This thread is in relation to the one that chicken deleted... I had posted a "fictional" version of the post that splashhost made.. I simply subsituted fake names in place of the real ones.

Chicken.. I didn't use their real name because I wanted to illustrate how rediculous this whole thing really is. You can simply substitute ANYONE'S name in there and it would be the same.

The point I was making is that the accusations are completely unprovable. What was the point of [insert person claiming they were attacked here] posting in the first place?

Until the upstream provider or NOC of [insert person claiming they were attacked here] can provide THEIR unbiased log files... anything [insert person claiming they were attacked here] provides is simply not worth a penny. They could have simply done a search and replace and stuffed ANYONE'S IP in there.

Not to mention that even if it WAS a legit attach and really DID come from [insert accused comany here]... so what? It doesn't prove that from [insert accused comany here] actually did it.

His accusation is ridiculous. If I accused YOU of attacking MY server.. wouldn't you expect me to provide reasonably unbiased proof? Of course you would. If I simply gave you my own server logs.. this proves nothing, except that I am making an accusation.

BTW - do you delete EVERYTHING you disagree with? Only YOUR opinion counts, eh?

Did chicken tell you it was deleted? If not, it may be up for review.. I dunno. Anyhow, I thought the post was a little pointless as the I believe your point was already made a couple of times in the thread itself. Don't get me wrong. Im not on anyones side here, and I totally agree with what you said. Its just been said is all. No point in dragging it out even more.

Isn't it obvious that a third party used a "less than secure" mchost proxy server and a "foolishly" wide open SpashHost demo account to cause all this havoc.

Yes, chicken said he deleted it. See the second to last post in that main thread and you'll see his explaination.

I posted here this story, because people need to realize how gullible they have been. People are taking sides in a situation that is completely unprovable. The only way for splashhost to provide proof is to have his NOC or upstream provider verify in a court of law that the IP's in question are legit.

But yet.. so many people are choosing sides.

My other point is that it scares me how easy it is for a company to simply make a post like that and then have a bunch of people "support" them.

What if YOUR competition did that to YOU!? (Make a post in a major website forum about how you attacked them.) How excited would YOU be to see your competition's supporters slam YOUR company without ANY proof whatsoever?

Exactly, you would be sick about it.

Ahem, there is more than one moderator here, please note that I didn't delete your post. Anywhooooo, as I said in one of the posts, none of the information alone proves anything. It can't be posted as proof as IP numbers alone will not and do not offer you enough information. IP numbers would have to be matched to ISP records, server logs, network logs, etc., to be useful.

Do I think Alan replaced IPs in the server logs with IPs that happened to match another IP? That would be a neat trick. No, this is not what I think happened. To me, that's a bit of a stretch. Do I think that Marc did this? I should hope not. What I think and hope, however, is not what matters in this case. What I think and hope is completely irrelevant.

What I do know is that the forum can't help or solve all issues and that sometimes, people need to work things out themselves. When that doesn't work, they need to seek legal counsel and let their people talk to your people, etc. That's all I do know for sure.

Although we all know Chicken is no Chicken.....when it comes to "stupid 99", did he know something when he chose that id/name?

I was looking in a mirror at the time...

:D

Originally posted by Chicken
Ahem, there is more than one moderator here, please note that I didn't delete your post. Anywhooooo

Who did then? And I'm curious just how old the so called "moderators" are in this forum. Your enjoying all the advertising dollars made possible from us visitors, now how about some honesty in return.

I rarely come to this forum because it appears to be run by 11th graders with nary a clue. So out with it, what exactly IS the ages of all you so called moderators who delete or close down any thread you don't personally like.

<<MOD NOTE:>>
The so called 11th grade "moderators" with nary a clue have enough of a clue to know that this tangent won't be addressed in this thread we personally don't like, as we are all busy closing and deleting *other* random threads for no good reason at all.
<</MOD NOTE>>

Originally posted by stupid99

Until the upstream provider or NOC of [insert person claiming they were attacked here] can provide THEIR unbiased log files... anything [insert person claiming they were attacked here] provides is simply not worth a penny. They could have simply done a search and replace and stuffed ANYONE'S IP in there.


Why DO YOU ASSUME THAT the upstream provider/NOC will be UNBIASED?

thanks,

Originally posted by Warp


Why DO YOU ASSUME THAT the upstream provider/NOC will be UNBIASED?

thanks,

Mostly because they are multi-million dollar companies that are forced to adhere to the courts of whatever country they are in. (In this case, probably US.) I highly doubt a NOC would be biased.. why the heck would THEY risk their business by providing false or misleading information to help some mom/pop business?

