Do you want Gonzo to post your real name? [Archive] - Page 2

2MuchMark

03-17-2008, 11:46 PM

I did not say 5 minutes ago I said your 5 girls online.... please learn how to read along with adding.

Oy... Shellee Hale, Shellee Hale, Shellee Hale.... I said that 2 of the girls left at 10:30pm Eastern time (Cat and Corrinne). You took the screenshot before then and only posted it at 11. I took my screenshot at 11:05 and posted it immediately. What are you trying to do now? What the fuck is wrong with you? (By the way, I've already been ICQ's by someone who likes my idea but only if you're specifically not involved. Go figure!)

It doesn't matter. I'm done with this thread. Don't bother to post a reply. I probably won't read it and I definately won't respond. (In that case, knock yourself out, sister. Then after you're done, pat yourself on the back because hey, you done good, girl. You are the queen of your domain. You know fucking everything. Too bad all that you think you know can't make you any money at all. Like I said, sell your 1 good domain, and be happy with that.

moetheman

03-18-2008, 12:00 AM

ahWhatever you say. You bragged about your know-how, and I bet you in front of everyone here that you couldn't prove it. A simple LINK to a network expert site would have been all the proof anyone here needed, but you couldn't even produce that because you were wront.

And now, everyone knows you for the fool, the liar, and the joke that you are.

Try not to toss and turn too much tonight as you think about how I, a confessed non-expert, proved you wrong.

Mark Prince

hahahaha

Are you fucked up, kid?

Must have had one beer too many . . .

Listen, I don't get my info from people's sites, I get info from TEXTBOOKS.

I am not going to post an entire chapter on TCP packets here. not for free, and for you anyway.

And no one bragged about know how . . . I just brought up a point . . . and an elemental one at that.

This thread will be here a long time. This is not some 14 year old game, the way you see it, where people must meet some inane little "challenge" and do "something cool" to impress others.

If someone, knowledgeable in networking, can refute what I have said with facts, that would be fine . .. thing is, I KNOW what I am talking about - it'f FUCKING BASIC GUY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND? I haven't broken it down for you all the way, however, to someone who knows this stuff, what I am talking about is self-evident.

You on the other hand are so lost, you can't differentiate between tracking and blocking . . .

Yes, go on, keep chattering away the way I knew you would, but PLEASE PLEASE come back with some facts, as opposed to your pathetic wounded dog bile.

Your sidekick, at least, brought up facts. And he brought up a reasonable point, only thing was, he made assumptions that were much too narrow, possibly owing to the fact that he is not that well acquainted with the subject. He deserves that much credit, that he came back with facts and an attempt at a debate, as opposed to your childish "challenges" and dares, all to get free information that you had no way of obtaining yourself.

Point remains: you were caught posting under another account through MAC address tracking.

Point remains: A packet sniffer can be used to determine the MAC address within a TCP packet. That tool, used in conjunction with others, can be used to ultimately (that's the point you still don't get . . . one address leads to another, and another, and another, until . . . bingo!) determine the MAC address of a computer connected to a server on the WAN. And that is ONE way.

Sexyteaser

03-18-2008, 12:04 AM

Oy... Shellee Hale, Shellee Hale, Shellee Hale.... I said that 2 of the girls left at 10:30pm Eastern time (Cat and Corrinne). You took the screenshot before then and only posted it at 11. I took my screenshot at 11:05 and posted it immediately. What are you trying to do now? What the fuck is wrong with you? (By the way, I've already been ICQ's by someone who likes my idea but only if you're specifically not involved. Go figure!)

It doesn't matter. I'm done with this thread. Don't bother to post a reply. I probably won't read it and I definately won't respond. (In that case, knock yourself out, sister. Then after you're done, pat yourself on the back because hey, you done good, girl. You are the queen of your domain. You know fucking everything. Too bad all that you think you know can't make you any money at all. Like I said, sell your 1 good domain, and be happy with that.

My reply's are not really for you they are for everyone else...

Whomever ICQ'd you it was probably "SoundslikeBullshit"

No one took your offer the last time on YNOT, no one took your offer two days ago... keep trying!

It looks like it took you all day to get a girl into paid chat and your mocking me.

Toby

03-18-2008, 12:05 AM

...you were caught posting under another account...
That's the ultimate point. The specific method of detection is just details.

Sexyteaser

03-18-2008, 12:14 AM

(By the way, I've already been ICQ's by someone who likes my idea but only if you're specifically not involved. Go figure!)

Now why would anyone think I wanted or had any involvement with you if they read this and ICQ'd you

Are you kidding me you want us to think someone said I want to get the free license from you as long as Shellee is not involved on what planet would that make sense if they got the offer from this thread?

I am right here right now they can post and tell me to stay out of your deal - How the hell would I be involved in your deal? Is it not obvious to you that I think you are a thief? That you actually committed fraud and took money from me that did not belong to you from my account as a sub of ccbill?

Get Real Mark - your abuse of woman has been documented for years your lack of respect is as obvious as well. I know your type and you think your superior but have nothing to back it up... unless your 5 chathosts on a ten year old platform is success to you - well then sit there patting yourself on the back soundslikebullshit.

Mediaguy

03-18-2008, 12:33 AM

Much as I dislike your innuendo, you at least have been ATTEMPTING to discuss facts.

I will say this: you are assuming that the only way to obtain the MAC addy of the computer that the user is on is by looking at JUST the TCP packets that reach the server (the "last leg" of the trip, so to speak).
That is not so.
The simple fact that the information is contained within TCP packets is enough for anyone with a bit of knowledge and half a brain to realize that the originating computer's MAC address can be eventually obtained after it has connected to a server on the WAN.

Which has been the point all along.

I am not going to break it down for you all any further. I am amazed that it appears as though you two TRULY CANNOT obtain this information on your own.

And guess what? I AM NOT EVEN INTO NETWORKING THAT MUCH AT ALL AND I KNOW THIS!!!!!!

Goes to show.

I can get it for my machine, my local area network, my whole office... but not your machine.

You've been talking about getting originating computers' MAC addresses via the TCP/IP packets received at the destination server.

Your initial post in this thread on the subject stated flatly that tracking via MAC addresses was common, which is false.

It's true within a LAN.

In the other thread about this, you say:
all that is needed is the IP address. Once that is available, only a SECURE system would prevent someone (or someone's software) from obtaining the MAC address.

I don't know about you but this reads to me like you're saying remote software could get my LAN-side MAC address... which is not true, unless a program or software within my LAN (malware, spyware, or something I downloaded willingly) broadcast the address to that other software.

Remote sofware without a direct connection or relationship with a program within my LAN will not read or detect my MAC address.

TCP/IP packets only carry current device/next device MAC addresses.

So my MAC address is in the initial packet to my router; then the packet's source and destination MAC addresses are re-written from my router and to my ISP; then from the ISP they are rewritten again, the destination replacing the source, and the new destination being the next node or router on the path to whatever site or IP address I'm headed for.

The packet is rewritten from each device's routing table - it's mini-memory of what other devices it's connected to which allow it to forward your request or packet to the next step...

Each device has it's own routing table and MAC address. The TCP/IP packet acquires the current and writes in the next address and will do the same at the next device.

These packets can't and don't retain the record of each device they've travelled through; it's inefficient and unecessary.

So there's no way the destination can read the originating computer's networking card MAC address...

