I don't see any obvious reason to believe that this site is fake. People here are complaining about it not having enough technical details, but they don't seem to realize that the spammers are out there reading this site as well. Now what do you think would frighten your average spammer (they aren't known for being too bright) more? A detailed explanation of exactly how this guy socially engineered his way into these computers or a menacing but vague description of his "stealthy hacking" full of colorful adjectives and small words? In the first case, Billy Joe Bob Spammer will just say to himself "Well gee-whiz, I'll just be sure not to fall for [fill in the blank]!" while in the second he's left thinking "OH NO!! HACKERS ARE JUSS LIKE IN THE MOO-VEES!!"
As for the people who are wondering why he doesn't publish this on his own web site under his own name, e-mail address, home telephone number and social security number -- have you even for one second considered the fact that what he did was CLEARLY ILLEGAL?
Anyway, this spammer DOES exist. I actually first found out about this page from a recent post to the SPAM-L mailing list. Here is the first and third posts on that thread:
Subject: Nuke: from alts.net Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:51:47 -0700 From: "Hart, Andrew" To: SPAM-L@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
4601 W. Sahara looks very familar, but I didn't find an abundance of recent NANAS hits against it.
-----Original Message----- From: Technical Support [mailto:support@alts.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 7:02 PM To: *******@aol.com; TOSspam@aol.com; abuse@verio.net; abuse@alts.net; tech@connectcorp.net Cc: nanas-sub@cybernothing.org; spamrecycle@chooseyourmail.com Subject: Re: [Email] Spam: Free Rate Quote!
Thank you for notifying us of this spammer. Our policies do NOT allow bulk emailings in any way. The account free-cybermarket.com has been terminated effective 10:00PM EDT 31 May 2000.
traceroute to free-cybermarket.com (161.58.232.252), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets ... 7 vwh0.dca.verio.net (129.250.30.166) 89.765 ms 91.406 ms 89.846 ms 8 free-cybermarket.com (161.58.232.252) 89.429 ms 89.517 ms 89.734 ms
Query: free-cybermarket.com
Sunrise Beach Inc. (FREE-CYBERMARKET-DOM) 4601 W. Sahara Las Vegas, NV 89122 US
Domain Name: FREE-CYBERMARKET.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact, Billing Contact: Enterprises Inc., SunRise (SE4175) sunrise@CONNECTCORP.NET SunRise Enterprises Inc. 4601 W. Sahara Las Vegas , NV 89102 NONE GIVEN (FAX) NONE GIVEN
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.ALTS.NET 192.41.1.48 NS2.ALTS.NET 161.58.9.48
Details on NANAS
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ = J. Andrew Hart
Subject: Re: Nuke: from alts.net Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:50:18 -0700 From: Jay Hennigan To: SPAM-L@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Hart, Andrew wrote:
> > 4601 W. Sahara looks very familar, but I didn't find > > an abundance of recent NANAS hits against it.
Seems to me that address turns up in the ICQ logs of Rodona Garst, the posting of which kept me up all night reading. Fascinating stuff.
-- Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - ***@****.*** NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323
Not only are most of the parts proprietary, they're absolute and utter CRAP! Even the floppy drive has to be purchased from Compaq (at an exhorbant price -- all thanks to a special face plate so the fucking thing will fit in the ugly-as-hell case).
I wonder how many ex-Packard Bell employees populate the Compaq desktop division? Not that Compaq needed any help from PB to suck -- they were doing just great at it when PB was on the upswing a few years back ("upswing" for Packard Bell meaning that they stopped reselling machines with known toasted parts and motherboards crammed into cases literally too small for them)
I will shed no tears for Compaq -- no matter how good their servers are.
I take the time to track down and report every spam I receive on one of my important e-mail accounts. Out of 157 spams since 1997 I've gotten 87 confirmed kills. Despite this, I would much rather see spammers be given the Mitnick treatment than reap any monetary rewards.
Hopefully Sam "BENCHMARK PRINT SUPPLY" Khuri will be the first up against the wall if this goes through.
Too bad so many of those billions are impoverished peasants in China and other countries where the goal for too long has been to out-breed the country next to you without any thought toward what effect such action might have your economy.
Unless you're planning to "go legit" (put your arcade machine in a public place and start charging people for real) don't waste your money on Ultracade.
ArcadePC is where it's at. Granted, after you add a sufficient computer to the ArcadePC it will probably cost nearly as much as Ultracade, but you won't be locked into buying stupid "game packs" since ArcadePC works with emulators. So the more games MAME supports, the more games your cabinet does.
