|
Main
Date: 23 Jan 2008 12:39:19
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Ulevitch Report
|
Dear Chess Friends, This is wonderful long-anticipated news! The third report has shown definite signs of emerging on the public scene. This is so very welcome in our current climate of transparency! How many reports do we need before our skeptics can admit that smoke does indeed strongly suggest fire? -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
|
|
Date: 24 Jan 2008 13:27:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
On Jan 24, 12:42 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > Actually, they're now harping about whether the underlying data may > have been compromised. Ark! Ark! Where is Smaxie when they need him. What about Paul Truong himself? Isn't it possible, theoretically I mean, that /he/ was spoofed? A remote-controlled robot, that looks and walks and talks like PT? I know this supposed expert says that it's not possible for this or that to be spoofed, but hey: if *nothing* could be spoofed, we wouldn't have the word "spoof" in the dictionary, right? I say that /something/ can be spoofed, and that's why somebody invented the word in the first place. We just need to find that somebody, and ask him what can be spoofed. -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 13:59:12
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:27:12 -0800 (PST), help bot <[email protected] > wrote: >On Jan 24, 12:42 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: >> Actually, they're now harping about whether the underlying data may >> have been compromised. Ark! Ark! Where is Smaxie when they need him. > What about Paul Truong himself? Isn't it >possible, theoretically I mean, that /he/ was >spoofed? A remote-controlled robot, that >looks and walks and talks like PT? We need to contact Donald Sutherland with some questions about Pod People.
|
|
Date: 24 Jan 2008 13:16:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
On Jan 24, 9:51 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby wrote: > > J.D. Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> She invites the world to chessdiscussion.com to discuss topics about > >> chess. She lists a series of forum posting rules. None of them say > >> that we cannot discuss an event like the publication of David > >> Ulevitch's letter. > > > You are participating on somebody's website. They can set whatever > > rules they want for your participation and operate by whatever rules > > they want to. > > >> Clearly the moderators are operating on a hidden agenda. > > > Why are you even slightly surprised that Susan Polgar seems not to > > want material that appears detrimental to her husband to be discussed > > on her forums? > > > Dave. > > I am not surprised. I am commenting on hypocrisy. To publicize a web > site as a place to openly discuss chess matters in a civil atmosphere is > not consistent with what we see happening there. She can do what she > wants with her site, but chess fans would do well to look elsewhere if > they want to freely and civilly exchange messages about chess. > > When you add to this her call for transparency, the hypocrisy is rank... Just a glance at some of the ludicrous claims made on SP's Web site tells the tale; whoever is responsible for those lies, fabrications and impersonations of her sister's accomplishments, ought to be hanged first, then given a fair trial. These clowns -- the Ray Keenes and Susan Polgars of the world -- need to get a grip on their humongous egos, even if that means stretching their hands to the size of a county. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 24 Jan 2008 08:34:36
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
On Jan 23, 6:19 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote: > Gregory Alexander posted the following comment regarding Ulevitc's > credentials: > > "Oh gads... > I have no reservation with his credentials; the guy is a top notch expert in > the internet field." But where is the commentary by that sterling chess 'journalist' - ah, self-described! - P Innes?
|
|
Date: 24 Jan 2008 11:12:47
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
J.D. Walker <[email protected] > wrote: > This is wonderful long-anticipated news! The third report has shown > definite signs of emerging on the public scene. This is so very > welcome in our current climate of transparency! How many reports do > we need before our skeptics can admit that smoke does indeed > strongly suggest fire? The point of these reports is that they find the damn fire... Dave. -- David Richerby Hilarious Confusing Boss (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a middle manager but you can't understand it and it's a bundle of laughs!
|
|
Date: 23 Jan 2008 20:11:34
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
On Jan 23, 6:19 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote: > Gregory Alexander posted the following comment regarding Ulevitc's > credentials: > > "Oh gads... > I have no reservation with his credentials; the guy is a top notch expert in > the internet field." Let me guess. The rest of the post was along the lines of, 'Fooling such an expert shows how good the person framing Paul and Susan is.' Denial is more than just a river in Egypt......
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 09:42:04
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:11:34 -0800 (PST), The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: >On Jan 23, 6:19 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Gregory Alexander posted the following comment regarding Ulevitc's >> credentials: >> >> "Oh gads... >> I have no reservation with his credentials; the guy is a top notch expert in >> the internet field." > >Let me guess. The rest of the post was along the lines of, 'Fooling >such an expert shows how good the person framing Paul and Susan is.' >Denial is more than just a river in Egypt...... Actually, they're now harping about whether the underlying data may have been compromised. Ark! Ark! Where is Smaxie when they need him.