Btw you inferred more than I implied, re. the inuendo.

Sexyteaser

03-18-2008, 12:44 AM

I guess the mystery is solved now on mac attacks but will the real "soundslikebullshit" please stand up....

You both have gone on and on about this hoping to get off the point of the entire subject and subsequent subjects,

I believe Gonzo that SoundslikeBullshit and Mark Prince are using the same IP/MAC or whatever and Mark's lame excuse was he gave some computers away and he knows who it is.. blah blah blah Like I said a good polygrapher could have ended this a lot quicker.

Toby

03-18-2008, 01:05 AM

...I believe Gonzo that SoundslikeBullshit and Mark Prince are using the same IP/MAC or whatever...
The exact detection method is really irrelevant. The security plugin that was tripped only goes off when two user accounts are posting from the same computer.

Sexyteaser

03-18-2008, 01:16 AM

The exact detection method is really irrelevant. The security plugin that was tripped only goes off when two user accounts are posting from the same computer.

Yes and to reiterate why it even mattered Soundlikebullshit/Mark Prince drudged up a grievance I have with him ripping me off when he tried to insult a site I have up and imply I was doing something illegal. He will go to any lengths to redirect the comments I have stated and proof I have shown of his fraud. Yesterday he called me an Avon Lady today a Tupperware etc...

Toby, does this look like an innocent man here?

moetheman

03-18-2008, 01:31 AM

I can get it for my machine, my local area network, my whole office... but not your machine.

You've been talking about getting originating computers' MAC addresses via the TCP/IP packets received at the destination server.

Your initial post in this thread on the subject stated flatly that tracking via MAC addresses was common, which is false.

It's true within a LAN.

In the other thread about this, you say:

I don't know about you but this reads to me like you're saying remote software could get my LAN-side MAC address... which is not true, unless a program or software within my LAN (malware, spyware, or something I downloaded willingly) broadcast the address to that other software.

Remote sofware without a direct connection or relationship with a program within my LAN will not read or detect my MAC address.

TCP/IP packets only carry current device/next device MAC addresses.

So my MAC address is in the initial packet to my router; then the packet's source and destination MAC addresses are re-written from my router and to my ISP; then from the ISP they are rewritten again, the destination replacing the source, and the new destination being the next node or router on the path to whatever site or IP address I'm headed for.

The packet is rewritten from each device's routing table - it's mini-memory of what other devices it's connected to which allow it to forward your request or packet to the next step...

Each device has it's own routing table and MAC address. The TCP/IP packet acquires the current and writes in the next address and will do the same at the next device.

These packets can't and don't retain the record of each device they've travelled through; it's inefficient and unecessary.

So there's no way the destination can read the originating computer's networking card MAC address...

Btw you inferred more than I implied, re. the inuendo.

Wrong.

Read what I wrote.

The last hop is not the place in the link of connections where you get the original device's MAC address. That gets you the first set (as the TCP packet contains both sender and receiver - each device NEEDS MAC addys to communicate with other devices) which leads to the second set, and so on until you arrive at the original device.

They are ALL linked together. The address information is contained within the TCP packets. Every single one has this info. It is only a matter of going from one device to another, until you arrive at the original destination.

That can be accomplished in several ways. All lead to the same result: the originating device's MAC address tracked by a server over the WAN.

Now, a worm installed on the originating device's operating system (or entering the LAN that the device is on) would - indeed - make it much easier. Entering the LAN and getting it yourself is actually the most reliable method, from what I have read. However. Those are just two of the methods. Not the only methods, by far.

Let me give you some background:

The data link layer, where the MAC address exists, is the lowest layer in the OSI model that deals with addressing. Each device has a unique number, which is known as both a MAC address or a hardware address. That number is used in that data link layer protocol to make sure that data meant to reach a certain machine gets there properly.
Devices VIRTUALLY connect at the layer where IP and HTTP are used, because those connections are CONCEPTUAL ONLY. When a request using IP is made, it is sent one jump at at time. At each jump, AN ACTUAL TRANSMISSION TAKES PLACE AT THE PHYSICAL AND DATA LINK LAYERS.
Thus, MAC addresses point to hardware devices at each jump. In order for that to happen successfully, the TCP packets HAVE to include both sender and receiver information (both hardware addys).
Once you have the first set, you simply backtrack through the sender sequence, until you finally arrive at the originating machine, which is what I stated before.

Let me repeat it one last time: the information (the set of MAC addys) related to the last hop going from originating device to the server in the transmission sequence is NOT the place to look - and it does not have to contain the MAC address you want in order for you to be able to eventually get it . . . it is not as if "if it isn't there then that's it, impossible."

Now, that info I posted above is not necessarily easy to find online on a website, but, at least in the tech communities that I belong to, it is pretty darn common knowledge that, if YOU WANT TO AVOID DETECTION ONE OF THE MANY THINGS YOU DO IS USE SOFTWARE TO SPOOF YOUR MAC ADDRESS(ES) CONTINUOUSLY . . . NOT EASY TO DO, BUT DOABLE.

Toby

03-18-2008, 02:00 AM

Toby, does this look like an innocent man here?

I think my "Turnkey Site" remark yesterday answered that question.

moetheman

03-18-2008, 02:17 AM

In the other thread about this, you say:

all that is needed is the IP address. Once that is available, only a SECURE system would prevent someone (or someone's software) from obtaining the MAC address.

I don't know about you but this reads to me like you're saying remote software could get my LAN-side MAC address... which is not true, unless a program or software within my LAN (malware, spyware, or something I downloaded willingly) broadcast the address to that other software.

Remote sofware without a direct connection or relationship with a program within my LAN will not read or detect my MAC address.

What you quoted referred to the scenario of going to a target machine and getting it yourself, or placing software there that would grab it and send it to you.

Now, remote software can indeed backtrack through the sequence I referred to in my prior post, eventually getting to the original destination.

Would it be INFALLIBLE every time?

I doubt that.

Has it been done?

YOU BET.

How do you think some of the crackers/scriptkiddies have been caught? It's not like only the VERY dumbest/inexperienced of them have been caught. Not like they did not take even plenty of measures to avoid detection . . . however . . . as in ALL Law Enforcement vs. Criminals games, the criminals can only make ONE mistake . . . or even two.

Now, I personally do not find cracking to be interesting. It is not that hard anyway. I know a few of those guys from boards. Some do it for fun, others for profit, some for both, but, I am not interested, therefore, once again, I will say that I am not like an authority on it, simply because I am not interested in it.

Hell Puppy

03-18-2008, 05:10 AM

I dont have time to keep up with all this shit, could someone please post a daily highlights thread.

Thanks!

moetheman

03-18-2008, 06:03 AM

Happy St Patricks day to yall.

Im getting in touch with my "roots".

Happy (belated) St. Patrick's to you too Gonzo.

I was like partly raised by a great man of Irish descent on his Father's side, whose last name was Cooper.

I can't understand some of the people on this thread talking smack to ya' . . . from what I have seen, Irishmen can SCRAP :)

ScottMcGowan

03-18-2008, 09:59 AM

I dont have time to keep up with all this shit, could someone please post a daily highlights thread.

Thanks!

All of these people should be gassed.

I think that about covers it.

2MuchMark

03-18-2008, 10:38 AM

Hello Everyone,

This will be my last post in this thread. I will say what I have to say, and anyone caring to read it, may. Anyone else who still cares to waste their time in this thread can do so, but without me.

