Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Gabriel Rocha wrote: I just checked out http://www.aljazeera.net/ and there is a big red US flag on the front, courtesy of the Freedom Cyber Force Militia... well, perhaps aljazeera needs better network people... It's definitly being jammed in Wisconsin - I get the error: www.aljazerra.net could not be found. Plese check the name and try again. Same error for .org and .com too - you'd think somebody would be spoofing them if nothing else. Info war at it's best :-) At least I can still pick up VoR on a good night. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
At 01:46 AM 3/28/03 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote: It's a cool toy, but I can't see someone using a $1M e-bomb when a $1000 Mk.82 will do the same thing, especially if there's any chance it'll be captured intact by an enemy who can... hmm, there's a thought: Oh dear! Peter, these are *free* to the people who make and use them. As a mil researcher, one would be eager to try out one's new gizmos in the field. As would all the deskjockeys who $upported your project and expect to advance their career$ if it works. A explosive driven ebomb would act just like a regular bomb to anyone standing nearby, although all that wire would be rather strange shrapnel to a naif EOD person. Iraqis don't have time to dupe it, and the Russians, Chinese, etc. can make their own. Real reason not to give it a try, once you're willing to risk knocking out civilian TVs and spec-ops radios and phones, is the *opportunity cost*. That's one bomb-pod you can't use for a known reg'lar bomb, and you are after all spending time, fuel, and life-risk-credits on your sorties. --- ...our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us. -- Winston Churchill, January 1914
Regarding linear recurrences.
hi,
Need help on understanding the following marix
multiplication.
let _ denote subscript.
w=32 bits(0 to 31)
let X be a 32 bit vector
X={X_(w -1),x_(w-2),..x_0}
A=
|1 0 . .|
|0 .|
|. . |
|. .|
|a_(w-1) a_(w-2)a_0 |
i.e A is an identity matrix w ith last row entries
a_(w-1) a_(w-2)a_0 which is again a 32 bit vector
We multiply 1*w matrix X with w*w matrix to get a 1*w
matrix as follows
X*A=[X_(w-1)+ X_0*a_*(w-1) , X_(w-2)+
X_(w-2)*a_(w-2),..., X_1+ X_1*a_1 ,
X_0*a_0];
it is said- X*A can be calculated using bit wise
operations as follows
X*A
=
XOR {0 if the least significant bit of
y=0;(multiplying A)
XOR (a if the least significant bit of
y=1;(multiplying A)
how does this hold?
thank you.
Regards Sarath.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Regarding linear recurrences.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
let X be a 32 bit vector
X={X_(w -1),x_(w-2),..x_0}
These are the coefficients of a polynomial, and all the values are in
the set {0,1}.
A=
|1 0 . .|
|0 .|
|. . |
|. .|
|a_(w-1) a_(w-2)a_0 |
These are known coefficients. All the a_j are in the set {0,1}.
i.e A is an identity matrix w ith last row entries
a_(w-1) a_(w-2)a_0 which is again a 32 bit vector
We multiply 1*w matrix X with w*w matrix to get a 1*w
matrix as follows
X*A=[X_(w-1)+ X_0*a_*(w-1) , X_(w-2)+
X_(w-2)*a_(w-2),..., X_1+ X_1*a_1 ,
X_0*a_0];
That doesn't look right. It should be X*A =
X_(w-1) + X_(w-2) + ... X_1 + X0*[a_(w-1) + a_(w-2) + ... + a_0]
it is said- X*A can be calculated using bit wise
operations as follows
X*A
=
XOR {0 if the least significant bit of
y=0;(multiplying A)
XOR (a if the least significant bit of
y=1;(multiplying A)
how does this hold?
I think you are forgetting the polynomials that go along with all the
coefficients. It's not just X_(w-1), it's X_(w-1)*x^(w-1). Then you
check the last bit of X - if it's 0 all the terms of the last row of
A go away. If it's 1 then you just XOR all the A coefficients of the
last row (which obviously must be the specific coefficients of the
same degree of the polynomial) with X.
So these are coefficients of polynomials. Otherwise you end up with 1 bit
total. I don't think that's the right result :-)
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
Red flags over America
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 05:23 AM, Gabriel Rocha wrote: I just checked out http://www.aljazeera.net/ and there is a big red US flag on the front, courtesy of the Freedom Cyber Force Militia... well, perhaps aljazeera needs better network people... A big red US flag is, of course, ironically appropriate. Pax Americana--We Do Stalinism Right! Homeland Security--Have you turned in a neighbor today? --Tim May
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
At 10:36 PM 3/26/03 -0800, Sarad AV wrote: there is a lot of self [fnord] imposed sensor ship in US on the war.The Us pows's shown on al-jazeera were not broadcasted over Us and those sites which had pictures of POW's were removed as unethical graphics on web pages. We should be faxing these images to random fax machines. As political speech, it cannot be regulated, including any requirement for a call-back number. --- Only YOU can prevent fire-fights. --Smokey the Forward Air Controller
Re: Things are looking better all the time
At 09:09 PM 3/26/03 -0600, Neil Johnson wrote: In a news conference on Tuesday, some general claimed they had located and taken out six sites where GPS jammers were being used. He claimed one site had been taken out with a GPS guided weapon. Kind of Ironic I beleive he said. Well, the satellites were *above* and the jammers *below* so its not that tricky. There's descriptions of the Mk-3 Tomahawk's antijamming ability out there. The proper use of a GPS jammer is *not* CW when you're fighting the US. The proper use is to switch them on when a spotter lets you know about incoming. Preferably you are in a nonbombable area (mosque, hospital, etc) when you switch on, and you promptly move after the incoming goes off. The goal being to increase bad PR, ie collateral damage aka civvy corpses. (Before Al Jazeera is accidentally bombed off the air.)
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
at Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:36 AM, Sarad AV [EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say: there is a lot of self imposed sensor ship in US on the war.The Us pows's shown on al-jazeera were not broadcasted over Us and those sites which had pictures of POW's were removed as unethical graphics on web pages. May be the US itself might be stopping access to al-jazeera networks. It certainly sounds probable. All the US and UK coverage is being very carefully stage-managed - all reporters are embedded into units for a reason - they are permitted to film what they are told, when they are told, and striking out on your own (or using a uplink to upload raw news to the newsroom carries the death penalty - as the ITN crew found out. Having a raw source of news - particularly one that carries pictures of young children being pulled from the rubble minus their legs - cannot possibly be tolerated. That isn't to say *that* source isn't biassed as well - try finding pro-COW coverage, and there must be at least some of the pro-COW coverage that our major media puts out that isn't faked.
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Gabriel Rocha[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Mar 27, at 06:33AM, Mike Rosing wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ host www.aljazeera.net www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186 This is from the US, fyi. It also works (and even resolves to the same thing :) from other hosts outside the US) Really? I'm getting sent to dotster (a domain hoarding site) when I try to access this as http://216.34.94.186 Peter Trei
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
I just checked out http://www.aljazeera.net/ and there is a big red US flag on the front, courtesy of the Freedom Cyber Force Militia... well, perhaps aljazeera needs better network people...
