:02 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-28 13:57 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-09-28 15:58 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 12:26 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:00 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 12:26 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 10:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-28 11:09 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 14:55 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-28 11:09 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 15:16 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-28 13:58 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 16:02 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 13:16 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-29 10:16 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 09:24 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-29 21:38 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-29 20:56 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-30 14:34 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-30 18:11 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-29 09:37 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 07:59 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-09-28 13:39 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-28 10:23 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-28 08:35 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-28 08:46 -0700
Snit digest 315 / 2016-09-27 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-09-27 20:28 +0000
Re: Snit digest 315 / 2016-09-27 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 13:34 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-26 22:17 +0200
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-26 20:48 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-26 16:50 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-26 18:26 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-25 10:19 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-25 12:21 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 18:29 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 18:48 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-25 18:13 -0600
Re: Marek Novotny Verification Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-26 00:24 +0000
Re: Marek Novotny Verification ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 02:20 +0000
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 17:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1ZednXYjsKUrlnXKnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #372728 |
On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:20:42 AM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: // snip >> No, marspolar.com has no ports opened other than ssh, which is blocked >> from root login. I get attacked between 34,000 and 66,000 times per >> month. Sometimes I show them happening in real time. I guess I could do >> a video tonight when China wakes up if you're curious. I'm sure you've >> seen it all before. > > I haven't, actually. They're that consistent? So I made a video for you right now. It's not a good time to see this really flying but you'll see one guy repeatedly try to break in and then a couple minutes another. On the right side terminal I have a simple script I wrote which gathers some basic info about the IP address being used to attack me. At around 5 or 6pm tonight, this log will move much quicker with many more people attacking at the same time. https://youtu.be/u74LIYHMGd0 This is the authentication log in follow mode. -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fae54895-e8a1-441d-87c5-d53a1966ee2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372745 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:39:08 AM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: > On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:20:42 AM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: > > // snip > > >> No, marspolar.com has no ports opened other than ssh, which is blocked > >> from root login. I get attacked between 34,000 and 66,000 times per > >> month. Sometimes I show them happening in real time. I guess I could do > >> a video tonight when China wakes up if you're curious. I'm sure you've > >> seen it all before. > > > > I haven't, actually. They're that consistent? > > So I made a video for you right now. It's not a good time to see this > really flying but you'll see one guy repeatedly try to break in and then > a couple minutes another. On the right side terminal I have a simple > script I wrote which gathers some basic info about the IP address being > used to attack me. At around 5 or 6pm tonight, this log will move much > quicker with many more people attacking at the same time. > > https://youtu.be/u74LIYHMGd0 > > This is the authentication log in follow mode. Wild! They're probably checking everything all the time ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bKqdnYHbJ_CR1XXKnZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #372780 |
On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:39:08 AM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: >> On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:20:42 AM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >> // snip >> >> >> No, marspolar.com has no ports opened other than ssh, which is blocked >> >> from root login. I get attacked between 34,000 and 66,000 times per >> >> month. Sometimes I show them happening in real time. I guess I could do >> >> a video tonight when China wakes up if you're curious. I'm sure you've >> >> seen it all before. >> > >> > I haven't, actually. They're that consistent? >> >> So I made a video for you right now. It's not a good time to see this >> really flying but you'll see one guy repeatedly try to break in and then >> a couple minutes another. On the right side terminal I have a simple >> script I wrote which gathers some basic info about the IP address being >> used to attack me. At around 5 or 6pm tonight, this log will move much >> quicker with many more people attacking at the same time. >> >> https://youtu.be/u74LIYHMGd0 >> >> This is the authentication log in follow mode. > > Wild! They're probably checking everything all the time ;) Yes, this is super common. If your site is hack-able, it will be hacked. Every kid who picked up a pen-testing book is scanning the whole internet looking for targets. If they want to hack, and they do, they need to compromise you first, then use your host as their hacking starting point so it doesn't come back to them. Step one is looking for the weak. -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 16:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjguad993g.kigi@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #372707 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: >> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >> > On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. >> >> >> >> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a domain >> >> I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. You may >> >> also use my github as your verification as that also shows not only my >> >> correct email address, but also my join date which is January 9th, 2015. >> >> >> >> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in your >> >> kill file / score file. >> >> >> > Add pgp to your posts. >> >> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify anyway. >> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems >> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered >> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever >> saw any action. >> >> Are you setup to use it? > > I know this is a post from the real Marek... know how? One easy way to tell the forgeries, via Google's help, this is associated with this post: > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.os.linux.advocacy/wuwL0MO7EwAJ> > > For all its faults, Google makes it easy to spot this stuff. It also makes it easy to combat and, I think, does a better job (easier, anyway) than using PGP. With a gmail account every post has the unique Google acct. number that, as far as I can tell, can not be spoofed. My posts will always have this as the acct. number: > > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 > > Additionally, they always use an IP address that locates back to Comcast in Colorado. > > Owl got me to try using the PGP thing at one point, but infantile jackass used it to create more confusion, the Google acct number works better in my opinion. One look at my header and the 'Z7' (at the end of the acct. number) proves it me. > injection-info spoof. see headers on this message.