FBI Warning Cont...

[ETG]

"ETG, at one time or another many of the IP's you listed I have seen in my own or work firewall records." -Palemoon

I would like to know were you work to actualy see some of those IP's connect to you. These are not IP address that would access your computer without your consent. You must first send information to these IP address, and there is really no reason why you would send information there in the first place. Some of these IP relate to bank transfers, some are college science department networks, some are state or federal servers, and some or just plain old general commerical companys in office highrises. THESE ARE NOT WEB SERVERS! A few people on this forum seem not to understand that.

"I think what we/they are trying to say, if I may, is of what credability do your or of where this information comes from does it pertain to? In my unbias opinion, I would have to agree that the words that have been written would equal the chicken and the sky falling thing :P" -Anonymous_User

Just take a minute to read what I posted. There links to many important commercial and goverment servers. Why would'nt they be monitered by the FBI. Some of these servers are infact own and operated by the FBI. YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE FBI MONITERS THERE OWN SERVERS. That simple fact proves that my post was not 100% fraudulent. The many other servers on the list are being monitered by the FBI becouse I KNOW. How I know is my own business, and it would be against forum rules and possibly illegal if I were to tell you. I give you this simple challenge. PROVE ME WRONG

Nebulus200 and KissCool both had some pretty good points. When you scan large an entire class C range then you would probly by the laws of statistics you would scan over a honeypot. And yes in a way i'm scaring off would be hackers, especialy AOLers..haha j/k but seriously don't doubt my posts. I am everything I say I am if I was'nt then why would I say I am?

To the admins on this forum. I'm not sure why you locked my previouse post. I seen that it was getting good ratings and it was stirring up fruitfull conversation. I figured I would post something a little contriversal considering the previouse topics of liquid states, and solitare records would bore a large part of this community. I can't seem to find a reason why you lock a perfectly good post the way you did. You did not allow be to make a reply to peoples questions and I would of liked to of continued on with that post. If you would, could you "unlock" that post and maybe merge this post with the original one wich was locked. Thank you.

[nebulus200]

How I know is my own business, and it would be against forum rules and possibly illegal if I were to tell you. I give you this simple challenge. PROVE ME WRONG

I take serious objection to this...Prove you wrong ? So let me get this right, you expect us to scan over 155 Million computers looking for honeypots? Even if someone is naive enough to do this in the first place, the chance of finding 1 honeypot out of 155million+ addresses is extremely high and proves absolutely nothing.

You were asked by everyone in that thread to supply evidence, or a rational line of reasoning for making such a claim. I for one at least am still waiting...

[ETG]

Originally posted here by nebulus200


I take serious objection to this...Prove you wrong ? So let me get this right, you expect us to scan over 155 Million computers looking for honeypots? Even if someone is naive enough to do this in the first place, the chance of finding 1 honeypot out of 155million+ addresses is extremely high and proves absolutely nothing.

You were asked by everyone in that thread to supply evidence, or a rational line of reasoning for making such a claim. I for one at least am still waiting...

"There links to many important commercial and goverment servers. Why would'nt they be monitered by the FBI. Some of these servers are infact own and operated by the FBI. YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE FBI MONITERS THERE OWN SERVERS. That simple fact proves that my post was not 100% fraudulent." How is this not rational line of reasoning? The job of the FBI is to protect the country and much of its job is to protect it from computer hackers. Maybe you skiped over that part of my post. I don't expect you to scan 155 million computers looking for honeypots. I never said I did. Seriously, if you don't believe there monitered by the FBI then why would you continue to ask for proof?

[cross]

Thank you ETG for the information. I dont really see why everyone is getting on your case though.... I mean the information, as stated originally, is provided as is, with no express intentions, other then to warn. In my opinion, a warning of anykind is helpfull and should be regarded with caution untill proven wrong, which is the argument above my post i think. If you dont like or agree with the information, either put up some evidence against it or keep quiet, unless you have something constructive to say!

anywho, thanks again ETG for the good post, and keep the info comming!

-cross

[KissCool]

The main problem is related to the proofs. You seems to only deduce the monitoring from the owning of those servers. But it is normal to monitor a server of which you are the owner or the admin (1), and the FBI probably doesn't own ALL those ips (2).

[4MidgetHitmen]

I am very sure that the FBI monitor their own networks... That being said...
" I am everything I say I am if I was'nt then why would I say I am? " Well I can think of many reasons why someone would say they were something they were not... As I am reasonably certian most folks on this site could...
As for how you got the information you "claim" to correct I would guess that it is one of two things...
1) You DID do something that was illegal...
2) You are trying to start a nice rumor and get it spread as far and wide as you can...
In this case I would follow the advice of the Russians... "Trust but Verify!"

4midgetHitmen

[Ennis]

The thread was closed because you are alluding that you may have done something illegal, and well to be honest unless you work with the FBI you cant tell us how you got this information. I'll leave this thread open until I ge complaints.

I was given good reason to close the thread in a few PM's I recieved. I am not here to debate why a thread is closed so please PM in the future or use the Report post in the corner if you have any issues you would like to raise in the post.

[ETG]

"We do not have anything for trade value but do not stop, post in
other places on the internet, but do not make a similiar mistake.
Your posting in a forum FULL of government agents.

Regards,

Pandoranna"
-Pandoranna part of a pgp encrypted forged email

I'm dropping this subject entirely. I'll remember NOT to "allude" that I may have done something illegal.

I will find more forums on the freenet project and post there, also if your interested you can email me at edthegreat@angelfire.com . Feds are to cheap to spend the money to go after a punk like me. Trust me I'm not worth it. I just want to keep antionline out of legal hassels.

[Tedob1]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

ya know if one could get a concept like this believed by enough people one could secretly charge networks to get included on the list.

or

if i were to make up a list of ip addys, include government ip blocks that i know of, maybe folks would actually give me the information i pretend to have.

[nebulus200]

Hmmm, read back through my post and I guess at I am at fault for not explaining why I objected to something like this without a little explanation from the poster, other than to restate the contents of the original post. For all I know the contents are 100% correct, I really don't know, but what bothers me about this post is it almost reads like one of those old chain letters, like the one about microsoft or disney, that encouraged people to pass around the email or call and complain. A very large swath of those addresses appear to be military/US government related addresses; however, alot of those addresses do not appear to be that way (or at least that was my impression upon scanning through the list of IP's) and my concern lies with question of whether or not those networks are something to be worried about or whether there is the possibility that the implicated networks are innocent of any such motives by the FBI.

Without any detailed information about why those networks are selected by ETG, it is impossible for me to determine whether or not to be worried about those networks should I see them enter my networks, not to mention the problems those networks would experience should they start to be blocked by other networks around the world based on information or claims such as this. Therein lies the problem, without a little more information, I have no way of knowing how seriously to take the post, whether I should shun those networks through blocks, or just move on my merry way and hope that nothing happens.

Hopefully that makes for a little more rational of an explanation and hopefully for a little more of an explanation about the contents of the list...

Nebulus