Re: Things are looking better all the time [TERROR ALERT: Cerenkov Blue]
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 08:41 AM, John Kelsey wrote: At 08:28 AM 3/26/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 06:12 PM 3/25/03 -0500, John Kelsey wrote: ... Maybe the FBI caught them and disarmed the bombs before they went off. And they didn't claim any credit? This doesn't jibe with the puffery one observes. Well, there's puffery, and then there's trying to avoid panic. Though I'll agree this looks less plausible after the all Americans should have duct tape and plastic to wrap their houses announcements. But I'm trying to imagine the fallout (sorry) from announcing on CNN that they'd just found and disarmed a nuke that had been hidden in an apartment building in Manhattan. (Officials said the bomb, which had approximately the same destructive power as the one used at Hiroshima, would have killed more than a million people if set off. In related news, the 200-mile-long traffic jam caused by refugees flooding out of the city continued today, and the NYSE announced that they would be moving operations to an undisclosed location in New Jersey for the forseeable future.) This is a very good analysis. I had not considered that some WMDs might have been discovered and dealt with, but then not publicized for the reasons you describe. However, it seems to me it would be very hard for this news not to leak out. If, say, a nuke or serious bioterror weapon had been found in a major city, a lot of agencies would have had knowledge of it. It seems to me that at least one person would have said something, leaked it to the press, etc., for any of the usual reasons. Such a thing could probably be kept secret for a few days, but not for months, it seems to me. Still, in this Orwellian era where the invasion of Iraq is called Operation Iraqi Freedom, where the fact that the U.N. and most countries oppose this invasion results in the Coalition of the Willing, and where other doublespeak is rampant, I suppose the authorities will do what they can to not scare the sheeple. Rumsfield is promising that the reasons for the invasion--Iraq's banned weapons--will still be found. So far, they haven't been, not in any of the regions yet invaded, and with no signs of them being used...the rockets launched at COW and COWait have been Al-Fatah missile, which were not banned. I don't doubt that there are probably some undestroyed missiles or even some chemical agents somewhere in a country as large as Iraq...bookkeeping errors alone would probably guarantee this. But it is so far looking like the U.S. will have some serious explaining to do if stockpiles of banned weapons are not found. The DOD and CIA are probably creating them right now. --Tim May, Occupied America They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
This is from the US, fyi. It also works (and even resolves to the same thing :) from other hosts outside the US) Yup, I get it from the UK, though I didn't get it two and three days ago. URLs are all in English, though this may be normal. BTW, does anyone know about www.aljezeerah.info ? I've been getting my news from there since the start of the war, but I don't know what links it has with, say, www.aljazeera.net, since I never got there before. It's all in English, but I'm not sure about the actual affiliation and editorial line, if anyone can shed some light. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: Yup, I get it from the UK, though I didn't get it two and three days ago. URLs are all in English, though this may be normal. BTW, does anyone know about www.aljezeerah.info ? I've been getting my news from there since the start of the war, but I don't know what links it has with, say, www.aljazeera.net, since I never got there before. It's all in English, but I'm not sure about the actual affiliation and editorial line, if anyone can shed some light. It's definitly jammed in the US. I get 503 - out of resources error. Maybe you guys can set up a mirror that isn't jammed and the US can see it that way (at least until the feds catch wind of it). Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, 'Gabriel Rocha' wrote: Gotta contact exodus to find out whom they have alocated that subnet block... [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ whois -h whois.arin.net 216.34.94.186 [whois.arin.net] I can run that via telnet to my isp, and get the same response (good!) OrgName:Cable Wireless OrgID: EXCW Address:3300 Regency Pkwy City: Cary StateProv: NC PostalCode: 27511 Country:US Makes it easy for the US to control the info flow :-) I'll send these guys some e-mail and see if I get any response. OrgTechHandle: EIAA-ARIN OrgTechName: Exodus IP Address Administration OrgTechPhone: +1-888-239-6387 OrgTechEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OrgTechHandle: GIAA-ARIN OrgTechName: Global IP Address Administration OrgTechPhone: +1-919-465-4096 OrgTechEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The last one looks like the main one to contact. This should be interesting and fun :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote: Gabriel Rocha[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Mar 27, at 06:33AM, Mike Rosing wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ host www.aljazeera.net www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186 This is from the US, fyi. It also works (and even resolves to the same thing :) from other hosts outside the US) Really? I'm getting sent to dotster (a domain hoarding site) when I try to access this as http://216.34.94.186 I'm not a router guru, maybe somebody can explain these results: $ dig 216.34.94.186 ; DiG 9.2.0 216.34.94.186 ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 2646 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;216.34.94.186. IN A ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 86400 IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2003032700 1800 900 604800 86400 ;; Query time: 113 msec ;; SERVER: 128.104.20.18#53(128.104.20.18) ;; WHEN: Wed Mar 26 23:19:48 2003 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 106 $ host 216.34.94.186 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa is an alias for 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer redirect.dnsix.com. How do I chase this thing down to who actually owns it? Note I do get: $ host www.aljazeera.net www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186 So why the original error response if host can find it? Interesting! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Thanks. One thing you should know - if you visit it, ip alone won't work. Add it to your hosts file as 207.150.192.12 www.aljazeerah.info (no quotes, on a line by itself) as the site wants host header names and the ip isn't enough. in unix it's /etc/hosts, in w2k it's %systemroot%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts in win9x it should be just c:\windows\hosts (not sure, don't care) --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: Got an ip for .info? I can't resolve that from here. 207.150.192.12 -- Vincent Penquerc'h
Re: aljazeera.net hacked again?
I don't think it matters what we do, check this out: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/26/HNjazeera_1.html They can down one server pretty easily. They can't down a hundred of servers so swiftly. Besides, if the problem is in DNS, we can employ the hosts file and set up the DNS record there; the inverse approach works neatly for blocking ads. In unixes, the file is /etc/hosts (or setting up a dedicated resolver[1]), in Windows it is (I think) c:\windows\hosts or c:\winnt\hosts (not sure). This really is infowar, and I suspect the US government is the hacker. Infowar? Aren't at least some of us the right kind of warriors? Isn't the adversary worth of some nicely challenging fight? :) [1] Combination of dnscache and tinydns (from the djbdns package) which I am using as the resolver for my company LAN allowed neat workarounds against DNS lookups failing in the days of the Sapphire Worm attack; set the resolver for a given domain to 127.0.0.1 (where the tinydns is), then tell the tinydns that the given domain name has a given IP address. No reason why it shouldn't work now as well. Also, the people with unix machines exposed to the world could serve as ad-hoc public, semi-public, or community DNS resolvers, too many of too meaningless targets to worry about (...and dnscache is much more bulletproof than BIND, the infamous Buggy Internet Name Daemon). Together with semi-public or community mirrors, fed from an ad-hoc mailinglist[2] feed of updates (possibly GPG-signed, to avoid false data injected by the Adversaries), this could give us some time of uninterfered data feed. [2] The mailinglist servers will be a weak point of this structure. However, this structure can be distributed as well, or having a list of alternate servers to switch to when the current ones get under attack. The adversary should become aware about the list only by the data being already sent out, which is the time to switch to another server; a round-robin scheme can be used for switching them, or a random sequence. The key for success lies in the distribution. Too many of too meaningless targets. The Adversary has the equivalent of a high-caliber gun and a lot of armor-penetrating ammo. This is useful against a tank squad or a fortress, but worthless against an army of ants.
