Texsox Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 The job of the police should be to catch people committing crimes, not seeing how many people they can convince to commit crimes. I'm not going to differentiate if they are trying to get someone to buy a joint or commit murder. Catch criminals, don't create them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) Maybe the movie Minority Report will come to fruition some day? How do you figure. If I advertise a website via a kiddy porn forum named 13 year old naked boy sodomy and fun and you click on it. What was your intent. Edited April 1, 2008 by southsideirish71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted April 1, 2008 Author Share Posted April 1, 2008 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 03:02 PM) How do you figure. If I advertise a website via a kiddy porn forum named 13 year old naked boy sodomy and fun and you click on it. What was your intent. see post 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) see post 21 Forgive my ignorance on internet technologies, but can't they find where you followed the link from? If they saw you can from soxtalk.com, they might look into it a little more before beating down your door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) Forgive my ignorance on internet technologies, but can't they find where you followed the link from? If they saw you can from soxtalk.com, they might look into it a little more before beating down your door. Actually within the http protocol, there is a referrers entry that will tell you where the link was redirected from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) see post 21 I along with a lot of security professionals block anonymizers such as tinyurl.com at our companies. These are often used by people to obscure the url to get around content blockers and to hide the payload of a malware url. Another thing is that modern browsers are putting phishing protection in the product to watch for site redirection such as that. Blindly clicking on URLs that you receive in your email will more likely get your machine taken over as part of a botnet than you getting some illegal child porn. You can set this up protection at your home by using a free service like OpenDNS.com You can enable its phishing protection and block anonymizers and other content and it will protect you from getting caught like this. Edited April 1, 2008 by southsideirish71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 03:12 PM) Actually within the http protocol, there is a referrers entry that will tell you where the link was redirected from. I saw this in the story, and that is what worried me. When anyone visited the upload.sytes.net site, the FBI recorded the Internet Protocol address of the remote computer. There's no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message. Now I am sure it CAN be checked, but knowing the government, how can we be sure it IS checked? That is what worries me about this. I love it when child predators are taken down. But there is still somethign about this that I just think needs to be checked or tweaked to make sure it doesn't screw up innocent people. You get accused of this s***, even when innocent, and you are screwed for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) I saw this in the story, and that is what worried me. Now I am sure it CAN be checked, but knowing the government, how can we be sure it IS checked? That is what worries me about this. I love it when child predators are taken down. But there is still somethign about this that I just think needs to be checked or tweaked to make sure it doesn't screw up innocent people. You get accused of this s***, even when innocent, and you are screwed for life. An access log in their web server is not a forensically sound method that will stand up in court. I suspect that they are performing full content decodes via a sniffer or IDS to capture the entire packet stream. During basic analysis of this, you can tell if the person accidentally clicked on the link. Or is perusing the site. My guess is that they have a link that brings you to a website, and that the website has links within it. I can tell by looking at a content servers log with packet capture if the person is just clicking on a porn link accidentally, or they are drilling into the site spending time on the server. I would suspect that this is more than a single link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 11:54 AM) What is to prevent someone from taking the hotlink and using tinyurl or something and placing it on a message board like Soxtalk? The person clicking it would have no idea what it was until they got there. This could be the next internet sensation since getting Rick Rolled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts