Do you want Gonzo to post your real name?

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Shellee,

2 Of the girls in your screenshot went home 30 minutes ago at 10:30pm eastern time, but your post as listed as 5 minutes ago at 11:00pm eastern time. Who is manipulating what exactly?

I suggest that you check http://cam.livecamnetwork.com/cgi-bi...e_custmain.cgi right now at 11:02pm. They're all in private or group chat again. This page refreshes every 60 seconds.

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

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

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

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]

ah

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Whatever 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]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

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]

Originally Posted by moetheman

...you were caught posting under another account...

That's the ultimate point. The specific method of detection is just details.

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

(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]

Originally Posted by moetheman

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:

Originally Posted by moetheman

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

...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]

Originally Posted by Toby

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]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

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]

Originally Posted by Shelleehale

Toby, does this look like an innocent man here?

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

[moetheman]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

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]

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

Thanks!

[moetheman]

Originally Posted by gonzo

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]

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

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]

Originally Posted by Toby

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]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

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]

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

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]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

...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.

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

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 that tripped the alarms.

[helix]

wtf...only 6 pages?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by helix

wtf...only 6 pages?

They ran out of catsup.

[Hammer]

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.

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by Hammer

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]

Originally Posted by moetheman

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/gorr...t-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]

Originally Posted by Toby

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).

Originally Posted by Toby

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 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]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

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]

Originally Posted by Toby

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]

I love you guys. Really!

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

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]

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

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Jace

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]

AHEM......

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



Discuss

-Loki-

[softball]

Originally Posted by Jace

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]

Originally Posted by vdc-Loki

AHEM......

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

You killed me lol.

[softball]

Hey Jace, let me help you out, dude...

RevShareHosting - Blogs Manager
FULL FEATURED blog hosting without a hosting bill
ICQ and let me get you started! 399608482
Jace's Blog Services | jace ( at ) revsharehosting (dot) com | Looking For Link Trades (11 sites)

[moetheman]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

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.

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

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.

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

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.

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

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-Comp...5909984&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]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

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/gorr...t-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-Comp...5911346&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]

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]

Originally Posted by moetheman

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-Comp...5911346&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]

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]

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]

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

[StaciEroticy508]

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

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

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]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

...I kind find paint drying more amusing but it doesn't last as long.

Try using oil base during cool damp weather.

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by moetheman

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]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

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.