Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems

Reply
Thread Tools

Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems

 
 
Colonel Kernel@sys32.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2003
If anyone is using Anonymizer's SSH service, like me, you may have received
a big bold warning when trying to logon to their cyberpass.net server today.
It said: 'WARNING - THE HOST IDENTIFICATION HAS CHANGED!" and goes on to
list 3 reasons why this may have happened.

1) that Anonymizer has changed their host name (key or IP address), or
2) the service has been upgraded from SSH1 to SSH2, or
3) (their caps) SOMEONE COULD BE EVESDROPPING ON YOU RIGHT NOW
(man-in-the-middle-attack)!

It further says: "It is not recommended to connect until you have contacted
the host administrator (Anonymizer) to find out why the host identification
has changed."

Then it asks: "Do you want to continue with the connection?" You then are
presented with 3 hot buttons. YES -- NO (default) -- and HELP

If HELP is clicked on and you use F-Secure tunneller, the help files warn
you against trying to proceed with the connection until you contact
Anonymizer and recommends you do so by phone.

Well, the initial heart palpatations calmed down when I realized that there
was really no reason for an intruder to try to pose as the remote host. I
spent considerable time being in the cue on the phone with Anonymizer
Support before getting a real live person to talk to. He explained that they
indeed changed host keys (this should make Dr. Who happy) and that they were
powering down the old server and bringing up the new server and that I
should choose the YES button and proceed to continue to make the connection
to the new host server using the new key.

So, to those of you who experienced a simular problem, you can be the
supreme skeptic (nothing wrong with that!) and call them yourself and get
the same info or you can believe me who has been-there-done-that. The choice
is yours.

PS - In the last several months, Anonymizer has had some server interuptions
-- one lasting at least 8 hours. Prior to that they never had server
interuptions. I can only hope this temporary inconvenience is for a
permanent improvement.

Peace




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Colonel Flagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2003
In article <3fbb5756$0$143$(E-Mail Removed)>, Colonel
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> If anyone is using Anonymizer's SSH service, like me, you may have received
> a big bold warning when trying to logon to their cyberpass.net server today.
> It said: 'WARNING - THE HOST IDENTIFICATION HAS CHANGED!" and goes on to
> list 3 reasons why this may have happened.
>
> 1) that Anonymizer has changed their host name (key or IP address), or
> 2) the service has been upgraded from SSH1 to SSH2, or
> 3) (their caps) SOMEONE COULD BE EVESDROPPING ON YOU RIGHT NOW
> (man-in-the-middle-attack)!
>
> It further says: "It is not recommended to connect until you have contacted
> the host administrator (Anonymizer) to find out why the host identification
> has changed."
>
> Then it asks: "Do you want to continue with the connection?" You then are
> presented with 3 hot buttons. YES -- NO (default) -- and HELP
>
> If HELP is clicked on and you use F-Secure tunneller, the help files warn
> you against trying to proceed with the connection until you contact
> Anonymizer and recommends you do so by phone.
>
> Well, the initial heart palpatations calmed down when I realized that there
> was really no reason for an intruder to try to pose as the remote host. I
> spent considerable time being in the cue on the phone with Anonymizer
> Support before getting a real live person to talk to. He explained that they
> indeed changed host keys (this should make Dr. Who happy) and that they were
> powering down the old server and bringing up the new server and that I
> should choose the YES button and proceed to continue to make the connection
> to the new host server using the new key.
>
> So, to those of you who experienced a simular problem, you can be the
> supreme skeptic (nothing wrong with that!) and call them yourself and get
> the same info or you can believe me who has been-there-done-that. The choice
> is yours.
>
> PS - In the last several months, Anonymizer has had some server interuptions
> -- one lasting at least 8 hours. Prior to that they never had server
> interuptions. I can only hope this temporary inconvenience is for a
> permanent improvement.
>
> Peace
>
>
>
>
>



considering their new contract with the United States Government for
providing "anonymous" access to Internet sites for the citizen of Iran,
nothing would surprise me about a failed or flawed "anonymizing"
mechanism within their services. due to their alignment with "the
government", i wouldn't touch their services with a 10 ft. pole.




--
Colonel Flagg
http://www.internetwarzone.org/

Privacy at a click:
http://www.cotse.net

Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

"...I see stupid people."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nomen Nescio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:53:20 -0500, Colonel Flagg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[snip]

>
>
>considering their new contract with the United States Government for
>providing "anonymous" access to Internet sites for the citizen of Iran,
>nothing would surprise me about a failed or flawed "anonymizing"
>mechanism within their services. due to their alignment with "the
>government", i wouldn't touch their services with a 10 ft. pole.
>
>
>--
>Colonel Flagg
>http://www.internetwarzone.org/
>
>Privacy at a click:
>http://www.cotse.net
>



No, that's probably cos you're one of those trolling shits that hides
behind Cotse's shitty ****ing fake-ass wannabe anonymous service and does
nothing but make usenet miserable for everybody else.