And if splashhost says he was using some hickshop upstream provider that is willing to through away their own reputation and business (and money!)... then that info would certainly be useful to know.

My point is that the "proof" must come from someone other than the person making the accusation. If YOU accused me of stealing.. is your word so strong that a court would simply judge me guilty because YOU said I was guilty?

Originally posted by stupid99
The point I was making is that the accusations are completely unprovable. What was the point of [insert person claiming they were attacked here] posting in the first place?
What would YOU do if your company was attacked by another company that posts on here? Wouldn't YOU be a little pissed?

Until the upstream provider or NOC of [insert person claiming they were attacked here] can provide THEIR unbiased log files... anything [insert person claiming they were attacked here] provides is simply not worth a penny. They could have simply done a search and replace and stuffed ANYONE'S IP in there.
An upstream provider wouldn't log that. Even if they did, they wouldn't release it for anything short of a subpeona.

Not to mention that even if it WAS a legit attach and really DID come from [insert accused comany here]... so what? It doesn't prove that from [insert accused comany here] actually did it.
McHost admitted on this board that the suspected IP is from a proxy they own. Doesn't that seem a little "odd" to you? Do you _really_ think someone would go to the trouble to frame McHost? If splashhost was trying to frame McHost, how would they know about the proxy server? Do you really think that the bad publicity McHost is recieving from this outweighs that bad image splashost got from thier servers constantly crashing? Why would splashost down thier own servers all for this?

His accusation is ridiculous. If I accused YOU of attacking MY server.. wouldn't you expect me to provide reasonably unbiased proof? Of course you would.
If you showed me your logs which showed an attack from an IP address of a proxy server which I setup which was insecure, no, that's proof enough for me. I sure as hell wouldn't want to admit it though. The attack came from a network which McHost runs which in turn makes McHost responsible.

Hmmm,

There are definately a few "stupid" newbies around here who are making an excellent debut in this forum by slamming mods and hosts. This forum isn't (well didn't use to be) about slander, back biting and ego stroking. If your contribution to this board is your overstated, ill judged and baseless opinions then you won't last that long around here.

Please use some sense (and a little maturity) when posting here. ;)

Originally posted by NexDog
Hmmm,

There are definately a few "stupid" newbies around here who are making an excellent debut in this forum by slamming mods and hosts. This forum isn't (well didn't use to be) about slander, back biting and ego stroking. If your contribution to this board is your overstated, ill judged and baseless opinions then you won't last that long around here.

Please use some sense (and a little maturity) when posting here. ;)

Exactly, this forum didn't used to be about this about six months ago, which is why a lot of people have stopped visiting the place so much lately. And I note that most of the hosts I used to respect then are also noticeable by their absence. "Slander, back biting and ego stroking" pretty well describes the actions of various people in starting and fuelling the allegations in the thread referred to.

Nice impartiality, Chicken - I paraphrase:

"Do I think Alan did something? No."
"Do I think Marc did something? I hope not."

Are you really disinterested?

Originally posted by steve

Nice impartiality, Chicken - I paraphrase:

"Do I think Alan did something? No."
"Do I think Marc did something? I hope not."

Are you really disinterested?
Just a point, Chicken isn't disinterested and is somewhat involved in this matter. He has seen the logs and knows alot more than we do.

Chicken isn't disinterested and is somewhat involved in this matter Why isn't he and why is he?
He has seen the logs and knows alot more than we do. About what, however...

Alan's first posts said: Marc took my servers down to put me out of business.
Chicken said: I confirmed that a certain IP had been used and advised Alan to contact a lawyer.
Alaskan Wolf said: Marc or someone at MCHost did this deliberately.

So if it turns out that a proxy server was compromised, you guys will be apologising and footing the bill for the damage caused by your allegations?

And in the meantime, people will be staying away from MCHost because "there's no smoke without fire" or they can't be bothered to read long threads. Once again, who benefits from all this?

Originally posted by steve
Nice impartiality, Chicken - I paraphrase:

"Do I think Alan did something? No."
"Do I think Marc did something? I hope not."

Are you really disinterested?
Steve, your paraphasing isn't useful. If you want to remove the majority of the quote that's fine, but it changes what I said. What I said was:
Originally posted by Chicken
Do I think Alan replaced IPs in the server logs with IPs that happened to match another IP? That would be a neat trick. No, this is not what I think happened. To me, that's a bit of a stretch. Do I think that Marc did this? I should hope not. What I think and hope, however, is not what matters in this case. What I think and hope is completely irrelevant.
I already posted information regarding the logs, who looked at them, and their conclusions. These discussions were not about who did it, but (as I said), were an attempt to find the IP of the user logging into the server. Anyway, I'm not going to go into it here, I think I already wrote all of this somewhere else.

