Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Colonel wrote:
>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.
>

you also request key fingerprint from real live person for compare -
right ? !!

else you do only halfbaked protocol

privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

says...
> As I've already said, I don't really give a **** whether he gets
terminated
> or not.

For someone who doesn't care you certainly do a lot of whining about him.

> It's Cotse's blatant lies!

Ah yes, those blatant lies where their ToS said they don't term on third
party complaints of posting personal info and therefore would not term
for you. You then shout lies when they are sticking firm to their ToS.
Seems only one person is lying here.

> 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.

Which google are you looking at? I see the opposite, I see a few very
loud people complaining by flooding and such and a lot of people
defending. Cotse even seems to be well respected in the net-abuse
groups. Perhaps you ought to actually read those google results.

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

First, I don't see this abuse you seem to see, care to post any current
examples? I see no current or even recent (last two years are as far as
I went back digging, nothing there) abuse about Cotse. As far as people
like you complaining about a poster they don't like who's not abusive,
that's probably because usenet posts from anonymizer don't stamp
anonymizer.com all over them like Cotse does. Take something that does
stamp as an example, I see far more complaints about remailers than
Cotse. Hell, I see more complaints about nearly every NSP other than
Cotse.

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

Says only you, it seems. You and the flooder, one and the same most
likely. You, on the other hand, are really boosting Cotse's credibility.

futureworlds

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:32:05 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
<> wrote:

>
>Which google are you looking at? I see the opposite, I see a few very
>loud people complaining by flooding and such and a lot of people
>defending. Cotse even seems to be well respected in the net-abuse
>groups. Perhaps you ought to actually read those google results.
>

Are you blind?

Searching Google groups for the word "Cotse" turns up a high number of
complaints from many DIFFERENT people, from many DIFFERENT groups dating
back in some cases as far as 1999. I appear to be only the latest in a long
line of complainants and it seems that BlueBird's actions are actually
typical of Cotse users and that Stephen seems to be the only schmuck
defending his users actions, as opposed to this imaginary "lot of people"
you refer to?

Perhaps it is you ought to actually read those google results!


>
>
>First, I don't see this abuse you seem to see, care to post any current
>examples? I see no current or even recent (last two years are as far as
>I went back digging, nothing there) abuse about Cotse.

*sigh*

See above. You are obviously wearing your rose-tinted Cotse spectacles (or
are just plain ignorant to the proof).


>As far as people
>like you complaining about a poster they don't like who's not abusive,
>that's probably because usenet posts from anonymizer don't stamp
>anonymizer.com all over them like Cotse does. Take something that does
>stamp as an example, I see far more complaints about remailers than
>Cotse. Hell, I see more complaints about nearly every NSP other than
>Cotse.
>

What exactly does anonymizer's stamping (or lack of) have to do with it? It
is very clear to see when posts/emails originate from Anonymizer, they
hardly try to hide the fact it originates from them! You are chasing your
tail with that excuse!

Yes, there are a high number of complaints about remailers but that's not
the issue here is it? Remops clearly state that they have absolutely no
control over its uses/users as that's the way the network is designed. They
have no knowledge of what goes through them (well, except Froggy of
course!) whereas Cotse knows full well what is going on in their system and
through it (except once it reaches the remailers of course as the Cotse
service is just a front end to leech of them anyway)


>
>
>Says only you, it seems. You and the flooder, one and the same most
>likely. You, on the other hand, are really boosting Cotse's credibility.
>


Ahh yes, that's right. rather than accept that people other than this
****wit flooder (who we all know is Froggy anyway!) are displeased with
Cotse and its users actions, you accuse them of being one and the same
person. This is a common accusation from Cotse users! How sad!!

(As a side note, Froggy seems to have quite a few problems mastering the
english language and general grammar. I would not consider myself to have
that problem).

You sound very much like that ****wit Stephen who runs the service. It
seems most likely that you and Stephen are the one and same person.