|
|
Date: 23 Jan 2008 19:15:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
On Jan 23, 5:05 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Look back in the rgcp queue a few messages for one titled: "Expert > Opinion: Mottershead Report Valid." There you can form your own > opinion, quite transparently I might add. :) Hey, I bet those posts came through back when my eye was puffed up, and I could not even lose to the GetClub program because I was temporarily blind. Hmmm. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 23 Jan 2008 17:29:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
On Jan 23, 5:52 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote: > > So far, I have seen the name of this new report, > > and nothing else. Why the big secret? Can we > > see what's actually in the report? Does it say > > that Sam Sloan was too dumb to impersonate > > himself in order to get attention, so it had to be > > somebody a lot ster-- like Paul Truong? > > If you fail to see, it can only be because you have failed to open your > eyes. Or maybe it is because of the new name, which I had never seen before, stupid. BTW, I *am* having trouble seeing, due to an eye infection. See GetClub losses in which I keep moving stuff en prise. Having now seen the "new" report, which apparently is not new at all, I am left with the question of how it is possible to tell the difference between SP and PT, since all depends on geographic location, and people seem to believe that they travel around together. I hope it isn't going to come down to an imaginary syntax analysis by some clown with the initials LP... . For the record, when the Mottershead report appeared, it was umteen pages long, the format on my newsreader was atrocious, and I did not read the thing as a result. But I have read numerous commentaries and partial sumies of it. This formatting problem is why I generally try to keep my paragraphs short enough to avoid truncation, with a carryover to the next line. I am not "in denial" with regard to PT; I simply want to know how it can be known if he or if SP made the Fake SS postings. You know, you can't narrow it down to two people and then randomly toss one in jail. I haven't seen proof that it was PT, only opinions to that effect. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 23 Jan 2008 23:19:15
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
Gregory Alexander posted the following comment regarding Ulevitc's credentials: "Oh gads... I have no reservation with his credentials; the guy is a top notch expert in the internet field."
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 18:22:55
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
B. Lafferty wrote: > Gregory Alexander posted the following comment regarding Ulevitc's > credentials: > > "Oh gads... > I have no reservation with his credentials; the guy is a top notch expert in > the internet field." > > I posted a question at chessdiscussion.com asking if there was a response regarding this new report. Although my question was stated in a neutral, civil manner, after about an hour, it is still in the moderation queue, or censored. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 10:58:08
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > B. Lafferty wrote: >> Gregory Alexander posted the following comment regarding Ulevitc's >> credentials: >> >> "Oh gads... >> I have no reservation with his credentials; the guy is a top notch expert >> in the internet field." > > I posted a question at chessdiscussion.com asking if there was a response > regarding this new report. Although my question was stated in a neutral, > civil manner, after about an hour, it is still in the moderation queue, or > censored. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. I posted the Ulevitch report on Polgar's blog and asked her to comment. She did not reply and the report was removed a short time after I posted it--under my own name.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 05:10:23
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
B. Lafferty wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> B. Lafferty wrote: >>> Gregory Alexander posted the following comment regarding Ulevitc's >>> credentials: >>> >>> "Oh gads... >>> I have no reservation with his credentials; the guy is a top notch expert >>> in the internet field." >> I posted a question at chessdiscussion.com asking if there was a response >> regarding this new report. Although my question was stated in a neutral, >> civil manner, after about an hour, it is still in the moderation queue, or >> censored. >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > I posted the Ulevitch report on Polgar's blog and asked her to comment. She > did not reply and the report was removed a short time after I posted > it--under my own name. > > She invites the world to chessdiscussion.com to discuss topics about chess. She lists a series of forum posting rules. None of them say that we cannot discuss an event like the publication of David Ulevitch's letter. Clearly the moderators are operating on a hidden agenda. So what do we have at her site... False forum rules, moderation according to hidden principles, blatant censorship, and all that is left are a bunch of trained barking seals that dance to her tune. This is not my idea of transparency. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 14:41:35
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
J.D. Walker <[email protected] > wrote: > She invites the world to chessdiscussion.com to discuss topics about > chess. She lists a series of forum posting rules. None of them say > that we cannot discuss an event like the publication of David > Ulevitch's letter. You are participating on somebody's website. They can set whatever rules they want for your participation and operate by whatever rules they want to. > Clearly the moderators are operating on a hidden agenda. Why are you even slightly surprised that Susan Polgar seems not to want material that appears detrimental to her husband to be discussed on her forums? Dave. -- David Richerby Addictive Adult Tool (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a handy household tool that you won't want the children to see but you can never put it down!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 06:51:36