As I said much earlier, I am not "soundslikebullshit", and as I already said, I did some asking around on my end but was told by that person that "it was not me". If you care, please review my earlier post on this.

Shellee Hale:
It is extremely unfortunate that you and I continue to snipe at each other like this. It's childish and embarrasing for the both of us. I am sorry that you did not appreciatie our product and the tremendous support everyone of my staff did to support you during the time you were our client. I wish you the best of luck for the future.

MoeTheMan:
You did not prove that TCP/IP data contains Mac Addresses and offered no links to any technology, networking sites, technical data, white papers etc, that prove your point whereas I offered up several.

Furthremore, you could have easily shown anyone here how to obtain your mac address, but you didn't. I offered a donation to ASACP or FSC if you could prove it, but you couldn't. When pushed into a corner, you resorted to name calling.

Moe, this thread is a great opportunity for you. Alot of people here would like to know how to do it if it was possible. If you know how its done, call up your favorite billing company and help them reduce credit card fraud to zero. Sell your solution to websites and they could use it to block any computer from accessing their site.

To everyone else, this thread has turned into a really ugly fight between several people and I am at least partialy responsible for its content. Trust me, it won't happen again. Shellee, Moe, anyone else. Snipe at me or 2Much all you want. We won't be sniping back.

Gonzo, I hope you enjoyed the rise in popularity for this site over the last few days. It won't happen at our expense ever again.

Mark Prince
http://www.2Much.net
http://www.LiveCamNetwork.com

gonzo

03-18-2008, 10:45 AM

Gonzo, I hope you enjoyed the rise in popularity for this site over the last few days. It won't happen at our expense ever again.

Was a small blip. Ive had bigger traffic gains earlier in the year with no drama or pissing. And thats with 3 piss threads combined in one week.

No big gain really.

Mediaguy

03-18-2008, 11:02 AM

The exact detection method is really irrelevant. The security plugin that was tripped only goes off when two user accounts are posting from the same computer.

Mark has shown that he doesn't care about posting under his own name and that he wouldn't be the type to create a fake nick...

But You Can Check, right? Find out where soundslikebullshit was when he created his account by looking at the logs. IP address as well as his MAC Address should both be different since they would both be completely different from his Montreal office computer.

As I said, Prince was in Florida at the time the bullshit guy created his account. So the record of that would have to differ by both IP and the MAC Address compared to those last posts soundslikebullshit did...

gonzo

03-18-2008, 11:06 AM

Mark has shown that he doesn't care about posting under his own name and that he wouldn't be the type to create a fake nick...

But You Can Check, right? Find out where soundslikebullshit was when he created his account by looking at the logs. IP address as well as his MAC Address should both be different since they would both be completely different from his Montreal office computer.

As I said, Prince was in Florida at the time the bullshit guy created his account. So the record of that would have to differ by both IP and the MAC Address compared to those last posts soundslikebullshit did...
You guys are the best!

Buckwheat

03-18-2008, 11:33 AM

I dont have time to keep up with all this shit, could someone please post a daily highlights thread.

Thanks!
like i said . . . krazy "General Hospital" fucked up shit!

Toby

03-18-2008, 11:35 AM

...he wouldn't be the type to create a fake nick.Says you. I've seen nothing posted over the last few days that would lead me to that conclusion.
As I said, Prince was in Florida at the time the bullshit guy created his account. So the record of that would have to differ by both IP and the MAC Address compared to those last posts soundslikebullshit did...What fucking difference does it make where he was when the account was created two weeks ago? It was posts made last Wed in this thread (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=89495) that tripped the alarms.

helix

03-18-2008, 12:34 PM

wtf...only 6 pages?

gonzo

03-18-2008, 12:39 PM

wtf...only 6 pages?
They ran out of catsup.

Hammer

03-18-2008, 06:29 PM

Sexyteaser

03-18-2008, 06:34 PM

For the record, I apologized to Shelleehale for calling her an idiot, I did not take anything back. Just wanted to make that clear.

We now resume the Shelleehale vs. 2MuchMark bout without further interruption from me.

Hammer - I don't think Mark is coming back... and I also apologized and you shouldn't take anything back it was pretty good stuff.

DannyCox

03-18-2008, 07:48 PM

Point remains: A packet sniffer can be used to determine the MAC address within a TCP packet.

This had me so curious, I did some digging and found that packets do not contain a MAC Address. This point is also stated quite clearly on a number of the packet sniffer software websites out there.

Examples of what is contained in a packet can be found at http://www.netfor2.com/tcp.htm and http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1845 and at http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/inet-pages/packet-decode3.html Those are just a few examples of what I found, there are many more.

So, I am sorry moetheman, but you appear quite wrong in this. I have yet to find anywhere that says that a MAC Address is discoverable outside a LAN without broadcasting it or using it as part of a secure login schema.

Mediaguy

03-18-2008, 08:20 PM

Says you. I've seen nothing posted over the last few days that would lead me to that conclusion.

All you've seen is Mark post, rant, blast and say things soundslikebullshit doesn't seem articulate enough to type... I don't see the point in Mark creating a fake nick to make a point or enter a response... especially considering the response it gets lol (traffic, pageviews, etc).

What fucking difference does it make where he was when the account was created two weeks ago? It was posts made last Wed in this thread (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=89495) that tripped the alarms.

You might be right and he had someone else create the account; but the posts made in that thread were done before he logged in, because I was with him here that morning... but then again that's a sez me claim... so I don't know what to tell you except that Gonzo's magical MAC address detector failed him? That too would be a sez me/sez him thing wouldn't it... except that MAC address detection wouldn't be possible unless their was a broadcast executable delivered to Mark's computer and that I was lying about him not being at the computer that morning (until he was notified about the thread where Gonzo was calling him out thinking he was double-posting...).

Toby

03-18-2008, 09:02 PM

All you've seen is Mark post, rant, blast and say things soundslikebullshit doesn't seem articulate enough to type... I don't see the point in Mark creating a fake nick to make a point or enter a response... especially considering the response it gets lol (traffic, pageviews, etc).

You might be right and he had someone else create the account; but the posts made in that thread were done before he logged in, because I was with him here that morning... but then again that's a sez me claim... so I don't know what to tell you except that Gonzo's magical MAC address detector failed him? That too would be a sez me/sez him thing wouldn't it... except that MAC address detection wouldn't be possible unless their was a broadcast executable delivered to Mark's computer and that I was lying about him not being at the computer that morning (until he was notified about the thread where Gonzo was calling him out thinking he was double-posting...).
The multiple account login detector plugin does not need a MAC address to do it's job. It detects multiple users posting from the same computer. Debate and deny all you wish, the fact remains that soundslikebullshit and 2MuchMark were both posting from one computer.

Mediaguy

03-18-2008, 09:38 PM

The multiple account login detector plugin does not need a MAC address to do it's job. It detects multiple users posting from the same computer. Debate and deny all you wish, the fact remains that soundslikebullshit and 2MuchMark were both posting from one computer.

Well 2muchmark's computer wasn't even on when soundslkikebullshit posted in that thread the first time...

I KNOW that's a he-said thing... so don't take my word for it... all I can tell you is what I experienced... and Prince hadn't even done-up the zipper from his morning visit of the washroom at the office when that post was made ...

gonzo

03-18-2008, 09:42 PM

I love you guys. Really!