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Connecting to www.aljazeera.net[216.34.94.186]:80... failed: Attempt to connect timed out without establishing a connection. Retrying. I get it again now, but... Strangely, Opera does reach it fast and all (though I suspect it's hitting a mirror though I explicitely refresh) but wget reached it though it waits indefinitely after the 200 OK. Maybe just overload due to heavy success (or script kiddie activity). I eventually got /index.html, and it's the Dotster page someone spoke of earlier ??? I'm starting to wonder whether Opera is using an IP it had cached earlier, whereas wget resolves anew and hits the new DNS records, which have changed since then... $ wget http://www.aljazeera.net/ --18:47:59-- http://www.aljazeera.net/ = `index.html' Resolving www.aljazeera.net... done. Connecting to www.aljazeera.net[216.34.94.186]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] [ = ] 15,01512.45K/s 18:49:57 (12.45 KB/s) - Read error at byte 15015 (Connection reset by peer).Retr ying. --18:49:57-- http://www.aljazeera.net/ (try: 2) = `index.html' Connecting to www.aljazeera.net[216.34.94.186]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] [ = ] 29,15330.58K/s 18:49:59 (30.58 KB/s) - `index.html' saved [29153] -- Vincent Penquerc'h
Re: aljazeera.net hacked again?
I don't think it matters what we do, check this out: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/26/HNjazeera_1.html This really is infowar, and I suspect the US government is the hacker. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote: It's definitly jammed in the US. I get 503 - out of resources error. Maybe you guys can set up a mirror that isn't jammed and the US can see it that way (at least until the feds catch wind of it). At this moment, http://english.aljazeera.net/ shows some domain registration page with the text This Page has Been Taken Over By Saimoon Bhuiyan. The original server of aljazeera.net was IIS/5.0, the current server is Apache/1.3.26, the hostname resolves to 216.34.94.186. It would be nice to have one alternative distribution channel for the news there, optimally with cooperation of their editors themselves (if they send the files to a mailinglist together with uploading it to the web, it eliminates the phase of fishing the data from an overloaded and permanently hacked machine). Anyone able and willing to organize this?
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
www.aljazeerah.info.3322IN A 207.150.192.12 On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Sunder wrote: Got an ip for .info? I can't resolve that from here.
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
Is it jammed world wide? You're in COW too. Any one from .nl or .de
or .fr who can pick it up still?
Still, www.aljazeerah.info is still accessible if you're feeling
so inclined. Odd though that the Arabic side is down but this one
stays up, if they're aiming for propaganda in their own countries,
mostly English speaking but not much Arabic speaking. Unless they
fear some kind of Arab community backlash from the images ?
I don't believe this is the same site. If the navigation bar weren't
enough to clue you in, perhaps the copyright statement would be:
2002-2003 Copyright \x{00A9} aljazeerah.info aljazeerah.us. All Rights Reserved.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aljazeerah Information Center, P. O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30720, USA
-j
--
Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we're going to be warned about terrorism, can't we be warned
by someone who makes us want to survive?
- Jon Stuart
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
There's no such thing as being jammed (flooded) in the US only or worldwide. Either it's being blocked by packet filters, or it's being flooded with too much traffic. If anyone sees a different traceroute - one that doesn't go through cw, then you may still be able to get to the site. Otherwise, it's got a single connection, and that's down. If you can see it from outside the US only, it's being filtered (i.e. blocked at a router or firewall), not jammed with traffic. If you look at the IP addresses it looks like it's connection is owned by cw as the last cw router is 216.34.64.x. So if it's blocked at cw either by firewall or by flooding, you won't be able to get it from anywhere. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Mike Rosing wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: Well, too late anyway, it seems... --17:37:47-- http://www.aljazeera.net/ = `www.aljazeera.net/index.html' Resolving www.aljazeera.net... done. Connecting to www.aljazeera.net[216.34.94.186]:80... failed: Attempt to connect timed out without establishing a connection. Retrying. [...] Is it jammed world wide? You're in COW too. Any one from .nl or .de or .fr who can pick it up still? Pretty good proof the scum in DC are afraid of propaganda that's not theirs. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Got an ip for .info? I can't resolve that from here. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: Still, www.aljazeerah.info is still accessible if you're feeling so inclined. Odd though that the Arabic side is down but this one stays up, if they're aiming for propaganda in their own countries, mostly English speaking but not much Arabic speaking. Unless they fear some kind of Arab community backlash from the images ?
Brit reporting
I've been enjoying Robert Fisk's reporting from Baghdad in UK's Independent, but Brian Whitaker's daily briefing in the Guardian sometimes has wonderful gems you'd never see in American press: Centcom's increasingly fraught press briefings in Qatar seem designed to provide junk news for the pliant American media while reporters from the rest of the world demand real answers to real questions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/dailybriefing/story/0,12965,923655,00.html -- stuart Anyone who tells you they want a utopia wants to put chains on the souls of your children. They want to deny history and strangle any unforeseen possibility. They should be resisted to the last breath. -Bruce Sterling-
Under cover of war ...
State legislatures pass all kids of authoritarian measures ... http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20030327/1028333.asp When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty --- Thomas Jefferson
Re: aljazeera.net hacked again?
At 07:53 PM 3/27/2003 +0100, you wrote: It's definitly jammed in the US. I get 503 - out of resources error. Maybe you guys can set up a mirror that isn't jammed and the US can see it that way (at least until the feds catch wind of it). At this moment, http://english.aljazeera.net/ shows some domain registration page with the text This Page has Been Taken Over By Saimoon Bhuiyan. The original server of aljazeera.net was IIS/5.0, the current server is Apache/1.3.26, the hostname resolves to 216.34.94.186. It would be nice to have one alternative distribution channel for the news there, optimally with cooperation of their editors themselves (if they send the files to a mailinglist together with uploading it to the web, it eliminates the phase of fishing the data from an overloaded and permanently hacked machine). This is what Freenet is for. Propagation times are sufficiently quick for hourly or so updates, etc. steve
For Rent: One Principality. Prince Not Included.