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0cada2c2-a424-4c42-ba5d-494bc1ba8651@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372733 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >> > On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> >> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. > >> >> > >> >> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a domain > >> >> I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. You may > >> >> also use my github as your verification as that also shows not only my > >> >> correct email address, but also my join date which is January 9th, 2015. > >> >> > >> >> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in your > >> >> kill file / score file. > >> >> > >> > Add pgp to your posts. > >> > >> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify anyway. > >> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems > >> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered > >> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever > >> saw any action. > >> > >> Are you setup to use it? > > > > I know this is a post from the real Marek... know how? One easy way to tell the forgeries, via Google's help, this is associated with this post: > > > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.os.linux.advocacy/wuwL0MO7EwAJ> > > > > For all its faults, Google makes it easy to spot this stuff. It also makes it easy to combat and, I think, does a better job (easier, anyway) than using PGP. With a gmail account every post has the unique Google acct. number that, as far as I can tell, can not be spoofed. My posts will always have this as the acct. number: > > > > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 > > > > Additionally, they always use an IP address that locates back to Comcast in Colorado. > > > > Owl got me to try using the PGP thing at one point, but infantile jackass used it to create more confusion, the Google acct number works better in my opinion. One look at my header and the 'Z7' (at the end of the acct. number) proves it me. > > > > > injection-info spoof. see headers on this message. So is this you doing all the forging crap? Can you add the rest of the stuff on to make it look exactly like my headers? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6AE+AAoJELnOYK54exUCCH8QAJ8cHrXlcNop1/yRetxE8LBZ 2D5oPCsSYLmcqRkrIbbhPtVR+ta0UG4AfEM0M1Gve/oL5ENizwGZUkLF8tGYHkTk CcgRZJgQ1tg14/rTAon9EiyfdSHOS46wmwi4lagpQFvxeC8zVwh416a9atjyFWxT IKMXh6ycV5PdEe9hxGO74hMxgNRShfdKKTPFr3PfXzij/NkojB16Quuye2QuVfDc UaZpp8M5k9MB1po+ngnE8krqFDNn8t0Sznmldaudh1HYX8QXq8qriBi9fCf9wkS/ Tw+nz2+4IRvZw2AL+o0CQK/zU3ronGG2BMOB1fe50DtzogC7otB9xmjB/aTgDZ7x F50+23aRNufSoBKYySdyhe9N7pkXRoaKOlxeqZHeaiL2UIm0Q4ZaQ257/AtuqScB rAJKfvF+xGWAEHNui2/rXlHFR4AsvNDMjCbCG1yjOu/mFamCSOwY0ArBReSNQaKQ 6LTSHiWOuHJuVFz7QAUOg3LKM0wHJHmavIuw0WKvyHekRRPSAnBr5002D0GB6C90 GfrVQuy9ILPzUwlGK/5v/CJ2pXCvRa18QjjU7/IcbUejhla1JAeKrBc2xRPvWog4 h5GUMf4JkiFHXbc0lP4/yvFHDpRJIdUVopWOXfl+VegrgbSxKzTm9xwyRx9Jl1U/ y+4TjTn/4fG/nqsz56Al =S3c2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 17:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjague0.jguu@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #372734 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >> >> > On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >> >> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. >> >> >> >> >> >> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a domain >> >> >> I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. You may >> >> >> also use my github as your verification as that also shows not only my >> >> >> correct email address, but also my join date which is January 9th, 2015. >> >> >> >> >> >> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in your >> >> >> kill file / score file. >> >> >> >> >> > Add pgp to your posts. >> >> >> >> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify anyway. >> >> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems >> >> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered >> >> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever >> >> saw any action. >> >> >> >> Are you setup to use it? >> > >> > I know this is a post from the real Marek... know how? One easy way to tell the forgeries, via Google's help, this is associated with this post: >> > >> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.os.linux.advocacy/wuwL0MO7EwAJ> >> > >> > For all its faults, Google makes it easy to spot this stuff. It also makes it easy to combat and, I think, does a better job (easier, anyway) than using PGP. With a gmail account every post has the unique Google acct. number that, as far as I can tell, can not be spoofed. My posts will always have this as the acct. number: >> > >> > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 >> > >> > Additionally, they always use an IP address that locates back to Comcast in Colorado. >> > >> > Owl got me to try using the PGP thing at one point, but infantile jackass used it to create more confusion, the Google acct number works better in my opinion. One look at my header and the 'Z7' (at the end of the acct. number) proves it me. >> > >> >> >> injection-info spoof. see headers on this message. > > So is this you doing all the forging crap? Can you add the rest of the stuff on to make it look exactly like my headers? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6AE+AAoJELnOYK54exUCCH8QAJ8cHrXlcNop1/yRetxE8LBZ > 2D5oPCsSYLmcqRkrIbbhPtVR+ta0UG4AfEM0M1Gve/oL5ENizwGZUkLF8tGYHkTk > CcgRZJgQ1tg14/rTAon9EiyfdSHOS46wmwi4lagpQFvxeC8zVwh416a9atjyFWxT > IKMXh6ycV5PdEe9hxGO74hMxgNRShfdKKTPFr3PfXzij/NkojB16Quuye2QuVfDc > UaZpp8M5k9MB1po+ngnE8krqFDNn8t0Sznmldaudh1HYX8QXq8qriBi9fCf9wkS/ > Tw+nz2+4IRvZw2AL+o0CQK/zU3ronGG2BMOB1fe50DtzogC7otB9xmjB/aTgDZ7x > F50+23aRNufSoBKYySdyhe9N7pkXRoaKOlxeqZHeaiL2UIm0Q4ZaQ257/AtuqScB > rAJKfvF+xGWAEHNui2/rXlHFR4AsvNDMjCbCG1yjOu/mFamCSOwY0ArBReSNQaKQ > 6LTSHiWOuHJuVFz7QAUOg3LKM0wHJHmavIuw0WKvyHekRRPSAnBr5002D0GB6C90 > GfrVQuy9ILPzUwlGK/5v/CJ2pXCvRa18QjjU7/IcbUejhla1JAeKrBc2xRPvWog4 > h5GUMf4JkiFHXbc0lP4/yvFHDpRJIdUVopWOXfl+VegrgbSxKzTm9xwyRx9Jl1U/ > y+4TjTn/4fG/nqsz56Al > =S3c2 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- That's not a signed message, but the answer to your question is No, that's not me, but practically any header can be forged.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <073fbe2b-7550-4607-93eb-43450eac9cbd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372736 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:03:56 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> >> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >> >> > On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> >> >> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a domain > >> >> >> I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. You may > >> >> >> also use my github as your verification as that also shows not only my > >> >> >> correct email address, but also my join date which is January 9th, 2015. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in your > >> >> >> kill file / score file. > >> >> >> > >> >> > Add pgp to your posts. > >> >> > >> >> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify anyway. > >> >> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems > >> >> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered > >> >> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever > >> >> saw any action. > >> >> > >> >> Are you setup to use it? > >> > > >> > I know this is a post from the real Marek... know how? One easy way to tell the forgeries, via Google's help, this is associated with this post: > >> > > >> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.os.linux.advocacy/wuwL0MO7EwAJ> > >> > > >> > For all its faults, Google makes it easy to spot this stuff. It also makes it easy to combat and, I think, does a better job (easier, anyway) than using PGP. With a gmail account every post has the unique Google acct. number that, as far as I can tell, can not be spoofed. My posts will always have this as the acct. number: > >> > > >> > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 > >> > > >> > Additionally, they always use an IP address that locates back to Comcast in Colorado. > >> > > >> > Owl got me to try using the PGP thing at one point, but infantile jackass used it to create more confusion, the Google acct number works better in my opinion. One look at my header and the 'Z7' (at the end of the acct. number) proves it me. > >> > > >> > >> > >> injection-info spoof. see headers on this message. > > > > So is this you doing all the forging crap? Can you add the rest of the stuff on to make it look exactly like my headers? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6AE+AAoJELnOYK54exUCCH8QAJ8cHrXlcNop1/yRetxE8LBZ > > 2D5oPCsSYLmcqRkrIbbhPtVR+ta0UG4AfEM0M1Gve/oL5ENizwGZUkLF8tGYHkTk > > CcgRZJgQ1tg14/rTAon9EiyfdSHOS46wmwi4lagpQFvxeC8zVwh416a9atjyFWxT > > IKMXh6ycV5PdEe9hxGO74hMxgNRShfdKKTPFr3PfXzij/NkojB16Quuye2QuVfDc > > UaZpp8M5k9MB1po+ngnE8krqFDNn8t0Sznmldaudh1HYX8QXq8qriBi9fCf9wkS/ > > Tw+nz2+4IRvZw2AL+o0CQK/zU3ronGG2BMOB1fe50DtzogC7otB9xmjB/aTgDZ7x > > F50+23aRNufSoBKYySdyhe9N7pkXRoaKOlxeqZHeaiL2UIm0Q4ZaQ257/AtuqScB > > rAJKfvF+xGWAEHNui2/rXlHFR4AsvNDMjCbCG1yjOu/mFamCSOwY0ArBReSNQaKQ > > 6LTSHiWOuHJuVFz7QAUOg3LKM0wHJHmavIuw0WKvyHekRRPSAnBr5002D0GB6C90 > > GfrVQuy9ILPzUwlGK/5v/CJ2pXCvRa18QjjU7/IcbUejhla1JAeKrBc2xRPvWog4 > > h5GUMf4JkiFHXbc0lP4/yvFHDpRJIdUVopWOXfl+VegrgbSxKzTm9xwyRx9Jl1U/ > > y+4TjTn/4fG/nqsz56Al > > =S3c2 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > That's not a signed message, but the answer to your question is > No, that's not me, but practically any header can be forged. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Yeah but can it be made to look like it's *from* Google Groups (and pass the 'activity' test)? <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!profile/comp.os.linux.advocacy/APn2wQex7ZDHcyvKXrYEFomvvGEe6q-7LlNoING2TTevZvRIYzflnEJjf7Vl4bCLnGnc9SiNpURO> On the sig, I started to add something to it after I signed it, then I yanked it out. Maybe that screws up the signature somehow. How about this one? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6AT/AAoJELnOYK54exUCw+kP/i8lQEQhomvGsiTSMKTjuuSH QaqnFIIS4MxNVkgoawK+BM5qkSgWvYYAnE3bO3sFqqSAGZfafXKbMOmM4BlDXYx7 fNi54H3Bdgp1ucrLEOwiVhPJR8acVEBovrUlcKCs2mp85ZBVBVj+t3mJXRzx/rIx cTwqLNRMeSa5LA3q3G6YhHxpTHmuqYw8XMywAK0YSRlSkrYIaggSjJoaZIWlkZwa xFG16VqiMD8H1GjfUs4A6VbcMzQ87XQpYpIsDERmgUYZM9CK+ARLdeq8amPgFPt2 78jI1iM8fApohAVt1TQcRgDmFFT+qXmY20d73X4f4zy4LfAU4zmFAigDJpwiAmBJ RN6v8/OWQe4vmWrBA0SdJ1MRInTJueXbCcEdUm5/1X0bkuP1D+3gIFki90xfF5q6 XTXL4g9qplgHl6HiWsVoW+URD7GCVs2dRV77yKku2xJ3nd/Xx5mL50nh4RasRfXY LnO2LhNOesnpQmNiUdam1iynaTZCjJlG68xKCLaXOoCysYcO18vr6KD8NQTun1HP jiAuL50k3104GfvZqqMhOo7Lfkxr95RMSL+MRV9b5YTYuv6ala6Pa8hV/6Xq/vnl gvtaDs0dCXhUEW4Ou9Xs8UyixcRpd7U0EuxhMe/Ku7ymt/Q5tFVgjOdI/sh9uw+l JXcuQpbKIgy2L81HKlkF =Pd4s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ahjgjbli4oag.kog@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #372737 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:03:56 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> > Hash: SHA512 >> > >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >> >> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >> >> >> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a domain >> >> >> >> I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. You may >> >> >> >> also use my github as your verification as that also shows not only my >> >> >> >> correct email address, but also my join date which is January 9th, 2015. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in your >> >> >> >> kill file / score file. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Add pgp to your posts. >> >> >> >> >> >> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify anyway. >> >> >> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems >> >> >> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered >> >> >> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever >> >> >> saw any action. >> >> >> >> >> >> Are you setup to use it? >> >> > >> >> > I know this is a post from the real Marek... know how? One easy way to tell the forgeries, via Google's help, this is associated with this post: >> >> > >> >> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.os.linux.advocacy/wuwL0MO7EwAJ> >> >> > >> >> > For all its faults, Google makes it easy to spot this stuff. It also makes it easy to combat and, I think, does a better job (easier, anyway) than using PGP. With a gmail account every post has the unique Google acct. number that, as far as I can tell, can not be spoofed. My posts will always have this as the acct. number: >> >> > >> >> > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 >> >> > >> >> > Additionally, they always use an IP address that locates back to Comcast in Colorado. >> >> > >> >> > Owl got me to try using the PGP thing at one point, but infantile jackass used it to create more confusion, the Google acct number works better in my opinion. One look at my header and the 'Z7' (at the end of the acct. number) proves it me. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> injection-info spoof. see headers on this message. >> > >> > So is this you doing all the forging crap? Can you add the rest of the stuff on to make it look exactly like my headers? >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org >> > >> > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6AE+AAoJELnOYK54exUCCH8QAJ8cHrXlcNop1/yRetxE8LBZ >> > 2D5oPCsSYLmcqRkrIbbhPtVR+ta0UG4AfEM0M1Gve/oL5ENizwGZUkLF8tGYHkTk >> > CcgRZJgQ1tg14/rTAon9EiyfdSHOS46wmwi4lagpQFvxeC8zVwh416a9atjyFWxT >> > IKMXh6ycV5PdEe9hxGO74hMxgNRShfdKKTPFr3PfXzij/NkojB16Quuye2QuVfDc >> > UaZpp8M5k9MB1po+ngnE8krqFDNn8t0Sznmldaudh1HYX8QXq8qriBi9fCf9wkS/ >> > Tw+nz2+4IRvZw2AL+o0CQK/zU3ronGG2BMOB1fe50DtzogC7otB9xmjB/aTgDZ7x >> > F50+23aRNufSoBKYySdyhe9N7pkXRoaKOlxeqZHeaiL2UIm0Q4ZaQ257/AtuqScB >> > rAJKfvF+xGWAEHNui2/rXlHFR4AsvNDMjCbCG1yjOu/mFamCSOwY0ArBReSNQaKQ >> > 6LTSHiWOuHJuVFz7QAUOg3LKM0wHJHmavIuw0WKvyHekRRPSAnBr5002D0GB6C90 >> > GfrVQuy9ILPzUwlGK/5v/CJ2pXCvRa18QjjU7/IcbUejhla1JAeKrBc2xRPvWog4 >> > h5GUMf4JkiFHXbc0lP4/yvFHDpRJIdUVopWOXfl+VegrgbSxKzTm9xwyRx9Jl1U/ >> > y+4TjTn/4fG/nqsz56Al >> > =S3c2 >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> That's not a signed message, but the answer to your question is >> No, that's not me, but practically any header can be forged. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Yeah but can it be made to look like it's *from* Google Groups (and pass the 'activity' test)? > What headers does it need for it to pass? > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!profile/comp.os.linux.advocacy/APn2wQex7ZDHcyvKXrYEFomvvGEe6q-7LlNoING2TTevZvRIYzflnEJjf7Vl4bCLnGnc9SiNpURO> > > On the sig, I started to add something to it after I signed it, then I yanked it out. Maybe that screws up the signature somehow. How about this one? The other one showed no signature. This one shows a bad signature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <db7fd696-bc83-4b3a-a5f4-9cf0786624cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372743 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:18:59 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:03:56 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> > Hash: SHA512 > >> > > >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> >> >> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> >> >> >> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a domain > >> >> >> >> I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. You may > >> >> >> >> also use my github as your verification as that also shows not only my > >> >> >> >> correct email address, but also my join date which is January 9th, 2015. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in your > >> >> >> >> kill file / score file. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Add pgp to your posts. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify anyway. > >> >> >> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems > >> >> >> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered > >> >> >> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever > >> >> >> saw any action. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Are you setup to use it? > >> >> > > >> >> > I know this is a post from the real Marek... know how? One easy way to tell the forgeries, via Google's help, this is associated with this post: > >> >> > > >> >> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.os.linux.advocacy/wuwL0MO7EwAJ> > >> >> > > >> >> > For all its faults, Google makes it easy to spot this stuff. It also makes it easy to combat and, I think, does a better job (easier, anyway) than using PGP. With a gmail account every post has the unique Google acct. number that, as far as I can tell, can not be spoofed. My posts will always have this as the acct. number: > >> >> > > >> >> > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 > >> >> > > >> >> > Additionally, they always use an IP address that locates back to Comcast in Colorado. > >> >> > > >> >> > Owl got me to try using the PGP thing at one point, but infantile jackass used it to create more confusion, the Google acct number works better in my opinion. One look at my header and the 'Z7' (at the end of the acct. number) proves it me. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> injection-info spoof. see headers on this message. > >> > > >> > So is this you doing all the forging crap? Can you add the rest of the stuff on to make it look exactly like my headers? > >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > >> > > >> > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6AE+AAoJELnOYK54exUCCH8QAJ8cHrXlcNop1/yRetxE8LBZ > >> > 2D5oPCsSYLmcqRkrIbbhPtVR+ta0UG4AfEM0M1Gve/oL5ENizwGZUkLF8tGYHkTk > >> > CcgRZJgQ1tg14/rTAon9EiyfdSHOS46wmwi4lagpQFvxeC8zVwh416a9atjyFWxT > >> > IKMXh6ycV5PdEe9hxGO74hMxgNRShfdKKTPFr3PfXzij/NkojB16Quuye2QuVfDc > >> > UaZpp8M5k9MB1po+ngnE8krqFDNn8t0Sznmldaudh1HYX8QXq8qriBi9fCf9wkS/ > >> > Tw+nz2+4IRvZw2AL+o0CQK/zU3ronGG2BMOB1fe50DtzogC7otB9xmjB/aTgDZ7x > >> > F50+23aRNufSoBKYySdyhe9N7pkXRoaKOlxeqZHeaiL2UIm0Q4ZaQ257/AtuqScB > >> > rAJKfvF+xGWAEHNui2/rXlHFR4AsvNDMjCbCG1yjOu/mFamCSOwY0ArBReSNQaKQ > >> > 6LTSHiWOuHJuVFz7QAUOg3LKM0wHJHmavIuw0WKvyHekRRPSAnBr5002D0GB6C90 > >> > GfrVQuy9ILPzUwlGK/5v/CJ2pXCvRa18QjjU7/IcbUejhla1JAeKrBc2xRPvWog4 > >> > h5GUMf4JkiFHXbc0lP4/yvFHDpRJIdUVopWOXfl+VegrgbSxKzTm9xwyRx9Jl1U/ > >> > y+4TjTn/4fG/nqsz56Al > >> > =S3c2 > >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > >> That's not a signed message, but the answer to your question is > >> No, that's not me, but practically any header can be forged. > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > Yeah but can it be made to look like it's *from* Google Groups (and pass the 'activity' test)? > > > > What headers does it need for it to pass? > > > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!profile/comp.os.linux.advocacy/APn2wQex7ZDHcyvKXrYEFomvvGEe6q-7LlNoING2TTevZvRIYzflnEJjf7Vl4bCLnGnc9SiNpURO> > > > > On the sig, I started to add something to it after I signed it, then I yanked it out. Maybe that screws up the signature somehow. How about this one? > > > The other one showed no signature. This one shows a bad signature. Weird, it shows fine here: <http://imgur.com/a/Ngmni>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ahjdgujg03.af@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #372776 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:18:59 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:03:56 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> > Hash: SHA512 >> >> > >> >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >> >> >> >> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a domain >> >> >> >> >> I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. You may >> >> >> >> >> also use my github as your verification as that also shows not only my >> >> >> >> >> correct email address, but also my join date which is January 9th, 2015. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in your >> >> >> >> >> kill file / score file. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Add pgp to your posts. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify anyway. >> >> >> >> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems >> >> >> >> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered >> >> >> >> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever >> >> >> >> saw any action. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Are you setup to use it? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I know this is a post from the real Marek... know how? One easy way to tell the forgeries, via Google's help, this is associated with this post: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.os.linux.advocacy/wuwL0MO7EwAJ> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > For all its faults, Google makes it easy to spot this stuff. It also makes it easy to combat and, I think, does a better job (easier, anyway) than using PGP. With a gmail account every post has the unique Google acct. number that, as far as I can tell, can not be spoofed. My posts will always have this as the acct. number: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Additionally, they always use an IP address that locates back to Comcast in Colorado. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Owl got me to try using the PGP thing at one point, but infantile jackass used it to create more confusion, the Google acct number works better in my opinion. One look at my header and the 'Z7' (at the end of the acct. number) proves it me. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> injection-info spoof. see headers on this message. >> >> > >> >> > So is this you doing all the forging crap? Can you add the rest of the stuff on to make it look exactly like my headers? >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org >> >> > >> >> > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6AE+AAoJELnOYK54exUCCH8QAJ8cHrXlcNop1/yRetxE8LBZ >> >> > 2D5oPCsSYLmcqRkrIbbhPtVR+ta0UG4AfEM0M1Gve/oL5ENizwGZUkLF8tGYHkTk >> >> > CcgRZJgQ1tg14/rTAon9EiyfdSHOS46wmwi4lagpQFvxeC8zVwh416a9atjyFWxT >> >> > IKMXh6ycV5PdEe9hxGO74hMxgNRShfdKKTPFr3PfXzij/NkojB16Quuye2QuVfDc >> >> > UaZpp8M5k9MB1po+ngnE8krqFDNn8t0Sznmldaudh1HYX8QXq8qriBi9fCf9wkS/ >> >> > Tw+nz2+4IRvZw2AL+o0CQK/zU3ronGG2BMOB1fe50DtzogC7otB9xmjB/aTgDZ7x >> >> > F50+23aRNufSoBKYySdyhe9N7pkXRoaKOlxeqZHeaiL2UIm0Q4ZaQ257/AtuqScB >> >> > rAJKfvF+xGWAEHNui2/rXlHFR4AsvNDMjCbCG1yjOu/mFamCSOwY0ArBReSNQaKQ >> >> > 6LTSHiWOuHJuVFz7QAUOg3LKM0wHJHmavIuw0WKvyHekRRPSAnBr5002D0GB6C90 >> >> > GfrVQuy9ILPzUwlGK/5v/CJ2pXCvRa18QjjU7/IcbUejhla1JAeKrBc2xRPvWog4 >> >> > h5GUMf4JkiFHXbc0lP4/yvFHDpRJIdUVopWOXfl+VegrgbSxKzTm9xwyRx9Jl1U/ >> >> > y+4TjTn/4fG/nqsz56Al >> >> > =S3c2 >> >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> That's not a signed message, but the answer to your question is >> >> No, that's not me, but practically any header can be forged. >> > >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> > Hash: SHA512 >> > >> > Yeah but can it be made to look like it's *from* Google Groups (and pass the 'activity' test)? >> > >> >> What headers does it need for it to pass? >> >> >> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!profile/comp.os.linux.advocacy/APn2wQex7ZDHcyvKXrYEFomvvGEe6q-7LlNoING2TTevZvRIYzflnEJjf7Vl4bCLnGnc9SiNpURO> >> > >> > On the sig, I started to add something to it after I signed it, then I yanked it out. Maybe that screws up the signature somehow. How about this one? >> >> >> The other one showed no signature. This one shows a bad signature. > > Weird, it shows fine here: > > <http://imgur.com/a/Ngmni> google is notorious for mangling gpg signatures. Here it is screwing with the word-wrap, which totally messes it up. I suggest using a real newsreader and some provider other than google, who has fucked up everything they touched with respect to usenet. If you were fortunate enough to experience the dejanews archive prior to google's ruination of it, you know what I mean. (Yes, there was a time when usenet search actually worked).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bc0e4a0-55f6-440a-82bf-2126111ca26c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372784 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:38:55 PM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:18:59 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:03:56 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> >> > Hash: SHA512 > >> >> > > >> >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a domain > >> >> >> >> >> I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. You may > >> >> >> >> >> also use my github as your verification as that also shows not only my > >> >> >> >> >> correct email address, but also my join date which is January 9th, 2015. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in your > >> >> >> >> >> kill file / score file. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Add pgp to your posts. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify anyway. > >> >> >> >> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems > >> >> >> >> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered > >> >> >> >> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever > >> >> >> >> saw any action. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Are you setup to use it? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I know this is a post from the real Marek... know how? One easy way to tell the forgeries, via Google's help, this is associated with this post: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.os.linux.advocacy/wuwL0MO7EwAJ> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > For all its faults, Google makes it easy to spot this stuff. It also makes it easy to combat and, I think, does a better job (easier, anyway) than using PGP. With a gmail account every post has the unique Google acct. number that, as far as I can tell, can not be spoofed. My posts will always have this as the acct. number: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Additionally, they always use an IP address that locates back to Comcast in Colorado. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Owl got me to try using the PGP thing at one point, but infantile jackass used it to create more confusion, the Google acct number works better in my opinion. One look at my header and the 'Z7' (at the end of the acct. number) proves it me. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> injection-info spoof. see headers on this message. > >> >> > > >> >> > So is this you doing all the forging crap? Can you add the rest of the stuff on to make it look exactly like my headers? > >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> >> > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > >> >> > > >> >> > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6AE+AAoJELnOYK54exUCCH8QAJ8cHrXlcNop1/yRetxE8LBZ > >> >> > 2D5oPCsSYLmcqRkrIbbhPtVR+ta0UG4AfEM0M1Gve/oL5ENizwGZUkLF8tGYHkTk > >> >> > CcgRZJgQ1tg14/rTAon9EiyfdSHOS46wmwi4lagpQFvxeC8zVwh416a9atjyFWxT > >> >> > IKMXh6ycV5PdEe9hxGO74hMxgNRShfdKKTPFr3PfXzij/NkojB16Quuye2QuVfDc > >> >> > UaZpp8M5k9MB1po+ngnE8krqFDNn8t0Sznmldaudh1HYX8QXq8qriBi9fCf9wkS/ > >> >> > Tw+nz2+4IRvZw2AL+o0CQK/zU3ronGG2BMOB1fe50DtzogC7otB9xmjB/aTgDZ7x > >> >> > F50+23aRNufSoBKYySdyhe9N7pkXRoaKOlxeqZHeaiL2UIm0Q4ZaQ257/AtuqScB > >> >> > rAJKfvF+xGWAEHNui2/rXlHFR4AsvNDMjCbCG1yjOu/mFamCSOwY0ArBReSNQaKQ > >> >> > 6LTSHiWOuHJuVFz7QAUOg3LKM0wHJHmavIuw0WKvyHekRRPSAnBr5002D0GB6C90 > >> >> > GfrVQuy9ILPzUwlGK/5v/CJ2pXCvRa18QjjU7/IcbUejhla1JAeKrBc2xRPvWog4 > >> >> > h5GUMf4JkiFHXbc0lP4/yvFHDpRJIdUVopWOXfl+VegrgbSxKzTm9xwyRx9Jl1U/ > >> >> > y+4TjTn/4fG/nqsz56Al > >> >> > =S3c2 > >> >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> >> > >> >> That's not a signed message, but the answer to your question is > >> >> No, that's not me, but practically any header can be forged. > >> > > >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> > Hash: SHA512 > >> > > >> > Yeah but can it be made to look like it's *from* Google Groups (and pass the 'activity' test)? > >> > > >> > >> What headers does it need for it to pass? > >> > >> > >> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!profile/comp.os.linux.advocacy/APn2wQex7ZDHcyvKXrYEFomvvGEe6q-7LlNoING2TTevZvRIYzflnEJjf7Vl4bCLnGnc9SiNpURO> > >> > > >> > On the sig, I started to add something to it after I signed it, then I yanked it out. Maybe that screws up the signature somehow. How about this one? > >> > >> > >> The other one showed no signature. This one shows a bad signature. > > > > Weird, it shows fine here: > > > > <http://imgur.com/a/Ngmni> > > google is notorious for mangling gpg signatures. Here it is screwing with > the word-wrap, which totally messes it up. I suggest using a real newsreader > and some provider other than google, who has fucked up everything they > touched with respect to usenet. If you were fortunate enough to experience > the dejanews archive prior to google's ruination of it, you know what I > mean. (Yes, there was a time when usenet search actually worked). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 How about if I manually force wrapping? Does this post verify? By the way, please go seems thread where I've pinged you about spoofing headers and post your best attempt at it, I want to see if the 'activity' portion can catch you (or not). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6Dh2AAoJELnOYK54exUCQI4QAKWKZsTl2Nt7u0HqSUOtjKq9 Pq8V32dtZpwo2nYlvWxQ8J9Kcabd5tMw7AQY7wNaS7/HYzmz/A4nSwWXYP98xleG BMpOXeQWhwVl2Lheob5wUSeep744OUsQjK7nk7joAufxThEitlodG7kc685Cz/bR tcV52U/M801r0iHOm6OFvGlr829ozLsDCbD8zqmYkmbL0eWBUlW9uUsttLgP1NvE P/vZBxsyeDXVPXHC+9zCIziZEQ1iYbXWkGCDpRgVWVi+9cm4QQ4owbpHQzPKyYAF s6F3N39u57zG1X+A9LQY9T1zytW9rnREX0ASbGhl5GQAkSTC7jjLqGJjibOJf+ls CPFPECRbuahc4h0BK9AcyhtfkgUSQjTW7NdSe4lQfPNp4VQ29JVkmw0SPoX/MY5a zwF6rsbArjSfLbsQe82NqGtteF115e2yAbICHMyGSkeXCV0wRwiiHLjPbnDCEeSq 31DW+r9x3PpcxfOWnQuEUFgklCP3h6H3b7R0jQnGCwOaqsF3gnXh9aScZr5dv0C2 Fa+As8lZ3JpuEKkLZjEW6pPp/MlgI4RukYtNIFfoQaYf5Fdrr0o9YELfSNmxdge2 U9vvnKU5I0D38AmaSNWsdymnH2rYo8HDiAFkMWQl4QKcO+JV9t/25ZFJpiU49FHv rsKQ5HgcRWaGn9YEtVdY =JXiw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ahgjdu003af.ki@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #372785 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:38:55 PM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:18:59 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:03:56 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> >> > Hash: SHA512 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a domain >> >> >> >> >> >> I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. You may >> >> >> >> >> >> also use my github as your verification as that also shows not only my >> >> >> >> >> >> correct email address, but also my join date which is January 9th, 2015. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in your >> >> >> >> >> >> kill file / score file. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Add pgp to your posts. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify anyway. >> >> >> >> >> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems >> >> >> >> >> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered >> >> >> >> >> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever >> >> >> >> >> saw any action. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Are you setup to use it? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I know this is a post from the real Marek... know how? One easy way to tell the forgeries, via Google's help, this is associated with this post: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.os.linux.advocacy/wuwL0MO7EwAJ> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > For all its faults, Google makes it easy to spot this stuff. It also makes it easy to combat and, I think, does a better job (easier, anyway) than using PGP. With a gmail account every post has the unique Google acct. number that, as far as I can tell, can not be spoofed. My posts will always have this as the acct. number: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Additionally, they always use an IP address that locates back to Comcast in Colorado. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Owl got me to try using the PGP thing at one point, but infantile jackass used it to create more confusion, the Google acct number works better in my opinion. One look at my header and the 'Z7' (at the end of the acct. number) proves it me. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> injection-info spoof. see headers on this message. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > So is this you doing all the forging crap? Can you add the rest of the stuff on to make it look exactly like my headers? >> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org >> >> >> > >> >> >> > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6AE+AAoJELnOYK54exUCCH8QAJ8cHrXlcNop1/yRetxE8LBZ >> >> >> > 2D5oPCsSYLmcqRkrIbbhPtVR+ta0UG4AfEM0M1Gve/oL5ENizwGZUkLF8tGYHkTk >> >> >> > CcgRZJgQ1tg14/rTAon9EiyfdSHOS46wmwi4lagpQFvxeC8zVwh416a9atjyFWxT >> >> >> > IKMXh6ycV5PdEe9hxGO74hMxgNRShfdKKTPFr3PfXzij/NkojB16Quuye2QuVfDc >> >> >> > UaZpp8M5k9MB1po+ngnE8krqFDNn8t0Sznmldaudh1HYX8QXq8qriBi9fCf9wkS/ >> >> >> > Tw+nz2+4IRvZw2AL+o0CQK/zU3ronGG2BMOB1fe50DtzogC7otB9xmjB/aTgDZ7x >> >> >> > F50+23aRNufSoBKYySdyhe9N7pkXRoaKOlxeqZHeaiL2UIm0Q4ZaQ257/AtuqScB >> >> >> > rAJKfvF+xGWAEHNui2/rXlHFR4AsvNDMjCbCG1yjOu/mFamCSOwY0ArBReSNQaKQ >> >> >> > 6LTSHiWOuHJuVFz7QAUOg3LKM0wHJHmavIuw0WKvyHekRRPSAnBr5002D0GB6C90 >> >> >> > GfrVQuy9ILPzUwlGK/5v/CJ2pXCvRa18QjjU7/IcbUejhla1JAeKrBc2xRPvWog4 >> >> >> > h5GUMf4JkiFHXbc0lP4/yvFHDpRJIdUVopWOXfl+VegrgbSxKzTm9xwyRx9Jl1U/ >> >> >> > y+4TjTn/4fG/nqsz56Al >> >> >> > =S3c2 >> >> >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> >> >> That's not a signed message, but the answer to your question is >> >> >> No, that's not me, but practically any header can be forged. >> >> > >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> > Hash: SHA512 >> >> > >> >> > Yeah but can it be made to look like it's *from* Google Groups (and pass the 'activity' test)? >> >> > >> >> >> >> What headers does it need for it to pass? >> >> >> >> >> >> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!profile/comp.os.linux.advocacy/APn2wQex7ZDHcyvKXrYEFomvvGEe6q-7LlNoING2TTevZvRIYzflnEJjf7Vl4bCLnGnc9SiNpURO> >> >> > >> >> > On the sig, I started to add something to it after I signed it, then I yanked it out. Maybe that screws up the signature somehow. How about this one? >> >> >> >> >> >> The other one showed no signature. This one shows a bad signature. >> > >> > Weird, it shows fine here: >> > >> > <http://imgur.com/a/Ngmni> >> >> google is notorious for mangling gpg signatures. Here it is screwing with >> the word-wrap, which totally messes it up. I suggest using a real newsreader >> and some provider other than google, who has fucked up everything they >> touched with respect to usenet. If you were fortunate enough to experience >> the dejanews archive prior to google's ruination of it, you know what I >> mean. (Yes, there was a time when usenet search actually worked). > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > How about if I manually force wrapping? Does this > post verify? By the way, please go seems thread > where I've pinged you about spoofing headers and > post your best attempt at it, I want to see if the > 'activity' portion can catch you (or not). > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6Dh2AAoJELnOYK54exUCQI4QAKWKZsTl2Nt7u0HqSUOtjKq9 > Pq8V32dtZpwo2nYlvWxQ8J9Kcabd5tMw7AQY7wNaS7/HYzmz/A4nSwWXYP98xleG > BMpOXeQWhwVl2Lheob5wUSeep744OUsQjK7nk7joAufxThEitlodG7kc685Cz/bR > tcV52U/M801r0iHOm6OFvGlr829ozLsDCbD8zqmYkmbL0eWBUlW9uUsttLgP1NvE > P/vZBxsyeDXVPXHC+9zCIziZEQ1iYbXWkGCDpRgVWVi+9cm4QQ4owbpHQzPKyYAF > s6F3N39u57zG1X+A9LQY9T1zytW9rnREX0ASbGhl5GQAkSTC7jjLqGJjibOJf+ls > CPFPECRbuahc4h0BK9AcyhtfkgUSQjTW7NdSe4lQfPNp4VQ29JVkmw0SPoX/MY5a > zwF6rsbArjSfLbsQe82NqGtteF115e2yAbICHMyGSkeXCV0wRwiiHLjPbnDCEeSq > 31DW+r9x3PpcxfOWnQuEUFgklCP3h6H3b7R0jQnGCwOaqsF3gnXh9aScZr5dv0C2 > Fa+As8lZ3JpuEKkLZjEW6pPp/MlgI4RukYtNIFfoQaYf5Fdrr0o9YELfSNmxdge2 > U9vvnKU5I0D38AmaSNWsdymnH2rYo8HDiAFkMWQl4QKcO+JV9t/25ZFJpiU49FHv > rsKQ5HgcRWaGn9YEtVdY > =JXiw > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This one verifies. How did the 'activity' work out with my 'forgery'?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bKqdnYbbJ_Cn2nXKnZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #372784 |
On 2016-09-25, Octavian W. Lagrange <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: // snip > google is notorious for mangling gpg signatures. Here it is screwing with > the word-wrap, which totally messes it up. I suggest using a real newsreader > and some provider other than google, who has fucked up everything they > touched with respect to usenet. If you were fortunate enough to experience > the dejanews archive prior to google's ruination of it, you know what I > mean. (Yes, there was a time when usenet search actually worked). Amen on that... -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 12:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ns947n$cj9$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #372678 |