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
David Richerby wrote: > J.D. Walker <[email protected]> wrote: >> She invites the world to chessdiscussion.com to discuss topics about >> chess. She lists a series of forum posting rules. None of them say >> that we cannot discuss an event like the publication of David >> Ulevitch's letter. > > You are participating on somebody's website. They can set whatever > rules they want for your participation and operate by whatever rules > they want to. > >> Clearly the moderators are operating on a hidden agenda. > > Why are you even slightly surprised that Susan Polgar seems not to > want material that appears detrimental to her husband to be discussed > on her forums? > > > Dave. > > I am not surprised. I am commenting on hypocrisy. To publicize a web site as a place to openly discuss chess matters in a civil atmosphere is not consistent with what we see happening there. She can do what she wants with her site, but chess fans would do well to look elsewhere if they want to freely and civilly exchange messages about chess. When you add to this her call for transparency, the hypocrisy is rank... -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 06:02:00
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
J.D. Walker wrote: > B. Lafferty wrote: >> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> B. Lafferty wrote: >>>> Gregory Alexander posted the following comment regarding Ulevitc's >>>> credentials: >>>> >>>> "Oh gads... >>>> I have no reservation with his credentials; the guy is a top notch >>>> expert in the internet field." >>> I posted a question at chessdiscussion.com asking if there was a >>> response regarding this new report. Although my question was stated >>> in a neutral, civil manner, after about an hour, it is still in the >>> moderation queue, or censored. >>> -- >>> >>> Cordially, >>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> >> I posted the Ulevitch report on Polgar's blog and asked her to >> comment. She did not reply and the report was removed a short time >> after I posted it--under my own name. >> > > She invites the world to chessdiscussion.com to discuss topics about > chess. She lists a series of forum posting rules. None of them say > that we cannot discuss an event like the publication of David Ulevitch's > letter. Clearly the moderators are operating on a hidden agenda. > > So what do we have at her site... False forum rules, moderation > according to hidden principles, blatant censorship, and all that is left > are a bunch of trained barking seals that dance to her tune. > > This is not my idea of transparency. Susan has opened up a question and answer topic at chessdiscussion.com. It is unclear if she will actually allow discussion or not. Here is an excerpt of what she said about the Ulevitch letter. "I was also asked about the latest conclusion from an expert regarding the Internet report. I have no idea who he is but I have no doubt in his expertise. However, I gave the USCF evidence which clearly prove that the report has the wrong conclusion. Without the evidence from both sides and without having the opportunity to examine the USCF database, how can one come up with a definitive conclusion?" -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
|
Date: 23 Jan 2008 14:01:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
On Jan 23, 3:39 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > This is wonderful long-anticipated news! You sound like Bobby Fischer, on September 11, 2001. Should the Polgars all go back to Hungary? Gata Kamsky back to Russia? (If *everyone* leaves, I can then assume my rightful throne: Class A player U.S. Champ.) > The third report has shown > definite signs of emerging on the public scene. This is so very welcome > in our current climate of transparency! How many reports do we need > before our skeptics can admit that smoke does indeed strongly suggest fire? Nearly-Innes is far from a "skeptic"; it's more like he's hell-bent on beating the "justice" drum, until such time as Justice does something he doesn't like; then, he'll do one of his infamous flip-flops. So far, I have seen the name of this new report, and nothing else. Why the big secret? Can we see what's actually in the report? Does it say that Sam Sloan was too dumb to impersonate himself in order to get attention, so it had to be somebody a lot ster-- like Paul Truong? -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 22:52:09
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:e0b7a5cb-4b75-4cd5-93d1-15ee48db0815@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 23, 3:39 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is wonderful long-anticipated news! > > You sound like Bobby Fischer, on September 11, 2001. > > Should the Polgars all go back to Hungary? Gata > Kamsky back to Russia? (If *everyone* leaves, I can > then assume my rightful throne: Class A player U.S. > Champ.) > > >> The third report has shown >> definite signs of emerging on the public scene. This is so very welcome >> in our current climate of transparency! How many reports do we need >> before our skeptics can admit that smoke does indeed strongly suggest >> fire? > > Nearly-Innes is far from a "skeptic"; it's more like > he's hell-bent on beating the "justice" drum, until > such time as Justice does something he doesn't > like; then, he'll do one of his infamous flip-flops. > > So far, I have seen the name of this new report, > and nothing else. Why the big secret? Can we > see what's actually in the report? Does it say > that Sam Sloan was too dumb to impersonate > himself in order to get attention, so it had to be > somebody a lot ster-- like Paul Truong? If you fail to see, it can only be because you have failed to open your eyes.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 14:05:54
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