http://nytimes.com/2003/03/25/international/europe/25LIEC.html?pagewanted=printposition=top The New York Times March 25, 2003 For Rent: One Principality. Prince Not Included. By SARAH LYALL VADUZ, Liechtenstein It seems patently absurd to Sigvard Wohlwend that the entire country of Liechtenstein all 62 square miles of it could be for rent, as if it were some sort of oversized alpine cottage. I'm not for lease! Mr. Wohlwend, a radio reporter and pro-democracy campaigner, declared indignantly as he tried to explain his deep objections to Liechtenstein's unconventional rent-a-state tourism initiative. This whole thing has a very bad taste for me because it shows that we are not taking ourselves seriously as a country. It seems that sometimes it is indeed hard for Liechtenstein to convey gravitas to the world outside. Sandwiched between Austria and Switzerland, it is one of the lesser-known of Europe's anachronistic microstates. Its recently amended Constitution, which gives extensive powers to the governing prince, has been denounced as dangerously retrograde by two committees in the Council of Europe. Some people mistake it for Luxembourg. With tourism down, businesses cutting back on frivolous expenses and the worldwide economy in flux, the rent-a-state program is intended to draw attention to Liechtenstein's Heidi-esque charms and its advantages as a destination for conventions, corporate retreats and the like. Organizations that take part will pay about $320 to $530 a day per person for groups up to 1,200 people for access to the country's hotels, restaurants, meeting places and sports facilities. Companies will also be able to temporarily brand buildings and institutions with their own logos. This allows people to identify themselves with the surroundings and the people, said Karl Schwarzler, chief executive of Xnet, the company in charge of the project. Liechtenstein's location is very interesting, and the country offers things from shopping to mountain biking. There is skiing, paragliding, and we are bordered by the Rhine River. You could even have a whole football stadium for an event. Balzars, one of Liechtenstein's villages (there are no cities), also has Gutenberg Castle, which was once owned by an American actress, Mr. Schwarzler said, demurring on specifics, and would make an ideal part of any rent-a-state weekend package. Participants would be allowed to partake from the wine cellar of the current prince, Hans-Adam II, although they would not be able to rent the prince himself. It's not on the schedule, Mr. Schwarzler said, laughing heartily at the idea of Hans-Adam paragliding with a throng of conventioneering accountants, wearing a corporate logo T-shirt. But it could be that he passes by unexpectedly. Who knows? Tourism officials said there had been some serious inquiries from interested companies, but would not give details. Since the initiative was announced several weeks ago, Liechtenstein has been the butt of some unfriendly jokes in the European news media. In Britain, one tabloid misrendered the project as rent-a-count, raising false hopes that minor members of the royal family might be included in the price. The government and tourism officials are mindful of how the whole thing might be viewed. Daniel Real, who runs a tour group in Vaduz, scoffed at the implication that, for instance, Liechtenstein's entire population of about 32,000 would somehow be obliged to clear out en masse during the rental period, leaving behind the furniture and a number to call if the boiler exploded. I think people pretty well understand that `rent-a-state' doesn't mean that it's your country and that Liechtensteiners would no longer be citizens for the weekend, Mr. Real said. In Parliament, in response to a worried question from a legislator, a government spokesman contended that the program was a positive one, despite being unfairly burdened by an unhappy name. Rumors that the government would be required to hand the key to the country over to renters were unfounded, he said. The title is not very well thought, the spokesman said. It really has nothing to do with the product. Up in Vaduz Castle (which is not part of the rental agreement), Florian Krenkel, a spokesman for Hans-Adam, pronounced the plan a terrific idea and said it vindicated the recent landslide victory for the prince's proposed constitutional changes. The prince had warned that if his proposals were rejected, he would leave the country and settle in Austria. This just shows how much you need the prince and his family, Mr. Krenkel said, pointing out that Liechtenstein's tourism slogan is Princely Moments and saying that Hans-Adam might indeed be enticed to meet some of the corporate renters, if they seemed interesting enough. They are calling it `rent-a-principality,' Mr. Krenkel said, and how could you do it without a prince? --
aljazeera.net blocking
Getting a 503 or any HTTP error means that you are getting through to something that is too busy. An HTTP error jibes with the usual result of a web site hack that takes down the server. But it also could be a result of too many connection attempts. Not being able to resolve the name indicates something different than too many users or a web site hack, since the name information comes from DNS servers which are not on the same network. Simplifying a lot, the ultimate DNS record comes from the registrar who places it on the root servers. If the root servers no longer have the record, then no one will be able to resolve the name (modulo local cache timeouts, usually of a day or so). ALJAZEERA.NET is registered by networksolutions.com (Verisign), who also control most of the root servers as well. Two days ago, ALJAZEERA.NET resolved to an IP address that had a web server on it. Yesterday, it couldn't be resolved. Today it points to 216.34.94.186. 216.34.94.186 appears to belong to a Cable Wireless IP block. A traceroute ends at a CW router that is probably somewhere in America: 9 p0-0-0-1.rar1.sanjose-ca.us.xo.net (65.106.1.65) 4.936 ms 9.793 ms 4.802 ms 10 p0-0.ir1.paloalto-ca.us.xo.net (65.106.5.194) 5.489 ms 5.389 ms 5.461 ms 11 bpr2-so-6-0-0.paloaltopaix.cw.net (206.24.241.213) 5.398 ms 15.071 ms 5.223 ms 12 agr2-loopback.santaclara.cw.net (208.172.146.102) 5.680 ms 5.569 ms 5.802 ms 13 dcr2-so-7-1-0.santaclara.cw.net (208.172.156.185) 7.210 ms 5.810 ms 7.434 ms 14 acr1-loopback.seattle.cw.net (208.172.82.61) 23.783 ms 26.939 ms 23.587 ms 15 bhr1-pos-0-0.tukwilase2.cw.net (208.172.83.130) 24.920 ms 24.461 ms 24.630 ms 16 csr11-ve240.tukwilase2.cw.net (216.34.64.34) 25.067 ms 24.883 ms 24.769 ms 17 * * * 18 * * * They could have picked a bad time to move servers and be doing it incompetently. Hackers could have spoofed Verisign into changing their DNS record, and have broken into router control networks to break their routing. Or the US government could be ordering Verisign and CW to make ALJAZEERA.NET unavailable. Eric
Not that there's any doubt...
but... http://boingboing.net/2003_03_01_archive.html#200055331 Jon Stewart on Halliburton's Iraq contract Jon Stewart -- who appears to be doing the best reportage on the air these days -- reports that the multimillion dollar contract to douse the Iraqi oilfires has awarded with no bid to Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former company. Stewart's comment: I feel like the government just took a shit on my chest. Here's a video capture of the segment. Link Discuss (Thanks Lisa!) posted by Cory Doctorow at 08:58 permanent link to this entry The link goes here: http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001114.php#001114 --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
For the little that I get, this is what I get out of a traceroute: 11 acr2-loopback.Seattle.cw.net (208.172.82.62) 79.920 ms 74.381 ms 88.037 ms 12 bhr2-pos-0-0.Tukwilase2.cw.net (208.172.81.222) 79.107 ms 83.846 ms 91.354 ms 13 * csr11-ve243.Tukwilase2.cw.net (216.34.64.147) 73.553 ms 81.541 ms 14 * * * 15 * * * I've found one DNS server claiming that this is the right ip for it: 216.34.94.186 --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Mike Rosing wrote: It's definitly being jammed in Wisconsin - I get the error: www.aljazerra.net could not be found. Plese check the name and try again. Same error for .org and .com too - you'd think somebody would be spoofing them if nothing else. Info war at it's best :-) At least I can still pick up VoR on a good night.
Re: aljazeera.net hacked again?