You can go back to ****ing your Cotse buddy BlueBird now, ya ****ing
retard.

P.S. I think Lance Cottrell is a lot more trustworthy than that ****ing
scumbag Stephen K. Gielda anyway. What the **** has he ever done for
privacy and anonymity apart from set up Cotse to leech of the REAL
remailers? ****ing shitbag!

 
Reply With Quote
 
futureworlds
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> No, that's probably cos you're one of those trolling shits that hides
> behind Cotse's shitty ****ing fake-ass wannabe anonymous service and does
> nothing but make usenet miserable for everybody else.
>
> You can go back to ****ing your Cotse buddy BlueBird now, ya ****ing
> retard.
>
> P.S. I think Lance Cottrell is a lot more trustworthy than that ****ing
> scumbag Stephen K. Gielda anyway. What the **** has he ever done for
> privacy and anonymity apart from set up Cotse to leech of the REAL
> remailers? ****ing shitbag!
>


He seems to do a pretty fine job of protecting his users from the likes
of people like you. Still ****ed off you can't force him to cancel
accounts of those you don't like, huh?







 
Reply With Quote
 
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:47:48 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>

>
>He seems to do a pretty fine job of protecting his users from the likes
>of people like you. Still ****ed off you can't force him to cancel
>accounts of those you don't like, huh?
>
>



Nope. Looking through google groups I can see that there is a loooooong
history of Stephen and his Cotse users causing problems for people,
particularly on usenet.

Speaks for itself really!

 
Reply With Quote
 
futureworlds
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:47:48 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >>

> >
> >He seems to do a pretty fine job of protecting his users from the likes
> >of people like you. Still ****ed off you can't force him to cancel
> >accounts of those you don't like, huh?
> >
> >

>
>
> Nope. Looking through google groups I can see that there is a loooooong
> history of Stephen and his Cotse users causing problems for people,
> particularly on usenet.
>
> Speaks for itself really!
>


I took a look, it certainly shows that those angry at him always seem to
use hipcrime and remailer floods to voice their objections. That
definitely shows which side of the issue the abusers are on. After
seeing all that I'm actually amazed at the abuse he's taken to protect
people from abusers like you. If I didn't work for a competing service
I'd sign up with Cotse.










 
Reply With Quote
 
Colonel Flagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed) s.it>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:47:48 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >He seems to do a pretty fine job of protecting his users from the likes
> > >of people like you. Still ****ed off you can't force him to cancel
> > >accounts of those you don't like, huh?
> > >
> > >

> >
> >
> > Nope. Looking through google groups I can see that there is a loooooong
> > history of Stephen and his Cotse users causing problems for people,
> > particularly on usenet.
> >
> > Speaks for itself really!
> >

>
> I took a look, it certainly shows that those angry at him always seem to
> use hipcrime and remailer floods to voice their objections. That
> definitely shows which side of the issue the abusers are on. After
> seeing all that I'm actually amazed at the abuse he's taken to protect
> people from abusers like you. If I didn't work for a competing service
> I'd sign up with Cotse.
>



now that was one of the most honest and forthright posts I've ever seen.
stephen and the cotse folk should be proud to hear someone say that.


--
Colonel Flagg
http://www.internetwarzone.org/

Privacy at a click:
http://www.cotse.net

Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

"...I see stupid people."
 