Toby

03-18-2008, 09:48 PM

Well 2muchmark's computer wasn't even on when soundslkikebullshit posted in that thread the first time...

I KNOW that's a he-said thing... so don't take my word for it... all I can tell you is what I experienced... and Prince hadn't even done-up the zipper from his morning visit of the washroom at the office when that post was made ...
Then someone else posted from his computer.

Jace

03-18-2008, 10:06 PM

gonzo, please fix the god damned board so I can click thread tools and unsubscribe from this annoying assed thread

gonzo

03-18-2008, 10:19 PM

gonzo, please fix the god damned board so I can click thread tools and unsubscribe from this annoying assed thread
Youll miss something!

vdc-Loki

03-18-2008, 10:26 PM

AHEM......

We now return you to your originally scheduled thread already in progress......

http://www.v1rtualdesires.com/fsg/fs-oprano.jpg

Discuss ;)

-Loki-

softball

03-18-2008, 10:26 PM

gonzo, please fix the god damned board so I can click thread tools and unsubscribe from this annoying assed thread
Dude, just don't post and don't read it. Simple. Or is that a little beyond your blogging skills? You crack me up. Anything to sigwhore. Jace did you have to learn sigwhoring, or did it just come naturally to you? You should at least try to be a little more subtle around here.

Mediaguy

03-18-2008, 10:52 PM

AHEM......

We now return you to your originally scheduled thread already in progress......

You killed me lol.

http://www.lcncash.com/images/fs-oprano2.jpg (http://www.livecamnetwork.com)

softball

03-19-2008, 12:57 AM

Hey Jace, let me help you out, dude...
RevShareHosting (http://www.revsharehosting.com/?refercode=11186) - Blogs Manager
FULL FEATURED blog hosting without a hosting bill
ICQ and let me get you started! 399608482
Jace's Blog Services (http://www.thatblogguy.com/) | jace ( at ) revsharehosting (dot) com (jaceREMOVE@REMOVErevsharehosting.com) | Looking For Link Trades (11 sites) (http://www.adultblogtrade.com/jacetrades/signup.php)

moetheman

03-19-2008, 03:13 AM

MoeTheMan:
You did not prove that TCP/IP data contains Mac Addresses and offered no links to any technology, networking sites, technical data, white papers etc, that prove your point whereas I offered up several.

I don't need to "prove" information (and for free) that is accessible to anyone that wants it. What I made reference to is not AN OPINION (something you obviously did not comprehend) but a VERIFIABLE FACT (we ARE talking about technology. This is not black magic, or liberal arts)
I posted all the information anyone WITH A CLUE could ever need. If you want more information, you can find more the same way I did.
And you offered nothing. Your sidekick brought some facts to the table, yet as I previously mentioned, his assumptions were much too narrow.

Furthremore, you could have easily shown anyone here how to obtain your mac address, but you didn't.

That was not part of the original point I made. YOU made that up. Once again, my point was and is that your claims against having been caught posting under another account by Gonzo owing to it not being technologically possible were false.
I guess you are unable to accept that you are not in control of this discussion. You tried hard, but those tricks don't work with me, Sir.

I offered a donation to ASACP or FSC if you could prove it, but you couldn't. When pushed into a corner, you resorted to name calling.

Your "offer" was meaningless and besides the point. No one claimed what you state was claimed and subsequently requested proof of. It was obviously an attempt at drawing attention away from the fact that you were caught posting under another account.
Also, it is obvious that you are the one that started talking shit . . . and you know it.

Moe, this thread is a great opportunity for you. Alot of people here would like to know how to do it if it was possible. If you know how its done, call up your favorite billing company and help them reduce credit card fraud to zero. Sell your solution to websites and they could use it to block any computer from accessing their site.

I am PERFECTLY fine with what I am doing at this time, and am not interested in what you are referring to.

When it comes down to it, I can see that you do not understand the higher level issues in the particular scenario you have made reference to, namely, that billing companies, banks, and other financial institutions and service providers are obviously not TRULY interested (other than typical suit lip service) in solving the problems, if they were, we would not see the BS we see such as the recent major theft of data that was all over the news (and no, don't fucking ask me to post a link to it - it's all over the news). The technology and personnel are CERTAINLY available to prevent such incidents . . .

Now, posting the following link is giving you more respect than you deserve, and more than I should do, however, I will do it for the sake of anyone reading this thread who is TRULY interested in what I am talking about (as opposed to trying to leech information from others, or just talking out their ass in an attempt to cover up their misdeeds)
This is an Amazon link (and don't worry, it doesn't contain an affiliate code):

http://www.amazon.com/TCP-Guide-Comprehensive-Illustrated-Protocols/dp/159327047X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205909984&sr=8-1

This is one of the textbooks I have on the subject, and a pretty good one at that. Refer to page 280.

NOTICE: Anyone too cheap to buy the book, or too lazy to study it, or too dumb to understand it, or all three, who wants to get me to break it down for them EVEN MORE can:

GO FUCK THEMSELVES

moetheman

03-19-2008, 03:33 AM

This had me so curious, I did some digging and found that packets do not contain a MAC Address. This point is also stated quite clearly on a number of the packet sniffer software websites out there.

Examples of what is contained in a packet can be found at http://www.netfor2.com/tcp.htm and http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1845 and at http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/inet-pages/packet-decode3.html Those are just a few examples of what I found, there are many more.

So, I am sorry moetheman, but you appear quite wrong in this. I have yet to find anywhere that says that a MAC Address is discoverable outside a LAN without broadcasting it or using it as part of a secure login schema.

Look, read what I fucking wrote before you post.

Here is the link to one of the TEXTBOOKS I read. See page 280 for VERIFICATION of what I was referring to when I broke it all down for mediaguy:

http://www.amazon.com/TCP-Guide-Comprehensive-Illustrated-Protocols/dp/159327047X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205911346&sr=8-1
Also, you don't understand the context of all this. You wrote that "I was wrong" AS IF this were AN OPINION on my behalf. You are mistaken. What I have referred to is a VERIFIABLE FACT.

Buy the textbook, read it, understand it, and you will have all the answers you need in relation to the subject.

It's around $50, 1,600+ pages, and highly technical, but it's there if you want it.

Page 280.

Anyone who wants me to basically scan the page and post it here can go fuck themselves.

Hammer

03-19-2008, 11:55 AM

Hey Moe.

I didn't really want anything, I'm just a big fan of the 3 Stooges and felt like saying, "Hey Moe". Woo woo woo.

softball

03-19-2008, 12:13 PM

Look, read what I fucking wrote before you post.

Here is the link to one of the TEXTBOOKS I read. See page 280 for VERIFICATION of what I was referring to when I broke it all down for mediaguy:

http://www.amazon.com/TCP-Guide-Comprehensive-Illustrated-Protocols/dp/159327047X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205911346&sr=8-1
Also, you don't understand the context of all this. You wrote that "I was wrong" AS IF this were AN OPINION on my behalf. You are mistaken. What I have referred to is a VERIFIABLE FACT.

Buy the textbook, read it, understand it, and you will have all the answers you need in relation to the subject.

It's around $50, 1,600+ pages, and highly technical, but it's there if you want it.

Page 280.

Anyone who wants me to basically scan the page and post it here can go fuck themselves.
What I don't get is how the hell you can get so worked up about this geek shit. You must be a hit in bars. I bet you can pick up girls faster that Lawrence Connor. This is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooo freeking boring.