The point is you took my words out of context and then bash me for being impartial. Whatever.


Originally posted by steve
Chicken said: I confirmed that a certain IP had been used and advised Alan to contact a lawyer.

So if it turns out that a proxy server was compromised, you guys will be apologising and footing the bill for the damage caused by your allegations?
I'm sorry but I'm missing something here. Either you don't know all the facts and are just posting your opinion, or you don't know all the facts and are just posting your opinion. Which is it?

Maybe I should post the email I sent to Alan, as people seem to have their own idea of what I said, even though I've posted what I said before. It seems people just ignore that however and come up with their own garbage which is mildly irritating.

Again, the above statement, is 100%, without a doubt correct, but taken out of context:

Chicken said: I confirmed that a certain IP had been used [by a member on the forum during the period of the log entries] and advised Alan to contact a lawyer.


I'm not sure what else you would have advised, but when something is even *possibly* a legal matter, my advice is always to call a lawyer and let *them* tell you whether it is (or isn't) a legal matter, and what to do.

Anyway, the email to Alan starts off...

"First let me say that the info in this email should be verified and that you should make sure that it is correct. In other words, do not just read the email and freak out and *assume* it to be correct. Also, none of the names or info in this email may be posted as evidence (ie: people helped with this and I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate you naming them). It is being sent to Matt as it pertains to a member, and in some ways beyond that.

Second, I do *not* believe posting any of this is the proper course of action, as you (Alan) may eventually want to pursue this in a court, and posting it wouldn't help that. It shouldn't be posted, your lawyer will tell you that. Keep in mind, that this information was determined to be true by <removed>, <removed> and a few other people in HHO, who were asked if it can be reasonably verified that the *IP* was responsible for the problems and fork bombs. They said yes.

From there, I ran the IP and matched dates and times of posts made to WHT. You can see that this has the possibility of error, which is why you should consider this information for what it is, a solid *lead* to who is responsible, but by no means, guaranteed. The people in the chat room, as I said, stated they were 100% certain that the xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx IP was responsible. You should verify this and use the info I can provide and come up with your own conclusion.

Ok, some info..."

I'll also add that I don't mind being criticised or that discussion takes place, but I will ask that people do not take information out of context so that the meanings look completely different.

Reading all the posts since this fiasco started yesterday, it's really sad to see how one post can tarnish someone so quickly.

What's with you guys?? So many of you are so quick to pass a guilty plea based on limited information . Some of you appear to be drawing premature conclusions based on a hidden agenda, others just like to witness a bloodbath, and others just follow the pack like lemmings. I'm not saying all of you. just some.

I don't know all the info, so I won't pass judgement (yet) on Alan or Marc. And I certainly won't jump on a "guilty without trial" bandwagon in an open forum. It's just patently unfair to the parties involved.

I'm relatively new here, and I don't usually like to ruffle anyone's feathers. But I just could not hold my tongue anymore. All I can say is, if I'm ever in court up on charges for something, I really hope that certain members of this forum are not part of the "jury of my peers". I wouldn't stand of chance of winning...

LOL@ Here HHO look at this chatters, yep! that is 99.9 percent accurate!

Originally posted by jstout
The attack came from a network which McHost runs which in turn makes McHost responsible.

As mentioned in the other threads, i am discussing this with Alan from SplashHost and going through the damage made from our IP addresses. We are also discussing who could be behind this, as it has to be someone that has an interest in getting both companies down and has access to both servers. I also want to mention that the same problem that happened to SplashHost is happening to 2 of our servers as well, since about 5 weeks. Loads spiking at over 200.00 and 1000's of processes locking up the machine and forcing a reboot.

Im currently helping kiwi resolve the problem on his servers as well.

Great to see that you guys are working it out. I really hope that you find who's responsible for these disgusting actions. Be great to hear of any recommendations that you can make after resolving the matter. I, for one, am very concerned about how this attack can be made so easily and avoid protection. If you come up with any security measures, cron jobs etc, please let us all know.

Just like to add my own "well done" to both parties for stopping, taking a deep breath and dealing with the issues in a sensible manner.

I hope all who got swept up in the lynch mob consider that most likely they have either willingly or unwittingly assisted a third party to cause grievous harm to two companies that frankly didn't deserve the derision poured on them.

Time to apologise where apologies are due and learn from the experience.