Reply With Quote
 
starwars
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:53:20 -0500, Colonel Flagg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <3fbb5756$0$143$(E-Mail Removed)>, Colonel
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> If anyone is using Anonymizer's SSH service, like me, you may have received
>> a big bold warning when trying to logon to their cyberpass.net server today.
>> It said: 'WARNING - THE HOST IDENTIFICATION HAS CHANGED!" and goes on to
>> list 3 reasons why this may have happened.
>>
>> 1) that Anonymizer has changed their host name (key or IP address), or
>> 2) the service has been upgraded from SSH1 to SSH2, or
>> 3) (their caps) SOMEONE COULD BE EVESDROPPING ON YOU RIGHT NOW
>> (man-in-the-middle-attack)!
>>
>> It further says: "It is not recommended to connect until you have contacted
>> the host administrator (Anonymizer) to find out why the host identification
>> has changed."
>>
>> Then it asks: "Do you want to continue with the connection?" You then are
>> presented with 3 hot buttons. YES -- NO (default) -- and HELP
>>
>> If HELP is clicked on and you use F-Secure tunneller, the help files warn
>> you against trying to proceed with the connection until you contact
>> Anonymizer and recommends you do so by phone.
>>
>> Well, the initial heart palpatations calmed down when I realized that there
>> was really no reason for an intruder to try to pose as the remote host. I
>> spent considerable time being in the cue on the phone with Anonymizer
>> Support before getting a real live person to talk to. He explained that they
>> indeed changed host keys (this should make Dr. Who happy) and that they were
>> powering down the old server and bringing up the new server and that I
>> should choose the YES button and proceed to continue to make the connection
>> to the new host server using the new key.
>>
>> So, to those of you who experienced a simular problem, you can be the
>> supreme skeptic (nothing wrong with that!) and call them yourself and get
>> the same info or you can believe me who has been-there-done-that. The choice
>> is yours.
>>
>> PS - In the last several months, Anonymizer has had some server interuptions
>> -- one lasting at least 8 hours. Prior to that they never had server
>> interuptions. I can only hope this temporary inconvenience is for a
>> permanent improvement.
>>
>> Peace
>>



WTF!!

so when were anonymizer gonna tell their customers? how about some kind of
official statement? why should people have to call up (what about
international customers)? why couldn't they PGP sign a message somewhere
about it? why the change anyway? why isn't there ANYTHING on their website
about this? who originally posted this anyway? can they be trusted? why has
this been done while g dubya's in the uk? where can we get a copy of the
key/fingerprint to verify it with (apart from blindly accepting the new
one)?

this is all very curious. we need answers!!

NOW!!























 
Reply With Quote
 
[ Doc Jeff ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 01:40:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:53:20 -0500, Colonel Flagg
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>>
>>considering their new contract with the United States Government for
>>providing "anonymous" access to Internet sites for the citizen of Iran,
>>nothing would surprise me about a failed or flawed "anonymizing"
>>mechanism within their services. due to their alignment with "the
>>government", i wouldn't touch their services with a 10 ft. pole.

>
>
>No, that's probably cos you're one of those trolling shits that hides
>behind Cotse's shitty ****ing fake-ass wannabe anonymous service and does
>nothing but make usenet miserable for everybody else.


.... says the person using an anonymous remailer. Very curious.

>You can go back to ****ing your Cotse buddy BlueBird now, ya ****ing
>retard.


Are you still ****ed off that they won't terminate Bluebird's access
just because you feel offended? Christ, man (or whatever gender
suits), get over it.

>P.S. I think Lance Cottrell is a lot more trustworthy than that ****ing
>scumbag Stephen K. Gielda anyway. What the **** has he ever done for
>privacy and anonymity apart from set up Cotse to leech of the REAL
>remailers? ****ing shitbag!


Jealousy is a real bitch isn't it?

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nomen Nescio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2003
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:28:39 -0800, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

[snip]

>
>... says the person using an anonymous remailer. Very curious.
>



Er no.
......says the person who wants REAL privacy, not the fake **** that Cotse
CLAIM to offer!


>Are you still ****ed off that they won't terminate Bluebird's access
>just because you feel offended? Christ, man (or whatever gender
>suits), get over it.



As I've already said, I don't really give a **** whether he gets terminated
or not. It's Cotse's blatant lies! A search through google groups says
everything about them. I see the same small number of people defending
Cotse while all around the abuse causes everyone else problems.

To put it in perspective, there seems to be hardly the same signal to noise
ratio or abuse levels coming from Anonymizer's customers!

BlueBird is only hurting his own and Cotse's credibility with his actions!
No-one elses.


>
>Jealousy is a real bitch isn't it?



Er, yeh that's right. I'm jealous that I'm NOT paying for Cotse''s wannabe
service and using the REAL (free) services that Cotse is just leeching off
instead!


>--
>http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
>If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
>about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.



Aha, I see. It all becomes clear now! You are also one of these small
number of people trying to defend Cotse and its accompanying trolls!!

Typical Cotse Fanboys (or whatever gender suits)!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Split Tunnel Blocks http through tunnel but passes http around tunnel a.nonny mouse Cisco 2 09-19-2004 12:10 AM
Re: Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems Bluejay Computer Security 0 11-21-2003 09:12 PM
Re: Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems - LOL Nomen Nescio Computer Security 0 11-21-2003 02:50 PM
Re: Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems - LOL Bluejay Computer Security 0 11-21-2003 11:57 AM
Re: Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems Colonel Kernel@sys32.com Computer Security 0 11-20-2003 05:37 PM



Advertisments