Perhaps the source has been made available in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet located in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door reading "Beware of the Leopard".
While I don't see why this interview can't simply be transcribed to text (something the man himself would probably advocate) and I certainly don't condone the use of *hakkkk* RealAudio *spit* (RealPlayer is FAR from non-terrible) and I fail to see why your comment deserved to be moderated up, I do have to admit:
It's not as if one can't convert RealAudio to MP3 easilly enough.
Oh sure, the story SAYS it's ABC's fault but I blame those touchy canadians!
It seems a shame to mess with the song. If I were Trey I'd just make liberal use of the "bleep" -- in fact I'd bleep out every other bleeping word weather it needs to be or not -- just to make a point.
Poor anti-spam legislation is actually WORSE than no anti-spam legislation. In the case of this law it's not anti-spam legislation at all because it actually PROMOTES spam.
Opt-out does NOT work and is NOT a solution to the ever-increasing volume of spam. Think about the real cost of spam: bandwidth usage, drive space usage, etc. NONE of these are decreased by an opt-out solution because even if you were to spend all day every day opting out of all the spam you received you would STILL be receiving it and you would STILL be sending out e-mail in response -- only instead of complaints (which get the spammer shut down, thus creating less spam) you are sending back confirmation that your e-mail address does indeed work!
So even if the company really doesn't spam you again (yeah, RIGHT!) they can still sell the address that they have now confirmed to be working to ANOTHER company which will then send you ANOTHER spam.
This law will only increase spam in Colorado -- not decrease it.
This video signal encryption technology is a good start but it simply does not go far enough. Once the data has left the monitor it is entirely visible to anyone who cares to look at it. If magnified and projected the data from the monitor could be viewed by an entire theater of people -- only ONE of them a paying consumer!
While laws could be bought to cover such a circumstance, this neither ensures 100% compliance nor does it assist us in selling more hardware. The ultimate solution to this problem is currently unavailable but if we invest in the research we are almost garunteed massive returns.
This ultimate solution is quite simple: implant all users with decryption devices that are keyed to specific hardware. This not only creates a new market (the implants themselves) but ensures that all computer users are licensed. The dream of being able to collect fees for computer use on a per-user and/or a per-hour basis becomes a reality!
With a little more development we could eventually achieve complete control over every aspect of computer use. Our R&D investment for this phase would be easilly covered by the licensing agreements we would cut with Microsoft et. all. After this the money from the users would just be icing!
I've lined up some meetings with various biotech firms that might be interested. Will send you the times later today.
--- "The actual user of the PC -- someone who can do anything they want -- is the enemy." -- David Aucsmith, Security Architect for Intel
And if you believe that, I've got a bridge reserved just for you.
The only thing this encryption does is give more control to Intel. Control over the monitor market and control over what you do with your computer. Don't think for a minute that this is about piracy -- the industry continues to grow and prosper despite the terrors supposedly inflicted on it by piracy.
You bet I know where my domain is -- it's registered with Joker.com instead of that shady NSI outfit. $36 for two years and the knowledge that when I want changes made they actually get made in a reasonable time frame (*gasp*).
I know this sounds like spam, but I people need to stop bitching about NSI and start taking their business elsewhere (now that we finally have alternatives).
How the hell did this person get an interview with Gibson? I could maybe understand if this was for People magazine or something, but AICN?!
Could the questions have been more superficial? I read the whole thing fully expecting the next question to be something along the lines of "blonde or brunette?"
Who uses Napster anyway? I tried it out and couldn't find anything but the most common tracks for the bands I was interested in.
I'd rather use MP3 to trade rare tracks and bootlegged concerts than Top 40 crap that's available at every single music store in the world. Unfortunatly it's nearly as hard to find a lot of these things online as it is in real life, thanks to all the kiddies and their "I can turn on any fsucking radio station and hear this but that's not good enough" MP3 collections.
There are a lot of issues that are at least in some respect resting on the outcome of this case but the most powerful is the First Ammendment issue.
What's the difference between the speech you have a right to and the code you don't? One might argue that code is more of a "tool" but isn't speech just as much of a tool? Every day you are bombarded with multi-billion dollar ad campaigns. What are these companies spending their money on? Power, of course. The power to influence what kind of cereal you buy.