Here's what's up: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29984.html Al Jazeera's web site - DDoSed or unplugged? By John Lettice Posted: 27/03/2003 at 16:17 GMT The launch of Arab satellite TV network Al Jazeera's new Web site on Monday drew immediate hack attacks, but this has been swiftly followed up by the disappearance of the site's DNS records. These now point to mydomain.com nameservers, but this company's site is also currently inaccessible; as you might expect, under the circumstances. Al Jazeera (aljazeera.net, for the record) could have been taken offline by DDoS attacks, but considering the timing one is also drawn to the possibility that something involving a Big Red Switch might have been involved. Prior to the site's complete removal company IT manager Salah Al Seddiqui told Reuters that its Qatar- based vendor had said US-based DataPipe could no longer host its site from the end of this month, and that Al Jazeera would be moving its servers to Europe. Al Jazeera had two listed nameservers - one at datapipe.com and one at nav-link.net. NavLink has offices in the US (it's incorporated in Delaware), Europe and the Middle East (the UAE and Lebanon), so there's a logic to Al Jazeera using it. However if the dual-server system is intended to provide some form of resilience it clearly hasn't worked. The problem seems to have taken Al Jazeera unawares. When The Register spoke to the company's London office earlier today they said that their most recent information from Qatar had been that the site was unavailable because of heavy demand, and that they were trying to get through to Qatar for an update. Al Jazeera is not, as you will no doubt have noticed, universally popular, and today in particular it has been heavily criticised by UK military spokesmen for screening pictures of dead British servicemen. But even at the best of times the network is not a customer that many hosting companies in the US would want to boast about. At the worst of times - which probably includes now - it's unlikely the company would stand any chance whatsoever of being accepted by US providers. So it's perfectly possible that someone along the line decided, owing to pressure and/or common prudence, not to continue involvement with the company. This sort of thing might of course trigger legal action, but Al Jazeera itself is well-aware that it treads a very tricky line, so probably won't want to make unnecessary waves. And as its site was already pretty unavailable because of the attacks, and it's said it's heading off to Europe, what difference would it make? That you will note is one of two possible conspiracy theories, and does not necessarily involve US.gov. But we expect that if the site hadn't disappeared already, pretty soon US.gov would get involved until it did - which is conspiracy theory two. The alternative to the conspiracy theories is that weaknesses in Al Jazeera's DNS meant they were vulnerable to load, and that the disappearance of the DNS was therefore a consequence of the attack. As we understand it, this is technically possible, although it has also been suggested to us that the company's DNS did not come under an insupportable load during the attacks. So right now we think the jury is still out. But in the long run the question of whether the company was DDoSed or unplugged will be fairly academic. Given that it's pretty much unthinkable that it could have been allowed to continue running via US companies, it was going to go anyway, one way or the other. Europe might be some form of solution, but one might estimate that here too quite a few hosting outfits will view Al Jazeera as a poisoned chalice, a customer with a profile several notches to high. And even if it does get itself sorted out on the other side of the pond, it will still be likely to gain experience of how much of the Internet, when it comes down to it, is actually US-owned. But perhaps it has some cards. US companies wanting to play in the Middle East are unlikely to find their local operations going down a storm if they're refusing to do business with a popular TV station like Al Jazeera, so they'll be pressured in both directions. That's the trouble with the Internet - it connects things that sometimes you'd rather didn't get connected. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: At 07:53 PM 3/27/2003 +0100, you wrote: It's definitly jammed in the US. I get 503 - out of resources error. Maybe you guys can set up a mirror that
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
If anyone sees a different traceroute - one that doesn't go through cw, then you may still be able to get to the site. Otherwise, it's got a single connection, and that's down. Goes through, but beyond, it seems, from the UK. $ tracert www.aljazeera.net Tracing route to www.aljazeera.net [216.34.94.186] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 10 ms * 10 ms 217.150.100.137 2 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 217.150.97.4 3 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 217.150.96.1 4 10 ms15 ms 10 ms har1-serial6-1-0.London.cw.net [166.63.166.33] 5 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms bcr2.London.cw.net [166.63.162.62] 616 ms16 ms31 ms bcr2-so-7-0-0.Thamesside.cw.net [166.63.209.205] 7 391 ms 390 ms 391 ms acr2-loopback.Seattle.cw.net [208.172.82.62] 8 * 391 ms 375 ms bhr2-pos-0-0.Tukwilase2.cw.net [208.172.81.222] 9 375 ms 407 ms * csr11-ve241.Tukwilase2.cw.net [216.34.64.42] 10 391 ms 406 ms 391 ms jerry.exodus.net [216.34.83.66] 11 407 ms * 391 ms redirect.dnsix.com [216.34.94.186] Trace complete. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
It's definitly jammed in the US. I get 503 - out of resources error. Maybe you guys can set up a mirror that isn't jammed and the US can see it that way (at least until the feds catch wind of it). Well, too late anyway, it seems... --17:37:47-- http://www.aljazeera.net/ = `www.aljazeera.net/index.html' Resolving www.aljazeera.net... done. Connecting to www.aljazeera.net[216.34.94.186]:80... failed: Attempt to connect timed out without establishing a connection. Retrying. --17:38:10-- http://www.aljazeera.net/ (try: 2) = `www.aljazeera.net/index.html' Connecting to www.aljazeera.net[216.34.94.186]:80... failed: Attempt to connect timed out without establishing a connection. Retrying. --17:38:33-- http://www.aljazeera.net/ (try: 3) = `www.aljazeera.net/index.html' Connecting to www.aljazeera.net[216.34.94.186]:80... failed: Attempt to connect timed out without establishing a connection. Retrying. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
This is the placeholder for domain aljazeera.info. If you see Yes, try with a h at the end. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
Re: aljazeera.net blocking
Here's some more info for ya to work with: --forwarded message Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:31:17 -0500 (EST) From: GNOC Provide - IP Address Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Error resolving global address. Mike, This is Exodus legacy space. It now falls under the OrgId of EXCW (Exodus-Cable Wireless). Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks! --end forward On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Eric Murray wrote: Getting a 503 or any HTTP error means that you are getting through to something that is too busy. An HTTP error jibes with the usual result of a web site hack that takes down the server. But it also could be a result of too many connection attempts. Except when we do get thru, it's to the Future Home of a Dotster Registered Domain So it's been hacked. Not being able to resolve the name indicates something different than too many users or a web site hack, since the name information comes from DNS servers which are not on the same network. Simplifying a lot, the ultimate DNS record comes from the registrar who places it on the root servers. If the root servers no longer have the record, then no one will be able to resolve the name (modulo local cache timeouts, usually of a day or so). ALJAZEERA.NET is registered by networksolutions.com (Verisign), who also control most of the root servers as well. Two days ago, ALJAZEERA.NET resolved to an IP address that had a web server on it. Yesterday, it couldn't be resolved. Today it points to 216.34.94.186. So what happened to take it off the DNS servers? That usually takes a few days. 216.34.94.186 appears to belong to a Cable Wireless IP block. A traceroute ends at a CW router that is probably somewhere in America: Yes, that's verified. Now, what was aljazeera.net's ip address 2 or 3 days ago? They could have picked a bad time to move servers and be doing it incompetently. Hackers could have spoofed Verisign into changing their DNS record, and have broken into router control networks to break their routing. Or the US government could be ordering Verisign and CW to make ALJAZEERA.NET unavailable. Of the US government could be the hackers. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
It may have been replaced, but earlier this morning when I heard it was hacked, I pulled it up and it had been replaced with an american flag redirecting the user to http://members.networld.com/freedom2003/index.sb and the message This broadcast was brought to you by: Freedom Cyber Force Militia GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!!! fwiw.
