On Oct 11, 3:38 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:25:18 -0700, wrote:
I've seen this one on Usenet, and especially in the Ninja blog:
As the Russian mob is afraid of losing their grip on the USCF, they
posted all the fake Sloan, Gorden, et. al. Usenet and USCF blog
entries. Motterhead's document is meaningless.
(32) It's the [Russian] mob's fault. Motterhead's document is
meaningless.

Thanks, Muncha Man. Remember, the man with the piano wire may not be
a musician.

Yikes! Looks like I best stay in the Bat-cave until daylight!

Here's another take from the Ninja blog -- note that Chris Falter used
to work alongside nolan on the USCF website --:

"Pr believes that Russian hackers could have spoofed Truong's IP
address, and provides several news articles as proof. However, the
news articles prove nothing of the sort. They describe distributed
denial-of-service attacks, a DRM compromise of Adobe's eBook Reader,
and the compromising of unpatched web servers. None of these involved
IP spoofs.

It is basically impossible that someone could have spoofed Paul's IP.
The only way short of a compromise of Paul's actual computers
(plural--3 different ones were involved in Mottershead's analysis)
would have been a dnsspoof man-in-the-middle attack against Paul's
connections to USCF servers, followed by fake postings to USENET from
the MITM host at the appropriate moments. This would have involved
serious compromises on the internal networks of at least 2 different
ISPs over long periods of time in order to install/use dnsspoof.
Basically impossible, like I said.

It is of course not impossible that Paul's notebook and home desktop
have been compromised. However, such compromises are generally the
result of visiting malicious web pages that exploit vulnerabilities to
install malware. Hackers then use the compromised machines to spam or
launch DOS attacks across the internet. It is unheard of for a hacker
to use a compromised machine to post to Usenet groups under a fake
identity, with the expectation that a zealous sys admin will hunt down
the owner of the compromised computer and accuse him of spoofery. The
scenario is so implausible that there is no need to consider it any
further.

Another reason to reject the hacker hypothesis is that anyone who
would go to extreme and time-consuming lengths to impersonate Paul
over a period of several months would be motivated to embarrass Paul
at a more suitable moment. If a hacker were motivated to embarrass
Paul, you would think s/he would point the accusing finger prior to an
election, when it could do some real damage to Paul's election
chances. Believing the hacker hypothesis entails a belief that the
hacker spent dozens of hours over many months with the express purpose
of embarrassing Paul, but never lifted a finger to publicize the
embarrassing situation. This is not a credible hypothesis.

I will be posting more on my blog shortly, God willing."
Posted by: Chris Falter at October 11, 2007 12:34

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/..._spillover.htm
http://christopherfalter.blogspot.com/