help bot wrote: > On Jan 23, 3:39 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is wonderful long-anticipated news! > > You sound like Bobby Fischer, on September 11, 2001. > > Should the Polgars all go back to Hungary? Gata > Kamsky back to Russia? (If *everyone* leaves, I can > then assume my rightful throne: Class A player U.S. > Champ.) > > >> The third report has shown >> definite signs of emerging on the public scene. This is so very welcome >> in our current climate of transparency! How many reports do we need >> before our skeptics can admit that smoke does indeed strongly suggest fire? > > Nearly-Innes is far from a "skeptic"; it's more like > he's hell-bent on beating the "justice" drum, until > such time as Justice does something he doesn't > like; then, he'll do one of his infamous flip-flops. > > So far, I have seen the name of this new report, > and nothing else. Why the big secret? Can we > see what's actually in the report? Does it say > that Sam Sloan was too dumb to impersonate > himself in order to get attention, so it had to be > somebody a lot ster-- like Paul Truong? > > > -- help bot > Mr. Bot, Look back in the rgcp queue a few messages for one titled: "Expert Opinion: Mottershead Report Valid." There you can form your own opinion, quite transparently I might add. :) -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 14:25:10
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
> Mr. Bot, > > Look back in the rgcp queue a few messages for one titled: "Expert > Opinion: Mottershead Report Valid." There you can form your own > opinion, quite transparently I might add. :) To make this a bit easier, here is the original post copied into this thread... ============================== http://chessusa.blogspot.com/2008/01/expert-opinion-mottershead-report.html Donna Alarie has emailed the following expert opinion regarding the validity of the techniques used in what has become known as The Mottershead Report. The expert, David Ulevitch of OpenDNS.com states the following: Opinion of Mottershead report submitted to the USCF David Ulevitch December 17, 2007 Introduction On or around October 5th, 2007 I was contacted by a reporter from The New York Times to provide some background information and expert advice regarding an article he was preparing that was ultimately published on October 8th, 2007 as "Chess Group Officials Accused of Using Internet to Hurt Rivals." My background in Internet Security spans almost 10 years during which time I have worked for Internet Service Providers, Universities and businesses, as well as run a number of my own. I am considered an expert security practitioner. I have also had extensive experience working with various national and international law enforcement organizations in a consulting capacity. My intention in this letter is to provide a perspective on the techniques used by Brian Mottershead in his report to the USCF. This report should be considered a preliminary release. My analysis of the Mottershead report is complete but I expect I may revise this report to add clarification as needed based on feedback. I am happy to do so. For the record, I have never been a member of the USCF, I do not know any of the parties involved personally and I have no known vested interest in this issue other than to help provide an honest and accurate perspective of the Mottershead report. My initial reaction to the Mottershead report was an appreciation for the detailed level of evidence and chronology of research that is provided. Typically, when doing computer forensics, it is common to attempt to tie what you know with what you don't know. This is exactly what Mr. Mottershead did, many times in his report. When you can correlate the known with the unknown as many times as Mr. Mottershead did in his report you create a crystal clear depiction of activity and actions that can stand up on their own. Furthermore, subpoenaing billing records from both ISPs and credit card companies can extend this chain of evidence by directly linking an IP address to the ISP and to an individual paying the bills. It is my opinion, and as I'll show from some examples below, I find this step unnecessary. Excerpt 1: Since the IP addresses of Usenet posters are public information, and in the USCF web logs and database I had information as to the IP addresses of USCF members accessing the forums, it seemed likely that I would be able to identify the USCF member account that was being used by the Fake Sam Sloan to mis-appropriate USCF Issues forum posts for his posts on Usenet. Mr. Mottershead is accurate in his explanation of what he wants to accomplish. He is correct in stating that Usenet postings are tied to an IP address. The IP address recorded in these types of posts cannot be spoofed. He also knows the login name for the parties involved on the internal USCF member forums and their posting IP address. This too cannot be spoofed. By connecting what he knows, with what is publicly archived by Google (and others) he can create a direct correlation. Mr. Mottershead shows clearly through examples (a) (b) and (c) that the IP addresses posting to Usenet and the physical location of Mr. Truong are directly connected. He also connects that to the known forum identity of Mr. Truong. To be clear, three facts have just been established: 1)The Usenet postings are being posted from the same physical location that Mr. Truong is believed to be in at the time of the posting. 2)The IP addresses on the USCF forums, which are tied to the username used by Mr. Truong, are also being made from the same physical location that Mr. Truong is believed to be in at the time of the posting. 3)In nearly all cases, the IP addresses tied to the Usenet postings are the same as the USCF forum posting IP addresses. What about someone spoofing all of this? Often, people say that they were spoofed or that their IP address was hijacked. While it is possible that someone can sometimes change his or her posting name on a forum or a message board to look like that of another user (consider "Bob" and "Bob "), the IP address cannot be spoofed. Let me explain why an IP address cannot be spoofed. First, for a post to Usenet to happen it requires that there exist, at the most rudimentary level, what is known as the "TCP Three-way handshake." This handshake is when two machines on the Internet wish to establish a connection. In layman terms, in order for that handshake to occur the sender extends a signal to the recipient saying, "Here I am, let's talk." The recipient replies to the sender saying, "Okay, go ahead." Finally the sender acknowledges that they have shaken hands. In order for this back and forth to occur, which is required for any Usenet posting to happen, the IP addresses cannot be spoofed or the handshake would never