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
I get that from www.aljazeera.ru. The cached pages on google come up with www.aljazeera.net not in the DNS, and the live pages go to the dotster. I did find a live feed that works, but it's in arabic :-( Also, the NYSE kicked al-jazeera reporters out of the exchange: Mar. 26, 2003. 01:00 AM http://www.thestar.com/images/star/nav/tts_spacer.gif?GXHC_gx_session_id_=48f6385cc9749078; Web site may be victim of hackers Only Al-Jazeera servers in U.S. hit NYSE bans network reporters from floor RACHEL ROSS TECHNOLOGY REPORTER It's been a difficult week for Al-Jazeera, the largest Arab satellite news network. Al-Jazeera's new English-language Web site (english.aljazeera.net) launched Monday, was flooded with Internet traffic. Whether that traffic came from hackers or was due to an abundance of interested readers is still unclear. But the net effect was the same: many Web surfers found they couldn't view the site yesterday. Two Al-Jazeera reporters also had their credentials revoked by the New York Stock Exchange. [] Looks like a lot more than just the US servers have been hit :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Pete Mannix wrote: It may have been replaced, but earlier this morning when I heard it was hacked, I pulled it up and it had been replaced with an american flag redirecting the user to http://members.networld.com/freedom2003/index.sb and the message This broadcast was brought to you by: Freedom Cyber Force Militia GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!!! fwiw.
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
At 1:32 AM +1200 on 3/28/03, Peter Gutmann wrote: It's also nothing like highly classified - google for flux compression generator. Not to be confused with a flux capacitor. hyuk! Cheers, RAH No matter where you go, there you are... -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: Still, www.aljazeerah.info is still accessible if you're feeling so inclined. Odd though that the Arabic side is down but this one stays up, if they're aiming for propaganda in their own countries, mostly English speaking but not much Arabic speaking. Unless they fear some kind of Arab community backlash from the images ? Not in the US. I just get: This is the placeholder for domain aljazeera.info. If you see this page after uploading site content you probably have not replaced the index.html file. This page has been automatically generated by Server Administrator. If there's something they won't like, it's this: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/mar/16belg.htm I believe Kissinger is already avoiding France (and probably Spain), it'd be good if he was being chased up in more countries. Yeah, it'd be good if all US leaders got the same treatment :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Is it jammed world wide? You're in COW too. Any one from .nl or .de or .fr who can pick it up still? Still, www.aljazeerah.info is still accessible if you're feeling so inclined. Odd though that the Arabic side is down but this one stays up, if they're aiming for propaganda in their own countries, mostly English speaking but not much Arabic speaking. Unless they fear some kind of Arab community backlash from the images ? Pretty good proof the scum in DC are afraid of propaganda that's not theirs. If there's something they won't like, it's this: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/mar/16belg.htm I believe Kissinger is already avoiding France (and probably Spain), it'd be good if he was being chased up in more countries. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Got an ip for .info? I can't resolve that from here. 207.150.192.12 -- Vincent Penquerc'h
You just gotta love nepotism
Scanning aljazeerah.info I found this: A US delegation arrived in Amman in its way to Baghdad for ceasefire negotiations Abu Dhabi, Alittihad Daily, 3/26/2003 -- The UAE leading semi-official daily newspaper, Alittihad, reported today that a US government delegation has arrived in Amman, Jordan, yesterday in its way to Baghdad for negotiations with the Iraqi government about an immediate ceasefire. A diplomatic source told Alittihad that the US government delegation included four leading members of Congress as well as Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the US Vice President Dick Cheney, representing the US Department of State, -- Just to ensure who owns the oil of course! I'm gonna go puke now, excuseme Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: aljazeera.net hacked again?
This really is infowar, and I suspect the US government is the hacker. I entirely forgot about another, already-existing, infrastructure: P2P networks! Freenet, Gnutella, Kazaa, WinMX, lots and lots of napsteroids. Get the files - images, webpages, whatever you have, package them into suitably-sized files (if the size is too big, split the files to Basic and Advanced sets, separating essential data from accessory eye-candy), upload them to the Net. These networks are already hardened by the ongoing battles with the Copyright Enforcement Industry; it'll be interesting to see how their massiveyl distributed infrastructure will cope in the duel with the Propaganda Enforcement Forces.
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not a router guru, maybe somebody can explain these results: $ dig 216.34.94.186 ; DiG 9.2.0 216.34.94.186 ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 2646 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;216.34.94.186. IN A ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 86400 IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2003032700 1800 900 604800 86400 ;; Query time: 113 msec ;; SERVER: 128.104.20.18#53(128.104.20.18) ;; WHEN: Wed Mar 26 23:19:48 2003 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 106 $ host 216.34.94.186 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa is an alias for 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer redirect.dnsix.com. How do I chase this thing down to who actually owns it? whois aljazeera.net? Registrant: Jazeera Space Channel TV station (ALJAZEERA2-DOM) P.O. Box 231234 Doha QA Domain Name: ALJAZEERA.NET Administrative Contact: AlaliAJ7476, MJ (HCSGDXPWTI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Al Jazeera Space TV Station Po Box. 211234 Doha, QT 7476 QA +974 07 04 17761 +999 999 Technical Contact: VeriSign, Inc. (HOST-ORG)[EMAIL PROTECTED] VeriSign, Inc. 21355 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166 US 1-888-642-9675 Record expires on 31-Aug-2010. Record created on 30-Aug-1996. Database last updated on 27-Mar-2003 14:33:52 EST. Domain servers in listed order: NS3.ALJAZEERA.NET213.30.180.218 ALJNS1SA.NAV-LINK.NET217.26.193.15 Do you want to look for the domain registrars, the people who own the nameservers, the people who own the netblocks the web site lives in, the people who own the netblocks the nameservers live in... ? It looks like, from below, the IP address is with dotster... Note I do get: $ host www.aljazeera.net www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186 So why the original error response if host can find it? Interesting! Because 'host' is doing magic that 'dig' presumes you don't want done. Try this instead of your dig command above: % dig -x 216.34.94.186 ; DiG 8.3 216.34.94.186 ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 2 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; 216.34.94.186, type = A, class = IN ;; Total query time: 97 msec ;; FROM: removed to SERVER: default -- removed ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:34:42 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 31 rcvd: 31 % dig -x 216.34.94.186 ; DiG 8.3 -x ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 4 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1D IN CNAME 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1H IN NS dns02.exodus.net. 94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1H IN NS dns03.exodus.net. 94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1H IN NS dns04.exodus.net. 94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1H IN NS dns01.exodus.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: dns02.exodus.net. 21H IN A209.1.222.245 dns03.exodus.net. 21H IN A209.1.222.246 dns04.exodus.net. 21H IN A209.1.222.247 dns01.exodus.net. 21H IN A209.1.222.244 ;; Total query time: 236 msec ;; FROM: removed to SERVER: default -- removed ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:34:45 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 44 rcvd: 249 (Remember, 216.34.94.186 when doing DNS lookups is actually 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa...) So we take a look at that CNAME... % dig any 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. ; DiG 8.3 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. any ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 23h57m3s IN PTR redirect.dnsix.com. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1d9h19m32s IN NS ns1.dotster.com. 160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. 1d9h19m32s IN NS ns2.dotster.com. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns1.dotster.com.23h44m IN A 64.94.117.199 ns2.dotster.com.23h44m IN A 63.251.83.78 ;; Total query time: 1 msec ;; FROM: removed to SERVER: default -- removed ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:47:36 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 51 rcvd: 159 And voila! We have what looks like a dnsix.com IP
Re: aljazeera.net hacked again?
