Do you want Gonzo to post your real name?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[moetheman]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

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]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

You're wrong. Got the texts

You got the text?

RIGHT.

[DannyCox]

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.

[Mediaguy]

Originally Posted by moetheman

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.

[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.

[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.

[Toby]

- Page 7 -

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

[gonzo]

[moetheman]

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??

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 . . .