complete. What if someone was following around Mr. Truong? This is highly unlikely given the preponderance of evidence, however it can be easily proven false by correlating ISP billing records to IP address leases. ISPs maintain a timestamped log of what customer is assigned what IP address at what time. What if someone used Mr. Truong's name on the ISP bill? Again, as we enter areas of criminal identity fraud, it is unlikely someone would go to these measures to cover their tracks, however, this can be verified by contacting the credit card issuer and verifying it is a legitimate account in good standing and correlating purchases on the card with other known valid purchases. Conclusion The report provides over a dozen different data points from IP addresses to locations to user-agents and more that all lead to a single conclusion with an overwhelming amount of evidence. The methods used by Mr. Mottershead were appropriate and accurate. There is also far too much public evidence for it to have been tampered with. Even if the forum logs were compromised, that doesn't change the Usenet postings and the surrounding evidence, which could not have been altered. It's my belief that this report has been compiled in an accurate way that deserves recognition for its comprehensive depth and detail. Thank you, David Ulevitch Briefly, Brian Mottershead issued a report, now known as The Mottershead Report, on September 26, 2007 in which he charged that Paul Truong is responsible for assuming others' identities and posting objectionable messages on Usenet's rec.games.chess.politics. Robert Jones of Craic Computing LLC had issued an expert opinion previously as well. http://rs235.rapidshare.com/files/62649719/mottershead.zip http://craic.com/forensics/uscf_usenet_analysis/USCF_Usenet_Abuse_Report_20071206.pdf ============================== -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2008 09:26:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
On Jan 24, 11:08 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > My reaction to the "Back Orifice" theory of PT > >being the hapless victim of a super-sophisticated > >hacker via a remote-controlled trojan, is to wonder > >why any such person would choose to target Paul > >Truong, instead of Sam Sloan (or someone else). > > super sophisticated hacker using BO??? lol any 12yr old > could 'hack' with it. > > Back orifice or any other script kiddy tool requires 0 sophistication > or skill to use. I think you misinterpreted big time; my reference above was to a *poster* using a moniker of "Back Orifice", or something very similar. I have not made any comments about a piece of software by that name. -- hlep tob
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 13:20:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
On Jan 24, 10:22 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote: > > It would seem to make more sense to target SS, > > so that when he started complaining about the > > Fake SS postings, and after months of such > > complaints, the "evidence" would show that the > > Fake SS was... Sam Sloan himself! > > That's the 2200 answer. > > What's the 2700 answer? Zzz. : >D BTW, I have no idea what the "other", supposedly competing org. is. I thought the USCF was in a class by itself, founded after the example of FIDE, and run by self-serving, bloated egotists, just like its model. The main difference being that FIDE has millionaires, while the USCF has, well, Sam Sloan types. -- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 07:05:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
My reaction to the "Back Orifice" theory of PT being the hapless victim of a super-sophisticated hacker via a remote-controlled trojan, is to wonder why any such person would choose to target Paul Truong, instead of Sam Sloan (or someone else). It would seem to make more sense to target SS, so that when he started complaining about the Fake SS postings, and after months of such complaints, the "evidence" would show that the Fake SS was... Sam Sloan himself! It's a bit like a scene from the movie, Ice Station Zebra; when the subine captain, played by Rock Hudson, accuses one of the other main characters of trying to sink the sub, he simply replies that, being in charge of the mission, he could no doubt find some way for it to fail, which did not entail his own death at the bottom of the sea. In sum, I fail to see the "logic" in framing Paul Truong; why /him/? The only person I know of with a grudge against PT is Sam Sloan... . -- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2008 04:08:45
From:
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:05:30 -0800 (PST), help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > My reaction to the "Back Orifice" theory of PT >being the hapless victim of a super-sophisticated >hacker via a remote-controlled trojan, is to wonder >why any such person would choose to target Paul >Truong, instead of Sam Sloan (or someone else). super sophisticated hacker using BO??? lol any 12yr old could 'hack' with it. Back orifice or any other script kiddy tool requires 0 sophistication or skill to use.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2008 10:15:30
From: script-kiddy
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
J.Lohner <[email protected] > wrote on Jan 24 2008: > >On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:05:30 -0800 (PST), help bot ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> My reaction to the "Back Orifice" theory of PT >>being the hapless victim of a super-sophisticated >>hacker via a remote-controlled trojan, is to wonder >>why any such person would choose to target Paul >>Truong, instead of Sam Sloan (or someone else). > >super sophisticated hacker using BO??? lol any 12yr old >could 'hack' with it. > >Back orifice or any other script kiddy tool requires 0 >sophistication or skill to use. J.Lohner you are right. If you didnt know, this is about a chess lawsuit from the political board. The nonexperts Mottershead, Jones, Ulevitch havent heard of BO, either NetBus, HackIt, Geddin, Sub7! If it makes it to open court that expert will be laughed at and demolished when Truong's team demonstrated how such tools can take over the remote pc. I played with 2 of these scripts, darned easy to use. One thing you may not appreciate, the late update of HackIt (or sub7?) has a cool detonate feature and do an excellent self wipe (sector-level). The only traces may be in the firewall logs, if these were on. The question - could S.Loon do what any 12yr old could? Which other EB member or other ex-member could? Truong has no gain from setting himself up in this, he gets to talk and make love to a beautiful talented grandmaster when ever he wishes. To contrast, check out what S.Loon has to make do with, explains a lot. ; >D Add:: alt.comp.virus,alt.privacy www.samsloan.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2008 13:50:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