Hmm, weird -- I just got 64.106.174.80 on a lookup for aljazeera.net, and the same for english.aljazeera.net, but now I'm getting nothing for both. So trying from another server in AL, I get the same IP and can also actually lynx to the site (which I couldn't do from here) but only get a 404 for either one. This is not the IP that was reported before. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: [gulfwar-2] Al-Jazeera Calls... - strategy proposal (fwd)
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 01:45:03AM +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote: If someone manages to convince al-Jazeera editors to publish not only by upload to some server(s) but also by eg. emailing the updated files to several helpers who then either set up mirrors or put them to P2P networks (Freenet http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ is especially suitable for this purpose, because of its inherent load-balancing capabilities). [...] Are there any weaknesses in this scheme? This might be an interesting way to explore identity, credibility, and real-world PKI deployment. In the real world, simply being capable of broadcasting a widely available TV or satellite signal confers a certain amount of crediblity on the broadcaster. At an oversimplified level, people assume that anyone with the resources to do something like that are likely to have some sort of a clue and a certain amount of reliability, because resources are unlikely to remain in the possession of people who don't have those characteristics. (I mean reliability in a judgement-neutral, descriptive way - not that a person with resources is likely to be a good person, just that their behavior is predictable and has an underlying logic or motive.) Random Freenet postings don't carry with them that implied authority or credibility. Part of what's interesting about al-Jazeera is that it's apparently an attempt at creating an Arab CNN - so their credibility is important to them. How do people who download things from Freenet know that they're really from the al-Jazeera that's got satellite time and reporters and resources? al-Jazeera - if they wanted to - could explore signing such posts with some sort of PKI system, and use their existing media assets to vouch for the authenticity of the signing key. Are they going to do it? Seems unlikely to me - ultimately they're not motivated by a desire to bring the truth to the world (or we wouldn't trust them), they're motivated by a desire to make money, probably by licensing their content to satellite operators, cable TV operators, or by selling ad space/time to commercial sponsors. Freenet distribution doesn't help them make money licensing content, and it's difficult to sell ads if you don't have good data about viewership and their demographics, given the attenuated relationship between media ads and subsequent purchases. I think Freenet solves your problem (how can you get access to controversial content?) but I'm not sure it solves their problem (how to support a high-demand high-risk content site with limited resources). Remember that US media sites didn't cope with the traffic generated by the 9/11 attacks very well, either, and there probably wasn't a ton of hostile intent aimed their way, just curiousity. -- Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [gulfwar-2] Al-Jazeera Calls... - strategy proposal (fwd)
At 5:12 PM -0800 3/27/03, Greg Broiles wrote: Are they going to do it? Seems unlikely to me - ultimately they're not motivated by a desire to bring the truth to the world (or we wouldn't trust them), they're motivated by a desire to make money, probably by licensing their content to satellite operators, cable TV operators, or by selling ad space/time to commercial sponsors. Freenet distribution doesn't help them make money licensing content, and it's difficult to sell ads if you don't have good data about viewership and their demographics, given the attenuated relationship between media ads and subsequent purchases. I beg to differ with you here. If the content is signed, then the signed content can include the ads. That binding will create an incentive to keep the ad and the content together. Getting an idea of the readership might be possible with the older file sharing networks by finding which machines have the files. In the end, of course, Al-Jazeera will have to decide whether bypassing censorship while under attack, with the expected increase in readership, and loss of detailed readership information is worth it. It would certainly give the file sharing networks an A1, ACLU approvable, reason for existence. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Boycotting the Unwilling
- In 1977, Congress prohibited U.S. companies from cooperating with the Arab boycott. When President Carter signed the law, he said the issue goes to the very heart of free trade among nations and that it was designed to end the divisive effects on American life of foreign boycotts aimed at Jewish members of our society. - I've seen a number of things like this over the years. While sometimes laws like that are designed to keep US companies from boycotting Israel or South Africa or Burma or black people, and sometimes even enforced, that's usually not the real purpose (unlike laws _requiring_ US companies to boycott Cuba or Iraq or France), just as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act laws that forbid US companies from bribing foreign officials usually aren't intended to hunt down corrupt US companies. The main purpose is to give US companies leverage against foreign governments that want to demand that they boycott Israel or pay bribes, etc. when the US companies *don't* want to cooperate. Without those laws, there are conversations like Sheikh Y: I'll only buy your jets if you don't also sell them to Israel and also pay me $10m under the table and fire all your Jews. US Company A: Can't do that, we've got a big contract with Israel, and our budget for bribes is only $2m, maybe we can stretch to 3? Sheikh Y: Bah! US Company B makes good jets, and they haven't sold one to Israel, and their budget for bribes is $20M. US Company A: Hey, Congresscritter X, can you cut foreign aid to Sheikh Y? With the anti-boycott and FCPA laws, the conversations go like Sheikh Y: I'll only buy your jets if you don't also sell them to Israel and also pay me $10m under the table and fire all your Jews. US Company A: Sorry, US law doesn't let us do either one, and won't let our competitor US company B cooperate with you either, so none of us will boycott Israel, and the biggest gratuity we're allowed to offer is a bottle of Scotch. It's buy it from us or buy it from the French, and we've got Super-Death-6 Missiles and they don't. Sheikh Y: Bah! Alcohol is illegal here, you infidels! Make it a case of MacAllan 25, and you'll have to use my nephew's shipping company to deliver the jets and bribe your Congresscritter to increase our foreign aid. US Company A: Good. We can write that much up so it doesn't look like a bribe, and Congresscritter X usually charges only $100K per vote and might be extra-greatful if you ship him some Cuban cigars. Sorry about the Israel bit, but we really can't do that.
Re: CDR: Re: aljazeera.net hacked again?