On 09/24/2016 10:55 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >> On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. >>> >>> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a domain >>> I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. You may >>> also use my github as your verification as that also shows not only my >>> correct email address, but also my join date which is January 9th, 2015. >>> >>> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in your >>> kill file / score file. >>> >> Add pgp to your posts. > > My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify anyway. > I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems > to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered > help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever > saw any action. > > Are you setup to use it? > I did in the past and it stopped him from forging my posts. With a pgp style post it flags others a lot easier by observation that using my name without the pgp signature isn't me doing the posting, just a forger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 18:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ns96lo$mvt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #372753 |
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:15:28 -0600, GreyCloud wrote: > On 09/24/2016 10:55 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>> On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>>> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. >>>> >>>> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a >>>> domain I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. >>>> You may also use my github as your verification as that also shows >>>> not only my correct email address, but also my join date which is >>>> January 9th, 2015. >>>> >>>> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in >>>> your kill file / score file. >>>> >>> Add pgp to your posts. >> >> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify >> anyway. >> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems >> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered >> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever >> saw any action. >> >> Are you setup to use it? >> > I did in the past and it stopped him from forging my posts. With a pgp > style post it flags others a lot easier by observation that using my > name without the pgp signature isn't me doing the posting, just a > forger. By the way, I just installed Linux (Ubuntu 16.04) and I get the impression that the reason videos didn't work is because you didn't enable Firefox to play DRM content. -- Silver Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 18:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ns9p4k$ksg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #372764 |
On 09/25/2016 12:56 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:15:28 -0600, GreyCloud wrote: > >> On 09/24/2016 10:55 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>>> On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>>>> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. >>>>> >>>>> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a >>>>> domain I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. >>>>> You may also use my github as your verification as that also shows >>>>> not only my correct email address, but also my join date which is >>>>> January 9th, 2015. >>>>> >>>>> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in >>>>> your kill file / score file. >>>>> >>>> Add pgp to your posts. >>> >>> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify >>> anyway. >>> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems >>> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered >>> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever >>> saw any action. >>> >>> Are you setup to use it? >>> >> I did in the past and it stopped him from forging my posts. With a pgp >> style post it flags others a lot easier by observation that using my >> name without the pgp signature isn't me doing the posting, just a >> forger. > > By the way, I just installed Linux (Ubuntu 16.04) and I get the > impression that the reason videos didn't work is because you didn't > enable Firefox to play DRM content. > > > I already checked that one too. Still no go. Anyway, Chrome does work well. I tried Ubuntu 16.04, but for me it was hard to get used to, so I went for OpenSuse and noticed that the older 13.2 is much different than the later 13.2. A bit odd, but then it works well with my 1920 x 1080 monitor. The others wouldn't totally go full screen, but OpenSuse does. Not sure what that issue was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 08:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nsb49j$7us$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #372816 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2016-09-25 8:12 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 09/25/2016 12:56 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:15:28 -0600, GreyCloud wrote: >> >>> On 09/24/2016 10:55 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>>> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>>>> On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>>>>> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. >>>>>> >>>>>> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a >>>>>> domain I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. >>>>>> You may also use my github as your verification as that also shows >>>>>> not only my correct email address, but also my join date which is >>>>>> January 9th, 2015. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in >>>>>> your kill file / score file. >>>>>> >>>>> Add pgp to your posts. >>>> >>>> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify >>>> anyway. >>>> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems >>>> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered >>>> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever >>>> saw any action. >>>> >>>> Are you setup to use it? >>>> >>> I did in the past and it stopped him from forging my posts. With a pgp >>> style post it flags others a lot easier by observation that using my >>> name without the pgp signature isn't me doing the posting, just a >>> forger. >> >> By the way, I just installed Linux (Ubuntu 16.04) and I get the >> impression that the reason videos didn't work is because you didn't >> enable Firefox to play DRM content. >> >> >> > I already checked that one too. Still no go. I'm starting to think that Ubuntu is a problem. I've since removed it in favour of Windows (again) because too many things weren't working right inside of it. For one, Seahorse refused to respond to any GnuPG task. Printing was still an issue (it always will be) and graphics were producing some weird effects even though the settings were correct and the proprietary driver was installed. I give up, I seriously do. > Anyway, Chrome does work well. I tried Ubuntu 16.04, but for me it was > hard to get used to, so I went for OpenSuse and noticed that the older > 13.2 is much different than the later 13.2. A bit odd, but then it > works well with my 1920 x 1080 monitor. The others wouldn't totally go > full screen, but OpenSuse does. Not sure what that issue was. There is just a severe lack of consistency that I honestly can't stand. -- Silver Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 12:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nsbota$om2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #372832 |