Mediaguy

03-19-2008, 12:28 PM

Hey Moe

You're wrong. Got the texts, read the technical, and talked to a microsoft programmer.... personal network card MAC addresses aren't contained within the ethernet envelope, the TCP/IP packet or anywhere outside my LAN.

Stop posting to the contrary. You're wrong.

Quite simply you are incorrect, check with your so-called tech community, it's not there that info, you're wrong wrong wrong....TCP/IP packets carry the MAC address of the last device that forwarded them, that's it, if they had anything compared to an ARP table for some reason, all our broadband and DSL connections would be as fast as dial-up.

No MAC Address. C'est toot. you may have mis-read whatever fifty dollar text book you got, that's all and understandable... you even had me doubting what I was reading... but nope.

gonzo

03-19-2008, 12:34 PM

Sometimes I feel like Im fishing in a baited pond.

Can I send you guys some brownies to go with those cookies?

You really really love this place!

I can tell.

Hammer

03-19-2008, 02:17 PM

Programmer fights are great. I'd pass on a hockey game to keep watching this thread.

StaciEroticy508

03-19-2008, 03:19 PM

Mine is posted in my signature. lol so i dont really care who posts my name. ;)

softball

03-19-2008, 03:39 PM

Programmer fights are great. I'd pass on a hockey game to keep watching this thread.
That's cause your not Canadian. I kind find paint drying more amusing but it doesn't last as long.

Toby

03-19-2008, 03:44 PM

...I kind find paint drying more amusing but it doesn't last as long.
Try using oil base during cool damp weather. ;)

DannyCox

03-19-2008, 03:53 PM

Anyone who wants me to basically scan the page and post it here can go fuck themselves.

I do find this amusing. I just asked the question of MAC Addresses in packets, and never got an answer. I then spent about 30 minutes checking sites (some of which I linked to in my previous post, because I believe a person should backup what he is stating) and found, conclusively, that MAC Addresses do not make up any part of a TCP/IP Packet. moetheman then has to resort to using profanity in his answer, and still has not shown a thing to back up his claim, other than an a reference to a page in some obscure networking book.

Moe, you can use all the profanity that you like, but I will state that you "are wrong". I also know that everyone else here thinks you are wrong as you refuse to support any claim you make with documentation. I backed up what I said, now please do the same. And I think we need more than the single reference that you eluded to. If what you state is accurate, you should easily be able to find backup across the 'net.

BTW, just as an aside......who is "moetheman" anyway?? Am I just having a discussion with yet another surfer/wannabe??

gonzo

03-19-2008, 03:55 PM

I do find this amusing. I just asked the question of MAC Addresses in packets, and never got an answer. I then spent about 30 minutes checking sites (some of which I linked to in my previous post, because I believe a person should backup what he is stating) and found, conclusively, that MAC Addresses do not make up any part of a TCP/IP Packet. moetheman then has to resort to using profanity in his answer, and still has not shown a thing to back up his claim, other than an a reference to a page in some obscure networking book.

Moe, you can use all the profanity that you like, but I will state that you "are wrong". I also know that everyone else here thinks you are wrong as you refuse to support any claim you make with documentation. I backed up what I said, now please do the same. And I think we need more than the single reference that you eluded to. If what you state is accurate, you should easily be able to find backup across the 'net.

BTW, just as an aside......who is "moetheman" anyway?? Am I just having a discussion with yet another surfer/wannabe??

Check your private messages here and you will find plenty of information there.

Toby

03-19-2008, 03:56 PM

- Page 7 -

I can't decide whether or not it's time for the beating a dead horse smiley. :scratchin

gonzo

03-19-2008, 04:38 PM

:KongBeat

StaciEroticy508

03-19-2008, 04:42 PM

oh, and btw....you all crack me up! Thanks!:yowsa:

Hammer

03-19-2008, 04:47 PM

That's cause your not Canadian. I kind find paint drying more amusing but it doesn't last as long.
ummm... your sarcasm alarm should have been screaming at you. And I'm not even a big hockey fan.

Sexyteaser

03-19-2008, 05:05 PM

Hammer - Now I know you keep bumping this so everyone can see my apology! :waving:

sarettah

03-19-2008, 08:25 PM

lol. 7 pages.. damn

Weather in Aspen is almost perfect :p

softball

03-19-2008, 08:36 PM

ummm... your sarcasm alarm should have been screaming at you. And I'm not even a big hockey fan.

Shit I forgot to change the batteries. Now I gotta go around the house and put new batteries in my smoke detectors, my co detectors, my bullshit detectors, and my asshole detectors. No big deal but do you know how much those fucking nicklemetalhydridemthaneplutoniumleadacid batteries for those fucking sarcasm alarms cost?

moetheman

03-19-2008, 09:45 PM

Hey Moe

You're wrong. Got the texts, read the technical, and talked to a microsoft programmer.... personal network card MAC addresses aren't contained within the ethernet envelope, the TCP/IP packet or anywhere outside my LAN.

Stop posting to the contrary. You're wrong.

Page 280. Your "microsoft programmer" is obviously fictional.

Quite simply you are incorrect, check with your so-called tech community, it's not there that info, you're wrong wrong wrong....TCP/IP packets carry the MAC address of the last device that forwarded them, that's it, if they had anything compared to an ARP table for some reason, all our broadband and DSL connections would be as fast as dial-up.

No MAC Address. C'est toot. you may have mis-read whatever fifty dollar text book you got, that's all and understandable... you even had me doubting what I was reading... but nope.

Page 280. Buy it, read it, . . . hahaha . . . how pathetic of you.

moetheman

03-19-2008, 09:49 PM

I do find this amusing. I just asked the question of MAC Addresses in packets, and never got an answer. I then spent about 30 minutes checking sites (some of which I linked to in my previous post, because I believe a person should backup what he is stating) and found, conclusively, that MAC Addresses do not make up any part of a TCP/IP Packet. moetheman then has to resort to using profanity in his answer, and still has not shown a thing to back up his claim, other than an a reference to a page in some obscure networking book.

Moe, you can use all the profanity that you like, but I will state that you "are wrong". I also know that everyone else here thinks you are wrong as you refuse to support any claim you make with documentation. I backed up what I said, now please do the same. And I think we need more than the single reference that you eluded to. If what you state is accurate, you should easily be able to find backup across the 'net.

BTW, just as an aside......who is "moetheman" anyway?? Am I just having a discussion with yet another surfer/wannabe??

Page 280. If I were on a tech board (not that there would be a need to) I would scan the page and temporarily upload it to a free server someplace . . . give it up, you are not going to get me to do that here, if you want quality info GET A TEXTBOOK . . .

moetheman

03-19-2008, 10:19 PM

You're wrong. Got the texts

You got the text?

RIGHT.

DannyCox

03-20-2008, 02:12 AM

softball

03-20-2008, 02:17 AM

john 3:16

DannyCox

03-20-2008, 02:19 AM

I prefer Austin 3:16 :scratchin

softball

03-20-2008, 02:28 AM

I prefer Austin 3:16 :scratchin
I bet you do. I miss those blood soaked nights of hard core wrestling and fans with weapons. Sometimes living in the west sucks the big one. I still got a couple of t shirts that I wear. Those were great nights. Especially the guy that fell from the balcony and knocked himself unconscious in that theatre downtown.