From here it's not hard to make the jump. The entire course of history can be changed by the judicious application of words. Revolutionaries inspired or disgraced, treaties signed or rejected. Jelly purchased or left on the shelf. Beyond scale, what's the real difference?
Words and code are both art forms. They are both powerful. They should both be free. Come get some, bitch.
Yes, I am in tech support and I am cruel. I am cruel to those with have no common sense. I am cruel to the functionally illiterate. I am cruel to lusers who don't want to listen to me or follow my directions. I am cruel to lusers who don't understand the power dynamic when they call me ("I'm a Doctor/Lawyer/Columnist so I'm going to treat you like my bitch"). I am cruel to those who think that the rules don't apply to them.
These lusers have bigger problems than not knowing how their computer works. They have problems with critical thinking skills they should have learned in grade school. They have attitude problems they should have worked out in middle school while picking their teeth off the floor.
Anybody with a clue will know how hard I laughed at the line "the general public is going to reach the level of computer knowledge that the typical tech currently has". The sad fact is that lack of computer knowledge is often not the issue. There will always be a demand for tech support as long as the school system continues to fail to educate people in fundamental, non-technical areas.
Why am I cruel? Because being cruel is better than going on a shooting spree. Even the people who have no larger problem than "the innernet don't work" can wear down your respect for the human race with sheer numbers. Figure in the people who shouldn't be let near a computer until they've learned how to READ and it's scary to think about how many tech support personnel are still on the loose.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any obvious reason to believe that this site is fake. People here are complaining about it not having enough technical details, but they don't seem to realize that the spammers are out there reading this site as well. Now what do you think would frighten your average spammer (they aren't known for being too bright) more? A detailed explanation of exactly how this guy socially engineered his way into these computers or a menacing but vague description of his "stealthy hacking" full of colorful adjectives and small words? In the first case, Billy Joe Bob Spammer will just say to himself "Well gee-whiz, I'll just be sure not to fall for [fill in the blank]!" while in the second he's left thinking "OH NO!! HACKERS ARE JUSS LIKE IN THE MOO-VEES!!"
~ =
As for the people who are wondering why he doesn't publish this on his own web site under his own name, e-mail address, home telephone number and social security number -- have you even for one second considered the fact that what he did was CLEARLY ILLEGAL?
Anyway, this spammer DOES exist. I actually first found out about this page from a recent post to the SPAM-L mailing list. Here is the first and third posts on that thread:
Subject: Nuke: from alts.net
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:51:47 -0700
From: "Hart, Andrew"
To: SPAM-L@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
4601 W. Sahara looks very familar, but I didn't find
an abundance of recent NANAS hits against it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Technical Support [mailto:support@alts.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 7:02 PM
To: *******@aol.com; TOSspam@aol.com; abuse@verio.net; abuse@alts.net;
tech@connectcorp.net
Cc: nanas-sub@cybernothing.org; spamrecycle@chooseyourmail.com
Subject: Re: [Email] Spam: Free Rate Quote!
Thank you for notifying us of this spammer. Our policies do NOT allow bulk emailings in any way. The account free-cybermarket.com has been terminated effective 10:00PM EDT 31 May 2000.
Best Regards
ALTS, LLC ABUSE
abuse@alts.net
At 08:50 PM 5/31/00 , *******@aol.com wrote:
URL: http://www.free-cybermarket.com/m/index.html
Dropbox: mailto:ulistsrvcs@fr.fm?subject=unsubscribe
FROM mail-abuse.org TO www.free-cybermarket.com.
traceroute to free-cybermarket.com (161.58.232.252), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
...
7 vwh0.dca.verio.net (129.250.30.166) 89.765 ms 91.406 ms 89.846 ms
8 free-cybermarket.com (161.58.232.252) 89.429 ms 89.517 ms 89.734 ms
Query: free-cybermarket.com
Sunrise Beach Inc. (FREE-CYBERMARKET-DOM)
4601 W. Sahara
Las Vegas, NV 89122
US
Domain Name: FREE-CYBERMARKET.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact, Billing Contact:
Enterprises Inc., SunRise (SE4175) sunrise@CONNECTCORP.NET
SunRise Enterprises Inc.
4601 W. Sahara
Las Vegas , NV 89102
NONE GIVEN (FAX) NONE GIVEN
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.ALTS.NET 192.41.1.48
NS2.ALTS.NET 161.58.9.48
Details on NANAS
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
J. Andrew Hart
Subject: Re: Nuke: from alts.net
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:50:18 -0700
From: Jay Hennigan
To: SPAM-L@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Hart, Andrew wrote:
> > 4601 W. Sahara looks very familar, but I didn't find
> > an abundance of recent NANAS hits against it.