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote: This really is infowar, and I suspect the US government is the hacker. I entirely forgot about another, already-existing, infrastructure: P2P networks! Freenet, Gnutella, Kazaa, WinMX, lots and lots of napsteroids. Get the files - images, webpages, whatever you have, package them into suitably-sized files (if the size is too big, split the files to Basic and [...] Yeah, Cool, etc. But, who cares? Aljazra, at least, people tend to believe. (not saying folks shouldn't. Just think.) Orbit-by-shootings aren't really that interesting. Way too much to falsify. Any other images? any Photoshop-pro can handle that. So... what are you showing me and mine? Yes, I think distribution on Freenet and other tools are a good idea. But who cares? This isn't rhetorical. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] The sign that points to Boston doesn't have to go there. - Max Scheler
Re: Usenet as solution to Al-Jazeera jamming problem
At 05:26 PM 3/27/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote: On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 04:45 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote: Couple ideas. I am interested in peer reviews. :) -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:43:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [gulfwar-2] Al-Jazeera Calls... - strategy proposal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Truckle the Uncivil wrote: It is too well co-ordinated to be that. Any new route seems to take less than five minutes to be blocked. it is well organised. It doesn't matter, at least not now, who is behind it. It matters what is happening and what can be done about it. If someone manages to convince al-Jazeera editors to publish not only by upload to some server(s) but also by eg. emailing the updated files to several helpers who then either set up mirrors or put them to P2P networks (Freenet http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ is especially suitable for this purpose, because of its inherent load-balancing capabilities). Why doesn't Al-Jazeera try Usenet? I'm very serious. It was set up for widely distributing articles and messages. Further, it is resistant to attack. A true P2P network is not really needed, just a broadcast network. (Two-way communication is nice, but in this case clearly there will not be many informed respondents in the affected warzone, just lots of responses typical of slashdot replies. Like, Arab d00dz, like, right on!) No need to build a complicated set of mirrors when reports can be posted within minutes on the Usenet. Maybe Al-Jazeera is not aware of it. Maybe someone should show them. Several years ago I tried to get some coding help to build simple plug-ins for Outlook and Navigator/Mozilla that would enable the browsers to interpret URL with the format nntp://usergroup/subject or nntp://usergroup/other-header-line-info This way small web sites could be cached and available for a day or two until being flushed. Eventually I fell in with the Mojo Nation group and put the idea aside, but I still think its worth investigating. steve
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
At 6:59 AM -0800 3/27/03, Gabriel Rocha wrote: On Thu, Mar 27, at 06:33AM, Mike Rosing wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ host www.aljazeera.net www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186 This is from the US, fyi. It also works (and even resolves to the same thing :) from other hosts outside the US) I get some really interesting answers. (I do so like looking at myself): % dig @64.105.172.26 www.aljazeera.net ; DiG 8.3 @64.105.172.26 www.aljazeera.net ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 4 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 4 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; www.aljazeera.net, type = A, class = IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.aljazeera.net. 2M IN A 127.0.0.1 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: aljazeera.net. 2M IN NSns1.mydomain.com. aljazeera.net. 2M IN NSns2.mydomain.com. aljazeera.net. 2M IN NSns3.mydomain.com. aljazeera.net. 2M IN NSns4.mydomain.com. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns1.mydomain.com. 30M IN A64.94.117.195 ns2.mydomain.com. 30M IN A216.52.121.228 ns3.mydomain.com. 30M IN A66.150.161.130 ns4.mydomain.com. 30M IN A63.251.83.74 ;; Total query time: 212 msec ;; FROM: G4.local. to SERVER: 64.105.172.26 64.105.172.26 ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:53:35 2003 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 35 rcvd: 199 - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: [gulfwar-2] Al-Jazeera Calls... - strategy proposal (fwd)
Couple ideas. I am interested in peer reviews. :) -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:43:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [gulfwar-2] Al-Jazeera Calls... - strategy proposal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Truckle the Uncivil wrote: It is too well co-ordinated to be that. Any new route seems to take less than five minutes to be blocked. it is well organised. It doesn't matter, at least not now, who is behind it. It matters what is happening and what can be done about it. If someone manages to convince al-Jazeera editors to publish not only by upload to some server(s) but also by eg. emailing the updated files to several helpers who then either set up mirrors or put them to P2P networks (Freenet http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ is especially suitable for this purpose, because of its inherent load-balancing capabilities). The limitation of Freenet is a relatively small number of users and relatively difficult availability. The advantage is the difficulty of taking it down or tracing the data source, and its load-balancing. The limitation of P2P networks is the easiness of taking down the individual nodes in the early phases of content distribution, when there are only few of them. Their advantage is in their easy availability and the raw numbers of users. My proposed solution is a two-tiered distribution network; al-Jazeera editors can upload the content to Freenet, from where the seed nodes take it and publish on the classic Gnutella/Kazaa/WinMX... networks. The source nodes (the editors) are hidden behind the secured network, the P2P seed nodes are protected by their amount. The infrastructure for both tiers is already existing. If the adversary is just a bunch of script kids with IRC bots, they will not have any chance to defeat this. If the adversary is the Government, they still aren't too likely to strike many winning points. If nothing other, it can be a field test of a rapid-deployment community-based anticensorship effort. Are there any weaknesses in this scheme? Shaddack, the Mad Scientist
Re: Brit reporting
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, stuart wrote: I've been enjoying Robert Fisk's reporting from Baghdad in UK's Independent, but Brian Whitaker's daily briefing in the Guardian sometimes has wonderful gems you'd never see in American press: Same here. Thanks for the pointer to Whitaker, I'll add him to my list. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Email traffic can reveal ringleaders (New Scientist)
...or, the importance of foiling the traffic analysis. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns3550 By looking for patterns in email traffic, a new technique can quickly identify online communities and the key people in them. The approach could mean terrorists or criminal gangs give themselves away, even if they are communicating in code or only discussing the weather. If the CIA or another intelligence agency has a lot of intercepted email from people suspected of being part of a criminal network, they could use the technique to figure out who the leaders of the network might be, says Joshua Tyler of Hewlett-Packard's labs in Palo Alto, California. At the very least, it would help them prioritise investigations, he says. Tyler and his colleagues Dennis Wilkinson and Bernardo Huberman, study email communication patterns and communities among networks of people. The trio wondered if they could identify distinct communities within Hewlett-Packard's research lab simply by analysing the IT manager's log of nearly 200,000 internal emails sent by 485 employees over a couple of months. They plotted the links between people who had exchanged at least 30 emails with each other, and found the plot included 1110 links between 367 people. In a network as large and complex as this, the plot alone will not tell you which groups people are. snip
RE: [AntiSocial] ok, devil's advocate here (fwd)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, scot wrote: if the war is about oil, then why didn't we just take the oil for ourselves after the gulf war? (you may commence dodging of the question again now) We did. But rather than spending the money to pump it ourselves, we created a society of indentured servants: the name of the program that accomplished this was Oil For Food. It's so much cheaper to let the locals do it for pennies... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe antisocial as the entire message.
Usenet as solution to Al-Jazeera jamming problem
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 04:45 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote: Couple ideas. I am interested in peer reviews. :) -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:43:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [gulfwar-2] Al-Jazeera Calls... - strategy proposal To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Truckle the Uncivil wrote: It is too well co-ordinated to be that. Any new route seems to take less than five minutes to be blocked. it is well organised. It doesn't matter, at least not now, who is behind it. It matters what is happening and what can be done about it. If someone manages to convince al-Jazeera editors to publish not only by upload to some server(s) but also by eg. emailing the updated files to several helpers who then either set up mirrors or put them to P2P networks (Freenet http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ is especially suitable for this purpose, because of its inherent load-balancing capabilities). Why doesn't Al-Jazeera try Usenet? I'm very serious. It was set up for widely distributing articles and messages. Further, it is resistant to attack. A true P2P network is not really needed, just a broadcast network. (Two-way communication is nice, but in this case clearly there will not be many informed respondents in the affected warzone, just lots of responses typical of slashdot replies. Like, Arab d00dz, like, right on!) No need to build a complicated set of mirrors when reports can be posted within minutes on the Usenet. Maybe Al-Jazeera is not aware of it. Maybe someone should show them. --Tim May
Re: For Rent: One Principality. Prince Not Included.
At 04:46 PM 03/27/2003 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote: http://nytimes.com/2003/03/25/international/europe/25LIEC.html?pagewanted=printposition=top The New York Times March 25, 2003 For Rent: One Principality. Prince Not Included. By SARAH LYALL VADUZ, Liechtenstein It seems patently absurd to Sigvard Wohlwend that the entire country of Liechtenstein all 62 square miles of it could be for rent, as if it were some sort of oversized alpine cottage. California NORML might want to rent it for a weekend party :-)