Mediaguy

03-20-2008, 02:45 AM

You got the text?

RIGHT.

You are correct. I did not acquire your particular bible, I referred to texts, in the plural sense, which contained much information and instructional perhaps not included in your sacred text which seems to be the only source for the occult, secret knowledge which all other sources refute.

moetheman

03-20-2008, 05:54 AM

flaI guess your just going to stand behind your supposed single source of "proof" to back up your claim...the single source that you refuse to share. If what you say is so obviously true, you should easily be able to find reference to it all over the Internet and be able to post links to valid sites, like I did to refute your claims.

Yelling out "Page 280...Page 280...Page 280" on every one of your posts is just making you look foolish. As Ben Franklin said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

It is time for you to give this up and concede you are wrong.

Your logic is flawed. The fact that you cannot find something online for free means nothing as to whether or not it exists, or whether it is accurate.

I shared the source, however, if you are too cheap to buy a textbook, that's YOUR problem.

Quit trying to get me to violate copyright and post a scan of the page. Not doing it.

You all look pretty ridiculous, clamoring for an answer and refusing to buy a textbook, after someone has posted a link to it on Amazon, and given you the page number to where the information is located.

Go on, keep making asses of yourselves . . . I posted a link to the info and a page number reference. QUIT BEGGING FOR A FREEBIE ALREADY

moetheman

03-20-2008, 06:02 AM

hoYou are correct. I did not acquire your particular bible, I referred to texts, in the plural sense, which contained much information and instructional perhaps not included in your sacred text which seems to be the only source for the occult, secret knowledge which all other sources refute.

Have you any idea how ridiculous your little charade is?

"sacred text" "occult" . . . sheer childish ignorance on your behalf. I could tell you were a clown the second I saw a picture of you.

"REFUTE"? Look up the meaning of that word, I don't think that means what you think it means . . .

You two are going to look as stupid as you deserve to when someone who reads this thread gets that book (or quotes another textbook on networking) and posts the info from the page I have quoted . . .

Do you two clowns REALLY FUCKING THINK that I would post a reference to a textbook AND a page number IF I WERE NOT 100% certain that I am right?

HAHAHAHAHA

I am a programmer, you twits, my life REVOLVES around accurate information . . . not around little cheating and stealing games, like SOME people around here . . .

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You two are fun . . . c'mon, keep entertaining me . . .

gonzo

03-20-2008, 09:39 AM

I guess your just going to stand behind your supposed single source of "proof" to back up your claim...the single source that you refuse to share. If what you say is so obviously true, you should easily be able to find reference to it all over the Internet and be able to post links to valid sites, like I did to refute your claims.

Yelling out "Page 280...Page 280...Page 280" on every one of your posts is just making you look foolish. As Ben Franklin said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

It is time for you to give this up and concede you are wrong.

Here is the cut and past from page 280... drop your email in here if you want the pdf scan of the page.

I dont have FTP access currently to the Oprano server so I cant send it up.

--------------------------280-------------------------------------------

The most important distinction between these types of addresses is the distinction between
layers two and three themselves: layer two deals with directly-connected devices (on the
same network) while layer three deals with indirectly-connected devices (as well as
directly-connected). Say, for example, you want to connect to the Web server at http://
www.tcpipguide.com. This is a web site that runs on a server that has an Ethernet card in it
for connecting it to its Internet service provider site. However, even if you know its MAC
address, you cannot use it to talk directly to this server using the Ethernet card in your
home PC, because the devices are on different networks.in fact, they may be on different
continents!
Instead, you communicate at layer three, using the Internet Protocol and higher layer
protocols such as TCP and HTTP. Your request is routed from your home machine, through
a sequence of routers, to the server at The TCP/IP Guide, and the response is routed back
to you. The communication is, logically, at layers three and above; you send the request not
to the MAC address of the server.s network card, but rather to the server.s IP address.
However, while we can virtually connect devices at layer three, these connections are
really conceptual only. When you send a request using IP, it is sent one hop at a time, from
one physical network to the next. At each of these hops, an actual transmission occurs at
the physical and data link layers. When your request is sent to your local router at layer
three, the actual request is encapsulated in a frame using whatever method you physically
connect to the router, and passed to it using the router's data link layer address. The same
happens for each subsequent step, until finally, the router nearest the destination sends to
the destination using its data link (MAC) address. This is illustrated in Figure 44.
Converting Layer Three Addresses to Layer Two: Address Resolution
The basic problem is that IP addresses are too high level for the physical hardware on
networks to deal with; they don't understand what they are. When your request shows up at
the router that connects to The TCP/IP Guide, it can see the http://www.tcpipguide.com
server's IP address, but that isn't helpful: it needs to send to server's MAC address.
The identical issue exists even with communication between devices on a LAN. Even if the
Web server is sitting on the same desk as the client, the communication is logically at the IP
layer, but must also be accomplished at the data link layer. This means we need a way of
translating between the addresses at these two layers. This process is called address
resolution.
Key Concept: Address resolution is required because internetworked devices
communicate logically using layer three addresses, but the actual transmissions
between devices take place using layer two (hardware) addresses.

The TCP/IP Guide - Version 3.0 (Contents) �� 280 © 2001-2005 Charles M. Kozierok. All Rights Reserved.

Hammer

03-20-2008, 10:06 AM

Now how hard was that instead of telling everyone to go buy a book to prove something?

Mediaguy

03-20-2008, 11:08 AM

"The same happens for each subsequent step, until finally, the router nearest the destination sends to the destination using its data link (MAC) address."

gonzo

03-20-2008, 11:26 AM

Now how hard was that instead of telling everyone to go buy a book to prove something?
All this big MAC talk makes me want to go get a cookie.

DannyCox

03-20-2008, 01:03 PM

Thanks for posting that Gonzo, it just backs up what we have been saying all along. Your machine's MAC Address is not sent in the packet and is just used on the LAN for address resolution of the final destination. But what is being discussed only holds true on a Network. For example, if you are on a PC with just a dial-up connection, the MAC Address of your machine doesn't even come into it.

I don't see how moe could get MAC Address transmission in a TCP/IP Packet from any of that text. It is only discussing using the MAC upon receiving a packet.

EmporerEJ

03-20-2008, 04:27 PM

moetheman

03-20-2008, 06:41 PM

Your machine's MAC Address is not sent in the packet and is just used on the LAN for address resolution of the final destination.

Are you retarded man? Seriously. The following refers to the WAN:

"When your request shows up at
the router that connects to The TCP/IP Guide, it can see the http://www.tcpipguide.com (http://www.tcpipguide.com/)
server's IP address, but that isn't helpful: it needs to send to server's MAC address."

But what is being discussed only holds true on a Network. For example, if you are on a PC with just a dial-up connection, the MAC Address of your machine doesn't even come into it.

"The identical issue exists even with communication between devices on a LAN."

I don't see how moe could get MAC Address transmission in a TCP/IP Packet from any of that text. It is only discussing using the MAC upon receiving a packet.

Listen, you can't posssibly be THAT dense. READ.

"However, while we can virtually connect devices at layer three, these connections are
really conceptual only.
When you send a request using IP, it is sent one hop at a time, from one physical network to the next. At each of these hops, an actual transmission occurs at the physical and data link layers."