Seems to me that address turns up in the ICQ logs of Rodona Garst,
the posting of which kept me up all night reading. Fascinating stuff.
http://belps.freewebsites.com/
http://premier.cluelessfucks.com/
--
Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - ***@****.***
NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/
WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323
Have you ever had to service a Compaq desktop?
Not only are most of the parts proprietary, they're absolute and utter CRAP! Even the floppy drive has to be purchased from Compaq (at an exhorbant price -- all thanks to a special face plate so the fucking thing will fit in the ugly-as-hell case).
I wonder how many ex-Packard Bell employees populate the Compaq desktop division? Not that Compaq needed any help from PB to suck -- they were doing just great at it when PB was on the upswing a few years back ("upswing" for Packard Bell meaning that they stopped reselling machines with known toasted parts and motherboards crammed into cases literally too small for them)
I will shed no tears for Compaq -- no matter how good their servers are.
Yeah, there IS a good chunk of third world real-estate that is predominantly catholic.
I take the time to track down and report every spam I receive on one of my important e-mail accounts. Out of 157 spams since 1997 I've gotten 87 confirmed kills. Despite this, I would much rather see spammers be given the Mitnick treatment than reap any monetary rewards.
Hopefully Sam "BENCHMARK PRINT SUPPLY" Khuri will be the first up against the wall if this goes through.
Too bad so many of those billions are impoverished peasants in China and other countries where the goal for too long has been to out-breed the country next to you without any thought toward what effect such action might have your economy.
That's all well and good, but when is Qwest going to start nuking spammers on their networks?
Unless you're planning to "go legit" (put your arcade machine in a public place and start charging people for real) don't waste your money on Ultracade.
ArcadePC is where it's at. Granted, after you add a sufficient computer to the ArcadePC it will probably cost nearly as much as Ultracade, but you won't be locked into buying stupid "game packs" since ArcadePC works with emulators. So the more games MAME supports, the more games your cabinet does.
Perhaps the source has been made available in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet located in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door reading "Beware of the Leopard".
While I don't see why this interview can't simply be transcribed to text (something the man himself would probably advocate) and I certainly don't condone the use of *hakkkk* RealAudio *spit* (RealPlayer is FAR from non-terrible) and I fail to see why your comment deserved to be moderated up, I do have to admit:
It's not as if one can't convert RealAudio to MP3 easilly enough.
Anybody have a link?
universities and businesses aren't here to hide your actions or to cover your back or to support your decision to break the law
Yeah! Unless of course it's the policy of the university or business to break the law.
But we all know that never happens.
And don't forget yesterday's Cruel Site of the Day:
Calculating the Value of Pie
Delicious.
There's also a town called near there called "Colon". It's pronounced "coe-lun", too.
And another called "Factoryville".
Who WOULDN'T like to be from Factoryville?!
Oh sure, the story SAYS it's ABC's fault but I blame those touchy canadians!
It seems a shame to mess with the song. If I were Trey I'd just make liberal use of the "bleep" -- in fact I'd bleep out every other bleeping word weather it needs to be or not -- just to make a point.
Censorship is obscenity.
Brainball: The only sport that my ex-roommate can win!
Poor anti-spam legislation is actually WORSE than no anti-spam legislation. In the case of this law it's not anti-spam legislation at all because it actually PROMOTES spam.
Opt-out does NOT work and is NOT a solution to the ever-increasing volume of spam. Think about the real cost of spam: bandwidth usage, drive space usage, etc. NONE of these are decreased by an opt-out solution because even if you were to spend all day every day opting out of all the spam you received you would STILL be receiving it and you would STILL be sending out e-mail in response -- only instead of complaints (which get the spammer shut down, thus creating less spam) you are sending back confirmation that your e-mail address does indeed work!
So even if the company really doesn't spam you again (yeah, RIGHT!) they can still sell the address that they have now confirmed to be working to ANOTHER company which will then send you ANOTHER spam.
This law will only increase spam in Colorado -- not decrease it.
INTERNAL MEMORANDUM -- TOP SECRET
This video signal encryption technology is a good start but it simply does not go far enough. Once the data has left the monitor it is entirely visible to anyone who cares to look at it. If magnified and projected the data from the monitor could be viewed by an entire theater of people -- only ONE of them a paying consumer!