On 09/26/2016 06:28 AM, Silver Slimer wrote: > On 2016-09-25 8:12 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 09/25/2016 12:56 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:15:28 -0600, GreyCloud wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/24/2016 10:55 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>>>> On 2016-09-25, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 09/24/2016 07:23 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: >>>>>>> There is someone attempting to fool users on aol that I am them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> my address has always been marek.novotny@marspolar.com. This is a >>>>>>> domain I own. You may use older posts from me as your verification. >>>>>>> You may also use my github as your verification as that also shows >>>>>>> not only my correct email address, but also my join date which is >>>>>>> January 9th, 2015. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone posting using any other address is not me and should be in >>>>>>> your kill file / score file. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Add pgp to your posts. >>>>> >>>>> My thinking is that no one uses it, and thus can't really verify >>>>> anyway. >>>>> I've set it up in the past (using thunderbird) and no one really seems >>>>> to use it. I had joined a mail list where we tried it out and offered >>>>> help to others for it and that was pretty much the only place it ever >>>>> saw any action. >>>>> >>>>> Are you setup to use it? >>>>> >>>> I did in the past and it stopped him from forging my posts. With a pgp >>>> style post it flags others a lot easier by observation that using my >>>> name without the pgp signature isn't me doing the posting, just a >>>> forger. >>> >>> By the way, I just installed Linux (Ubuntu 16.04) and I get the >>> impression that the reason videos didn't work is because you didn't >>> enable Firefox to play DRM content. >>> >>> >>> >> I already checked that one too. Still no go. > > I'm starting to think that Ubuntu is a problem. I've since removed it in > favour of Windows (again) because too many things weren't working right > inside of it. For one, Seahorse refused to respond to any GnuPG task. > Printing was still an issue (it always will be) and graphics were > producing some weird effects even though the settings were correct and > the proprietary driver was installed. I give up, I seriously do. > >> Anyway, Chrome does work well. I tried Ubuntu 16.04, but for me it was >> hard to get used to, so I went for OpenSuse and noticed that the older >> 13.2 is much different than the later 13.2. A bit odd, but then it >> works well with my 1920 x 1080 monitor. The others wouldn't totally go >> full screen, but OpenSuse does. Not sure what that issue was. > > There is just a severe lack of consistency that I honestly can't stand. > I know. As Marek so aptly put it: Linux may not be for you. At least I'm trying and found that OpenSuse comes the closest to windows without the Orwellian side effects. Cortana, for example, needs to store your interactions profile on MS server so that it can better serve you,... but that can also lead to possible other privacy problems. Also, their EULA pretty much says that their corporate partners may look into your computer to see how best to market to you (advertise that is). So far so good. Anyway, shouldn't a router box be able to stop MS and their partners from snooping, or has MS figured out a way to get around that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <09adnUmejbzH6XTKnZ2dnUU7-I3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #372874 |
On 2016-09-26, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: // snip > I know. As Marek so aptly put it: Linux may not be for you. > At least I'm trying and found that OpenSuse comes the closest to windows > without the Orwellian side effects. Cortana, for example, needs to > store your interactions profile on MS server so that it can better serve > you,... but that can also lead to possible other privacy problems. > Also, their EULA pretty much says that their corporate partners may look > into your computer to see how best to market to you (advertise that is). > > So far so good. > > Anyway, shouldn't a router box be able to stop MS and their partners > from snooping, or has MS figured out a way to get around that? Ah, come on... :) I'm expecting more from a Solaris guy... If I'm on your machine already, meaning I have code running in your machine, regardless of the OS... Can't I just open an external site via port 80? You use a browser don't ya? So once I have done that, that million dollar firewall you have is worthless. The firewall stops the outside from initiating a conversation on the inside, correct? But you're on the inside. And you start up a conversation with the outside all the time. See what I mean? So how hard is it for me to say write added code into a script that performs a reverse ssh into my box giving me access to you? If you're running my script, aren't you opening the pipe to me? So you're making an outside call. Does your current firewall prevent such a call? -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 13:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nsbu50$d6p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #372880 |
On 09/26/2016 01:17 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > On 2016-09-26, GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > > // snip > >> I know. As Marek so aptly put it: Linux may not be for you. >> At least I'm trying and found that OpenSuse comes the closest to windows >> without the Orwellian side effects. Cortana, for example, needs to >> store your interactions profile on MS server so that it can better serve >> you,... but that can also lead to possible other privacy problems. >> Also, their EULA pretty much says that their corporate partners may look >> into your computer to see how best to market to you (advertise that is). >> >> So far so good. >> >> Anyway, shouldn't a router box be able to stop MS and their partners >> from snooping, or has MS figured out a way to get around that? > > Ah, come on... :) I'm expecting more from a Solaris guy... I'm suspicious about MS is all. I should have written down in my black book all the necessary commands to keep my system secured, but another fellow at Sun remotely checked out my security coming my way and said I was pretty well set up as it is, so I never worried about it. But this is in regards to MS Orwellian tactics of snooping and setting up a windows 10 box with LAN router to prevent them from coming in. They may have figured a way around routers this time around. Mine is a Cisco VPN model. > > If I'm on your machine already, meaning I have code running in your > machine, regardless of the OS... Can't I just open an external site via > port 80? You use a browser don't ya? > > So once I have done that, that million dollar firewall you have is > worthless. The firewall stops the outside from initiating a conversation > on the inside, correct? But you're on the inside. And you start up a > conversation with the outside all the time. See what I mean? > > So how hard is it for me to say write added code into a script that > performs a reverse ssh into my box giving me access to you? If you're > running my script, aren't you opening the pipe to me? So you're making > an outside call. Does your current firewall prevent such a call? > I don't know these days. Like I've said I've been out of the loop too long. But I see what you mean. The script sits inside of win10 and there isn't anything to do about it yet... someone out there will figure it out anyway and provide a program to kill that script. But I've pretty much given up on MS. They aren't the same company anymore when I purchased an HP tower with win 7 on it. OpenSuse seems to fit the bill for me at this point in time and I like the way it runs and I find it a lot easier to grok.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web