It is the DATA LINK LAYER which contains the MAC address. And it is exactly what I said, that TCP packets ALL contain MAC addresses (sender AND receiver) therefore, all that needs to be done is to backtrack from the server, through every hop, sniffing the packets for the addys, until eventually, you get to the originating device . . . it's actually conceptually straightforward . . . but I can see that you have no clue about any of this. You can probably barely run your Winblows box . . . this is like talking to a 5 year old, I swear . . . .

This is amusing, this thread will be here for a long time, and ALL THE INFO IS THERE, and it all proves my point, while you keep making an ass out of yourself.

It's almost painful to watch you do it.

Hammer

03-20-2008, 06:53 PM

All this big MAC talk makes me want to go get a cookie.
Makes me want a Big Mac.

moetheman

03-20-2008, 07:02 PM

"The same happens for each subsequent step, until finally, the router nearest the destination sends to the destination using its data link (MAC) address."

Key concept: THE SAME . . . therefore, as I have stated, all that would need to be done is to trace back through the entire sequence, one hop at a time, sniffing the packets to get that hop's sender MAC address, until one arrives at the originating devices.

Just to break it down for you more, MORON, here is
(since I can tell you can't read properly, or you would have seen it, it has been there all along HAHAHAHAHA)
a post in the first thread where this came up:

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showpost.php?p=808020&postcount=121

which has THIS LINK:

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2001/03/21/FreeBSD_Basics.html

which is not a bad piece at all . . . I prefer textbooks myself, but that it right . . . .

Last paragraph on page 1 (yes, at the bottom, there ya GO, champ) has a bit of info you might be interested in reading . . .

Ok, now go on and say that both the author of the textbook and the author of the article are wrong . . . go on . . . you fucking drooling mongoloid imbecile . . . hard to believe you have the nerve to keep going, to keep making an ass out of yourself, in spite of having facts in your face . . . a good, persistent liar AND parasite . . .

2MuchMark

03-20-2008, 07:24 PM

First it will be useful to define what MAC addresses are and how they
are normally used.

Definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
"Media Access Control address (MAC address) is a unique identifier attached to most forms of networking equipment." Normally a twelve digit hexadecimal number, like: 00-08-74-4C-7F-1D

How it is used:
It's most common use is in the "data link" layer of the OSI model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model

When a computer on a network has an IP address it needs to contact it sends out an ARP request to all machines on its network segment (using the broadcast address) and receives an answer from the owner of that address with its mac address. It then stores this in an arp table for later reference. The mac address is then used to send data directly to that computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_Resolution_Protocol

You can view the arp table on a windows XP machine by typing "arp -a" from a command prompt. You can even manipulate the table, though this is not recommended. http://www.mytechsupport.ca/content/view/83/306/

What you will see in your arp table are IP addresses that are on your local network. You will not see any entries for computer beyond your closest router. The reason for this is simple; your computer doesn't care about anythign past that.

All a computer needs to know is how to get to the next router on the way to its final destination (next hop). Once your PC has the mac address of your closest router and hands the data off to it, then it is that next router's job to have the mac address of the next router in line and so on. Each router is only going to keep arp tables with mac addresses of devices that are on the same subnets as they are on.

Remember the way they usually acquire mac addresses is using a broadcast. This will only reach as far as the next router. Routers will not pass on this information. If they did the whole Internet would come to a screeching halt because there would be so many broadcasts that the real data would be choked out. They only need to know how to get to the next hop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_address

In short, as long as your router is seperated from this server that you are connecting to by at least one other router (which I'm sure that you are) they would not have your mac address in their arp tables. You can see just how many routers are between you by doing a "trace router".
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/162326/EN-US/

First you will see your routers Ip address that is local to your computer, then you will see the address of your local IPS's router, then there will most likely be several other router before finally making to the server you are connecting to.

Each time the data passes through a router the portion of that data that contains the last mac address is pulled out and the current router's is put in. This allows the next router to respond without an arp request to the previous router.

This is a similar discussion:
http://content.ix2.net/arc/t-4333.html
"There is no way to determine the mac address of your computer, once the packets have passed through a router. The mac address is used only on a local network and as a packet leaves your local network, the mac address is
replaced by the mac address of the router. This happens at every router along the route between you and any other site."

Since your computer has an arp table that contains your routers LAN side mac address it is possible that they could send that in the same way they could 2) 3) and 4). But your router is going to have a different mac address for it WAN side, which is the part that you would care about. Your computer will not have the WAN side mac address in its arp table because it is on the "other side" of your router.

All that to say: They only way they could get your router's WAN-side mac address would be have access to a device on your local ISP's network on the same subnet as your router. This is highly improbable. (This all came from http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=765054) by the way).

Anyway,

It appears that I owe MoeTheMan, an apology (Sort of)!

I had said that it was Impossible to detect the MAC address of a machine via the Internet (without a client).
I was RIGHT.

I also said that TCP/IP did not contain Mac address information.
I was WRONG.

MoeTheMan said TCP/IP DID contact Mac information.
He was RIGHT.

However, only the MAC Address information of each hop from one point to the next is known between the devices, but thats it. The original machine does not know the destination's mac address (unless it is 1 hop away such as from a PC to a router), and the destination does not know the original's mac address.

(If all of this info were contained in TCP/IP, the world would explode. So GREG was right!)

MoeTheMan: I will extend a sincere apology to you if you would do the same to me (for at least calling me names). If you don't want to, then thats ok. My apology is out there. For my part, I made a mistake.

helix

03-20-2008, 07:25 PM

ahhhh.....So much love in this thread........who is up for a group hug???

anybody?

somebody?

nothing but crickets

2MuchMark

03-20-2008, 07:27 PM

ahhhh.....So much love in this thread........who is up for a group hug???
anybody?
somebody?
nothing but crickets

HUGZ!!!!!!!!!!!

Nymph

03-20-2008, 07:53 PM

ahhhh.....So much love in this thread........who is up for a group hug???

anybody?

somebody?

nothing but crickets

Count me in :)

Mediaguy

03-20-2008, 08:06 PM

Key concept: THE SAME . . . therefore, as I have stated, all that would need to be done is to trace back through the entire sequence, one hop at a time, sniffing the packets to get that hop's sender MAC address, until one arrives at the originating devices.

Just to break it down for you more, MORON, here is
(since I can tell you can't read properly, or you would have seen it, it has been there all along HAHAHAHAHA)
a post in the first thread where this came up:

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showpost.php?p=808020&postcount=121

which has THIS LINK:

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2001/03/21/FreeBSD_Basics.html

which is not a bad piece at all . . . I prefer textbooks myself, but that it right . . . .

Last paragraph on page 1 (yes, at the bottom, there ya GO, champ) has a bit of info you might be interested in reading . . .

Ok, now go on and say that both the author of the textbook and the author of the article are wrong . . . go on . . . you fucking drooling mongoloid imbecile . . . hard to believe you have the nerve to keep going, to keep making an ass out of yourself, in spite of having facts in your face . . . a good, persistent liar AND parasite . . .

Moe, they're right of course - since if you read the WHOLE page is describing an experiment within a "home network" demonstrating how to capture your packets within a LAN:

"In my home network, I have a computer named "genisis" with an IP address of 10.0.0.1; it is connected using an Ethernet topology to a computer named "biko" whose IP address is 10.0.0.2."

Note the IP addresses. Check his IP Packet. The entry for IP is "biko" from "ginisis" - or local subnet, which means of course you'll see the last sending device's MAC address. You'll see this whether you're reading the last hop from a router or a compute-to-computer transimission in your LAN.