While laws could be bought to cover such a circumstance, this neither ensures 100% compliance nor does it assist us in selling more hardware. The ultimate solution to this problem is currently unavailable but if we invest in the research we are almost garunteed massive returns.
This ultimate solution is quite simple: implant all users with decryption devices that are keyed to specific hardware. This not only creates a new market (the implants themselves) but ensures that all computer users are licensed. The dream of being able to collect fees for computer use on a per-user and/or a per-hour basis becomes a reality!
With a little more development we could eventually achieve complete control over every aspect of computer use. Our R&D investment for this phase would be easilly covered by the licensing agreements we would cut with Microsoft et. all. After this the money from the users would just be icing!
I've lined up some meetings with various biotech firms that might be interested. Will send you the times later today.
---
"The actual user of the PC -- someone who can do anything they want -- is the enemy."
-- David Aucsmith,
Security Architect for Intel
And if you believe that, I've got a bridge reserved just for you.
The only thing this encryption does is give more control to Intel. Control over the monitor market and control over what you do with your computer. Don't think for a minute that this is about piracy -- the industry continues to grow and prosper despite the terrors supposedly inflicted on it by piracy.
You bet I know where my domain is -- it's registered with Joker.com instead of that shady NSI outfit. $36 for two years and the knowledge that when I want changes made they actually get made in a reasonable time frame (*gasp*).
I know this sounds like spam, but I people need to stop bitching about NSI and start taking their business elsewhere (now that we finally have alternatives).
How the hell did this person get an interview with Gibson? I could maybe understand if this was for People magazine or something, but AICN?!
Could the questions have been more superficial? I read the whole thing fully expecting the next question to be something along the lines of "blonde or brunette?"
Slashdot could have done a better interview.
I just checked and this isn't correct.
All the Geocities mirrors seem to still be working (although I wasn't able to get through to them all on the first try for some reason).
Could be that they're just having problems.
Who uses Napster anyway? I tried it out and couldn't find anything but the most common tracks for the bands I was interested in.
I'd rather use MP3 to trade rare tracks and bootlegged concerts than Top 40 crap that's available at every single music store in the world. Unfortunatly it's nearly as hard to find a lot of these things online as it is in real life, thanks to all the kiddies and their "I can turn on any fsucking radio station and hear this but that's not good enough" MP3 collections.
assuming they had the same buying power.
Yeah, that's the problem isn't it?
When the overwealming majority of your population is living in abject poverty it's like a ball and chain around the leg of your economy.
There are a lot of issues that are at least in some respect resting on the outcome of this case but the most powerful is the First Ammendment issue.
What's the difference between the speech you have a right to and the code you don't? One might argue that code is more of a "tool" but isn't speech just as much of a tool? Every day you are bombarded with multi-billion dollar ad campaigns. What are these companies spending their money on? Power, of course. The power to influence what kind of cereal you buy.
From here it's not hard to make the jump. The entire course of history can be changed by the judicious application of words. Revolutionaries inspired or disgraced, treaties signed or rejected. Jelly purchased or left on the shelf. Beyond scale, what's the real difference?
Words and code are both art forms. They are both powerful. They should both be free. Come get some, bitch.
http://www.humpin.org/decss/
I read it for the articles, damnit!
Yes, I am in tech support and I am cruel. I am cruel to those with have no common sense. I am cruel to the functionally illiterate. I am cruel to lusers who don't want to listen to me or follow my directions. I am cruel to lusers who don't understand the power dynamic when they call me ("I'm a Doctor/Lawyer/Columnist so I'm going to treat you like my bitch"). I am cruel to those who think that the rules don't apply to them.
These lusers have bigger problems than not knowing how their computer works. They have problems with critical thinking skills they should have learned in grade school. They have attitude problems they should have worked out in middle school while picking their teeth off the floor.
Anybody with a clue will know how hard I laughed at the line "the general public is going to reach the level of computer knowledge that the typical tech currently has". The sad fact is that lack of computer knowledge is often not the issue. There will always be a demand for tech support as long as the school system continues to fail to educate people in fundamental, non-technical areas.
Why am I cruel? Because being cruel is better than going on a shooting spree. Even the people who have no larger problem than "the innernet don't work" can wear down your respect for the human race with sheer numbers. Figure in the people who shouldn't be let near a computer until they've learned how to READ and it's scary to think about how many tech support personnel are still on the loose.