On Jan 25, 4:00 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote: > I would think a simple comparison to Judit would render any further analysis > of this line moot. I've always thought there really was no comparison; that's why I find the lies and fabrications on SP's Web site to be so ludicrous. Oh, wait... you were talking about their looks! Once again, it would be best if those who had seen them in person could comment, as photos can easily be doctored. Without makeup. -- help bot
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2008 22:26:44
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
help bot wrote: > On Jan 25, 4:00 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I would think a simple comparison to Judit would render any further analysis >> of this line moot. > > I've always thought there really was no > comparison; that's why I find the lies and > fabrications on SP's Web site to be so > ludicrous. > > Oh, wait... you were talking about their > looks! Once again, it would be best if > those who had seen them in person > could comment, as photos can easily be > doctored. Without makeup. > > > -- help bot It might be a blessing to have that eye problem in the morning. :-)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2008 09:35:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
On Jan 25, 5:45 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote: > The troll almost had me until "beautiful." A recent post by Sam Sloan had a link to a page on which there were some pics of SP which looked pretty good. Granted, even TV commercials for White Diamonds perfume can make someone "look pretty good" by making extensive use of blur, and shooting from as far back as Cleveland, but what egomaniac grandmaster is going to have the wherewithal to realize they need to doctor their own photos? Maybe some people who have seen her in person could comment. -- help bot
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2008 16:00:27
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
> Maybe some people who have seen her in > person could comment. I would think a simple comparison to Judit would render any further analysis of this line moot. -- Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy Ray's new "Project 5000" is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which no longer work. Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS: http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187 Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2008 05:45:01
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
>>Back orifice or any other script kiddy tool requires 0 >>sophistication or skill to use. > > J.Lohner you are right. If you didnt know, this is about > a chess lawsuit from the political board. The nonexperts > Mottershead, Jones, Ulevitch havent heard of BO, either > NetBus, HackIt, Geddin, Sub7! If it makes it to open > court that expert will be laughed at and demolished when > Truong's team demonstrated how such tools can take over > the remote pc. "Can" does not mean "did" and even if it "did" then the question is "who?" Even then, there's a question of negligence, given how long this was allegedly going on. > The question - could S.Loon do what any 12yr old could? > Which other EB member or other ex-member could? Truong > has no gain from setting himself up in this, he gets to > talk and make love to a beautiful talented grandmaster > when ever he wishes. The one he claimed for years to only have a business relationship with? The troll almost had me until "beautiful." Dump the chess goggles. -- Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy Ray's new "Project 5000" is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which no longer work. Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS: http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187 Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 10:22:58
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
> It would seem to make more sense to target SS, > so that when he started complaining about the > Fake SS postings, and after months of such > complaints, the "evidence" would show that the > Fake SS was... Sam Sloan himself! That's the 2200 answer. What's the 2700 answer? -- Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy Ray's new "Project 5000" is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which no longer work. Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS: http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187 Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 15:50:03
From: Super
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
In article <[email protected] > "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote: > > > It would seem to make more sense to target SS, > > so that when he started complaining about the > > Fake SS postings, and after months of such > > complaints, the "evidence" would show that the > > Fake SS was... Sam Sloan himself! > > That's the 2200 answer. > > What's the 2700 answer? > > Zzzz.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 05:54:28
From: Back Orifice
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
On 23 January 2008 J.D. Walker <[email protected] > wrote: > http://chessusa.blogspot.com/2008/01/expert-opinion-mottershead-report.html > > Opinion of Mottershead report submitted to the USCF > > David Ulevitch > December 17, 2007 > > Introduction > > On or around October 5th, 2007 I was contacted by a reporter from > The New York Times to provide some background information and expert > advice regarding an article he was preparing that was ultimately > published on October 8th, 2007 as "Chess Group Officials Accused of > Using Internet to Hurt Rivals." > > My background in Internet Security spans almost 10 years during > which time I have worked for Internet Service Providers, Universities > and businesses, as well as run a number of my own. I am considered an > expert security practitioner. I have also had extensive experience > working with various national and international law enforcement > organizations in a consulting capacity. > > My intention in this letter is to provide a perspective on the > techniques used by Brian Mottershead in his report to the USCF. This > report should be considered a preliminary release. My analysis of the > Mottershead report is complete but I expect I may revise this report > to add clarification as needed based on feedback. I am happy to do so. > For the record, I have never been a member of the USCF, I do not know > any of the parties involved personally and I have no known vested > interest in this issue other than to help provide an honest and > accurate perspective of the Mottershead report. > > My initial reaction to the Mottershead report was an appreciation > for the detailed level of evidence and chronology of research that is > provided. Typically, when doing computer forensics, it is common to > attempt to tie what you know with what you don't know. This is exactly > what Mr. Mottershead did, many times in his report. When you can > correlate the known with the unknown as many times as Mr. Mottershead > did in his report you create a crystal clear depiction of activity and > actions that can stand up on their own. Furthermore, subpoenaing > billing records from both ISPs and credit card companies can extend > this chain of evidence by directly linking an IP address to the ISP > and to an individual paying the bills. It is my opinion, and as I'll > show from some examples below, I find this step unnecessary. > > Excerpt 1: > > Since the IP addresses of Usenet posters are public information, > and in the USCF web logs and database I had information as to the IP > addresses of USCF members accessing the forums, it seemed likely that > I would be able to identify the USCF member account that was being > used by the Fake Sam Sloan to mis-appropriate USCF Issues forum posts > for his posts on Usenet. > > Mr. Mottershead is accurate in his explanation of what he wants to > accomplish. He is correct in stating that Usenet postings are tied to > an IP address. The IP address recorded in these types of posts cannot > be spoofed. He also knows the login name for the parties involved on > the internal USCF member forums and their posting IP address. This too > cannot be spoofed. By connecting what he knows, with what is publicly > archived by Google (and others) he can create a direct correlation. > > Mr. Mottershead shows clearly through examples (a) (b) and (c) > that the IP addresses posting to Usenet and the physical location of > Mr. Truong are directly connected. He also connects that to the known > forum identity of Mr. Truong. To be clear, three facts have just been > established: > > 1)The Usenet postings are being posted from the same physical > location that Mr. Truong is believed to be in at the time of the > posting. > 2)The IP addresses on the USCF forums, which are tied to the > username used by Mr. Truong, are also being made from the same > physical location that Mr. Truong is believed to be in at the time of > the posting. > 3)In nearly all cases, the IP addresses tied to the Usenet > postings are the same as the USCF forum posting IP addresses. > > What about someone spoofing all of this? > > Often, people say that they were spoofed or that their IP address > was hijacked. While it is possible that someone can sometimes change > his or her posting name on a forum or a message board to look like > that of another user (consider "Bob" and "Bob "), the IP address > cannot be spoofed. > Let me explain why an IP address cannot be spoofed. First, for a > post to Usenet to happen it requires that there exist, at the most > rudimentary level, what is known as the "TCP Three-way handshake." > This handshake is when two machines on the Internet wish to establish > a connection. In layman terms, in order for that handshake to occur > the sender extends a signal to the recipient saying, "Here I am, let's > talk." The recipient replies to the sender saying, "Okay, go ahead." > Finally the sender acknowledges that they have shaken hands. In order > for this back and forth to occur, which is required for any Usenet > posting to happen, the IP addresses cannot be spoofed or the handshake > would never complete. > > What if someone was following around Mr. Truong? > > This is highly unlikely given the preponderance of evidence, > however it can be easily proven false by correlating ISP billing > records to IP address leases. ISPs maintain a timestamped log of what > customer is assigned what IP address at what time. > > What if someone used Mr. Truong's name on the ISP bill? > > Again, as we enter areas of criminal identity fraud, it is > unlikely someone would go to these measures to cover their tracks, > however, this can be verified by contacting the credit card issuer and > verifying it is a legitimate account in good standing and correlating > purchases on the card with other known valid purchases. > > Conclusion > > The report provides over a dozen different data points from IP > addresses to locations to user-agents and more that all lead to a > single conclusion with an overwhelming amount of evidence. The methods > used by Mr. Mottershead were appropriate and accurate. There is also > far too much public evidence for it to have been tampered with. Even > if the forum logs were compromised, that doesn't change the Usenet > postings and the surrounding evidence, which could not have been > altered. > > It's my belief that this report has been compiled in an accurate > way that deserves recognition for its comprehensive depth and detail. > > Thank you, > David Ulevitch Ulevitch is no expert, Greg - he never even mentions the possibility that Paul's PC was corrupted by trojan malware and remote controlled! That way naturally the IP and User-Agent string will agree with those of Paul's real posts to the USCF forum - both are coming from the same physical PC, so no IP-spoofing is involved. Ulevitch would make a very poor cybercrook. D. Ulevitch needs to instal Back Orifice somewhere. Any suggestion where? He is as ignorant as Brian Mottershead. At least Jones had some credibility, he addressed the likelihood of trojan control though he misunderestimated its significance until Stray Cat corrected him. When Dr Jones went quiet. Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com! border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t- online.de!t-online.de!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net! news.mixmin.net!news.bananasplit.info!mail2news Subject: An open letter to Dr. C.Jones, ref. Sloan v. Truong CC: [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics From: Stray Cat <[email protected] > X-Inject: http://www.giganews.com X-Complaints-To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected] > Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:55:28 +0100 X-Abuse-Contact: [email protected] Organization: Bananasplit - Mail2News On Jan 1, 11:55 am, Stray Cat <[email protected] > wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 An open message to Dr. C.Jones <[email protected] > Dr. Jones: A printout of (part or all, but I think all) of your report was forwarded to me for comment by someone who wishes at this stage to stay unnamed, which means that I too must remain anonymous. Hence this unorthodox mode of communication, for which I apologize. I am not soliciting or expecting a reply, but I have provided you with a means of replying that is private, should you so desire. The motivation of my contact is, AFAIK, the protection of the USCF, an organization which has afforded both of us pleasure for decades. In broad terms, my relevant qualifications are on a par with yours. I agree with most of your report. Therefore, what appears below comprises either an additional point or a disagreement. I have checked and found accurate the following table which was prepared by someone else. It is an analysis of "posting gaps" in the FSS deposits into Usenet: -------------------------------------- Jun 30,2005 -- > 12 (1) --> Jul 12,2005 Jul 19,2005 -- > 110 (4) --> Nov 5,2005 Nov 8,2005 -- > 28 (2) --> Nov 26,2005 Jan 12,2006 -- > 11 (0) --> Jan 23,2006 25,2006 -- > 8 (0) --> Apr 2,2006 Apr 14,2006 -- > 23 (3) --> Apr 23,2006 May 30,2006 -- > 6 (0) --> Jun 5,2006 Jul 4,2006 -- > 56 (1) --> Aug 29,2006 Sep 28,2006 -- > 29 (4) --> Oct 28,2006 Nov 18,2006 -- > 11 (1) --> Nov 29,2006 Jan 18,2007 -- > 5 (0) --> Jan 23,2007 Feb 18,2007 -- > 5 (0) --> Feb 23,2007 Apr 6,2007 -- > 5 (0) --> Apr 11,2007 Apr 19,2007 -- > 7 (1) --> Apr 26,2007 May 9,2007 -- > 11 (2) --> May 20,2007 Jun 5,2007 -- > 46 (3) --> Jul 21,2007 Jul 30,2007 -- > 8 (1) --> Aug 8,2007 Aug 12,2007 -- > 10 (1) --> Aug 22,2007 Aug 27,2007 -- > 10 (0) --> Sep 6,2007 Sep 19,2007 -- > 6 (0) --> Sep 25,2007 -------------------------------------- To assist in interpreting the table, an example was given: "Look at the second line of the dataset. That means there was a vacation of 110 continuous days from Jul 19 to Nov 5 2005 when EFSS did not post, except for (4) very short periods of resumption (none of which was more than 2 days long, and some might be just a couple minutes of posting)." I add that: 1_ The quoted dates themselves are not included in the gap, but represent dates of posting at each extreme; 2_ UTC appears to have been used for resolving dates; 3_ I have confirmed that no other "posting gap" exceeding 4 days existed during the test period as set out in Mottershead. This analysis can give useful additional insights. While verifying it, I also verified your interleave analysis. <quote Jones > It would require considerable sophistication for some one to hijack the "chesspromotion" computer and use it to interact with remote websites without the real user being aware of it. I do not view this as a likely scenario. </quote Jones > I totally disagree with you on your apparent dismissal of the likelihood of a trojan infection explaining the observations. Your admitted stated lack of familiarity with the people involved, and therefore also with their levels of determination, motivation, time-availability, financial resources and, most importantly, technical sophistication, renders what might have been, against a different backdrop, a perfectly reasonable view, into one that is hard to objectively justify. Let us hypothetically assume that you possess all the qualities stated in the preceding para, saving the technical expertise, which I guess I do not have to go hypothetical about. Are you honestly suggesting that, given the opportunity for installing malware such as
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2008 01:26:16
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
Why is this being posted in the alt.comp.virus NG? EZoto
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2008 03:57:30
From: Solo
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
In article <[email protected] > EZoto <[email protected] > wrote: > > > Why is this being posted in the alt.comp.virus NG? > > EZoto I give up. Why are you posting in APAS?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2008 15:45:39
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report discredited - Expert?
|
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:57:30 +0000 (UTC), Solo <[email protected] > wrote: >In article <[email protected]> >EZoto <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Why is this being posted in the alt.comp.virus NG? >> >> EZoto > >I give up. Why are you posting in APAS? I apologize for that. I didn't know I was crossposting until I sent it too late. This sam sloan clown does this all the time. Every message has to have posts in other groups that have nothing to do with chess. I should have known better. EZoto
|
|
Date: 23 Jan 2008 20:41:10
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Ulevitch Report
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Dear Chess Friends, > > This is wonderful long-anticipated news! The third report has shown > definite signs of emerging on the public scene. This is so very welcome > in our current climate of transparency! How many reports do we need > before our skeptics can admit that smoke does indeed strongly suggest > fire? > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. Truong supporters will never make such an admission. ChaChing. GUILTY!
|
|