So they're right, because they're talking about a local network.

YOU are not. You think this is about WAN-side transmission of TCP/IP packets but it is STILL about LANs and subnets.

Did you think I was going to read just the last paragraph out of context and think that everything else available on the matter was wrong?

There's too much thinking of that sort here. You should really yank back on the throttle a little before you start calling people morons and imbeciles. The more of that you do, especially when you're wrong, the more you become those.

oh and ps.: sniffing backwards you will not get the same route, and even if you did your device routing tables contain more than one send destination; these nodes don't remember where they sent what packet or when they sent them; that is simply too much useless data to process.

bluemoney

03-20-2008, 08:25 PM

:horse1:

helix

03-20-2008, 08:41 PM

Count me in :)

:)

helix

03-20-2008, 08:55 PM

HUGZ!!!!!!!!!!!

lol...... right back at ya :)

gonzo

03-20-2008, 09:04 PM

James, I am somehow fascinated with your last name. How is McAnally pronounced?
Coventry.

helix

03-20-2008, 09:09 PM

Hmmm........a glitch in the Matrix. Did they cut the hardline?

gonzo

03-20-2008, 09:17 PM

Hmmm........a glitch in the Matrix. Did they cut the hardline?
I spoke the magic word.

More powerful than miserable.

helix

03-20-2008, 09:20 PM

I knew it.........you.........are...........the 1

Buckwheat

03-20-2008, 09:32 PM

This thread reminds me of the time I hired Jackson Pollack to paint my house . . . What a fucking mess!

2MuchMark

03-20-2008, 09:33 PM

And?

And?

Who wants a hug? Hammer? .... Gonzo? ......... Shellee?

Check this out:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4

See? This is what Oprano should be all about. Awww! Less fighting and more hugging. (We'll get more chicks that way)

Awww!

m

Hammer

03-20-2008, 09:34 PM

This thread reminds me of the time I hired Jackson Pollack to paint my house . . . What a fucking mess!

A mess that would be worth millions.

moetheman

03-20-2008, 11:43 PM

This is a similar discussion:
http://content.ix2.net/arc/t-4333.html
"There is no way to determine the mac address of your computer, once the packets have passed through a router. The mac address is used only on a local network and as a packet leaves your local network, the mac address is replaced by the mac address of the router. This happens at every router along the route between you and any other site."

That is why I said step back through each "hop". The TCP packets at each hop contain the MAC address of BOTH the SENDER and THE RECEIVER. TO break it down more: you would sniff the addy of the sender in THAT LAST hop. Ok. Then, you trace to the next hop, and sniff there, and do the same, and repeat, until you finally arrive at the originating device . . . as I stated, it is conceptually straightforward.

Since your computer has an arp table that contains your routers LAN side mac address it is possible that they could send that in the same way they could 2) 3) and 4). But your router is going to have a different mac address for it WAN side, which is the part that you would care about. Your computer will not have the WAN side mac address in its arp table because it is on the "other side" of your router.

All that to say: They only way they could get your router's WAN-side mac address would be have access to a device on your local ISP's network on the same subnet as your router. This is highly improbable. (This all came from http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=765054) by the way).

Improbable if you can't manage to enter . . . and it happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. People do this everyday.

Anyway,

It appears that I owe MoeTheMan, an apology (Sort of)!

I had said that it was Impossible to detect the MAC address of a machine via the Internet (without a client).
I was RIGHT.

No one, except you, said that could be done. That would amount to detection without a connection. THAT is not possible.

I also said that TCP/IP did not contain Mac address information.
I was WRONG.

MoeTheMan said TCP/IP DID contact Mac information.
He was RIGHT.

The $100 should go to any charity. I don't care which one, although I prefer:

The WINE project (nothing to do with the drink BTW)
The Free Software Foundation
or the nearest soup kitchen.

However, only the MAC Address information of each hop from one point to the next is known between the devices, but thats it. The original machine does not know the destination's mac address (unless it is 1 hop away such as from a PC to a router), and the destination does not know the original's mac address.

I WROTE THAT. Mayhaps I did not break it down enough, yet I did write that it would be necessary to sniff MAC addresses at each hop, so as to be able to trace back (by looking at the SENDER addy)

(If all of this info were contained in TCP/IP, the world would explode. So GREG was right!)

Funny, he was the only one saying that . . . see point above.

MoeTheMan: I will extend a sincere apology to you if you would do the same to me (for at least calling me names). If you don't want to, then thats ok. My apology is out there. For my part, I made a mistake.

If I thought you were being sincere and honest, I would reciprocate. But I doubt that, so, no apologies from me. And you engaged in name calling as well . . . so don't act like the victim.

You said you were leaving this thread.

2MuchMark

03-20-2008, 11:58 PM

If I thought you were being sincere and honest, I would reciprocate. But I doubt that, so, no apologies from me.

No payout. You said you could obtain my pc's mac address. I bet you couldn't, and you couldn't. I won the bet. Sorry, no donation to the ASACP in your name.

No Apology? No worries. I won't lose any sleep over it.

moetheman

03-21-2008, 12:02 AM

Moe, they're right of course - since if you read the WHOLE page is describing an experiment within a "home network" demonstrating how to capture your packets within a LAN:

"In my home network, I have a computer named "genisis" with an IP address of 10.0.0.1; it is connected using an Ethernet topology to a computer named "biko" whose IP address is 10.0.0.2."

Note the IP addresses. Check his IP Packet. The entry for IP is "biko" from "ginisis" - or local subnet, which means of course you'll see the last sending device's MAC address. You'll see this whether you're reading the last hop from a router or a compute-to-computer transimission in your LAN.

So they're right, because they're talking about a local network.

"When your request shows up at the router that connects to The TCP/IP Guide, it can see the http://www.tcpipguide.com server's IP address, but that isn't helpful: it needs to send to server's MAC address.
The identical issue exists even with communication between devices on a LAN."

That last sentence tells us that that what I referred to applies to a WAN AND a LAN.

YOU are not. You think this is about WAN-side transmission of TCP/IP packets but it is STILL about LANs and subnets.

Did you think I was going to read just the last paragraph out of context and think that everything else available on the matter was wrong?

That was meant to illustrate the anatomy of a TCP packet.

There's too much thinking of that sort here. You should really yank back on the throttle a little before you start calling people morons and imbeciles. The more of that you do, especially when you're wrong, the more you become those.

oh and ps.: sniffing backwards you will not get the same route, and even if you did your device routing tables contain more than one send destination; these nodes don't remember where they sent what packet or when they sent them; that is simply too much useless data to process.

Wrong. Think traceroute, and think packet sniffer, at every hop . . .

If the connection from the originating device were terminated, that would be another matter.

As I said, doing that with software alone (as in automatically, minus a human) would not be infallible every time . . . but with a human, UNLESS one of the devices at one end of one of the hops were VERY secure (and I mean secure as in OpenBSD + firewall hardware + some competent sysadmins + some specialized intrusion detection software) it would be trivial for many folks to do . . . oh, and before you accuse me of claiming I am into cracking, I will repeat: I am not into it . . . not interested . . . I have obtained proper reference material on networking because I am interested in Web Applications . . . and that is all.

What I can't believe is, coming across people who make their living from doing business online, and who not only do not know this stuff, but do not even have access to proper reference material. That amazes me.