As for Cotse's credibility, as I said take a flick through Google
Groups......Stephen and his users actions seems to have done a well enough
job of destroying ANY credibility they had in the first place!!! They
certainly don't need my help!!!

starwars

says...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:32:05 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
> <> wrote:
>
> >
> >Which google are you looking at? I see the opposite, I see a few very
> >loud people complaining by flooding and such and a lot of people
> >defending. Cotse even seems to be well respected in the net-abuse
> >groups. Perhaps you ought to actually read those google results.
> >
>
> Are you blind?
>
> Searching Google groups for the word "Cotse" turns up a high number of
> complaints from many DIFFERENT people, from many DIFFERENT groups dating
> back in some cases as far as 1999. I appear to be only the latest in a
long
> line of complainants

Ok, I'll bite, show me the abuse. Show me any abuse that isn't just a
simple troll that got someone like you irritated. Do you feel that ISPs
should terminate accounts whenever they get a trolling complaint?

futureworlds

In article < s.it>,
says...
> says...
> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:32:05 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
> > <> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Which google are you looking at? I see the opposite, I see a few very
> > >loud people complaining by flooding and such and a lot of people
> > >defending. Cotse even seems to be well respected in the net-abuse
> > >groups. Perhaps you ought to actually read those google results.
> > >
> >
> > Are you blind?
> >
> > Searching Google groups for the word "Cotse" turns up a high number of
> > complaints from many DIFFERENT people, from many DIFFERENT groups dating
> > back in some cases as far as 1999. I appear to be only the latest in a
> long
> > line of complainants
>
> Ok, I'll bite, show me the abuse. Show me any abuse that isn't just a
> simple troll that got someone like you irritated. Do you feel that ISPs
> should terminate accounts whenever they get a trolling complaint?
>

I can show you that. In pior to 2000 we were a free service, cotse
provided a web interface to the remailers, an interface to the
mail2news, a cotse remailer, and free e-mail. Free accounts, open
interfaces, easy access, man did it get abused. Mid 2000 we gave up and
shut it down. In 2001 we became a subscription service and clamped
down. There has been no unhandled abuse of the net since then. Since
then all complaints have been about someone like bluejay ****ing off
someone like this anon guy. That is not abuse, that's just someone
getting annoyed with someone else, very common.

/steve
--
You simply cannot get more server side control of
your e-mail without running your own mail server and
knowing how to program.
http://www.cotse.net/privacyservice.html

Stephen K. Gielda

In article < ux.net>,
says...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:32:05 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
> <> wrote:
>
> >
> >Which google are you looking at? I see the opposite, I see a few very
> >loud people complaining by flooding and such and a lot of people
> >defending. Cotse even seems to be well respected in the net-abuse
> >groups. Perhaps you ought to actually read those google results.
> >
>
> Are you blind?
>
> Searching Google groups for the word "Cotse" turns up a high number of
> complaints from many DIFFERENT people, from many DIFFERENT groups dating
> back in some cases as far as 1999. I appear to be only the latest in a long
> line of complainants and it seems that BlueBird's actions are actually
> typical of Cotse users and that Stephen seems to be the only schmuck
> defending his users actions, as opposed to this imaginary "lot of people"
> you refer to?
>
> Perhaps it is you ought to actually read those google results!

There was abuse of the net from cotse servers prior to 2000. We were a
free service then and we tried to handle things via technical solutions
like throttling, filtering, etc. We failed and ended up shutting it
down mid 2000. Free services are just plain ripe for abuse. July 4th
2001 we came back with a subscription service and tighter controls.
You'll find no unhandled abuse of the net from cotse in google since
then. The complaints since then have been because someone like bluejay
irritated someone like you and that person posted up a fury just like
you are doing. However, that is not abuse of the net and you'll find
very few services that will term a user just because they annoyed
others.

/steve
--
Protect yourself on-line. Hide your identifying details in e-mail,
usenet, and more. A privacy service like no other.
No one gives you more control over your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html

Stephen K. Gielda

says...
> In article < s.it>,
> says...
> > says...
> > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:32:05 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
> > > <> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Which google are you looking at? I see the opposite, I see a few
very
> > > >loud people complaining by flooding and such and a lot of people
> > > >defending. Cotse even seems to be well respected in the net-abuse
> > > >groups. Perhaps you ought to actually read those google results.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you blind?
> > >
> > > Searching Google groups for the word "Cotse" turns up a high number of
> > > complaints from many DIFFERENT people, from many DIFFERENT groups
dating
> > > back in some cases as far as 1999. I appear to be only the latest in a
> > long
> > > line of complainants
> >
> > Ok, I'll bite, show me the abuse. Show me any abuse that isn't just a
> > simple troll that got someone like you irritated. Do you feel that ISPs
> > should terminate accounts whenever they get a trolling complaint?
> >
>
> I can show you that. In pior to 2000 we were a free service, cotse
> provided a web interface to the remailers, an interface to the
> mail2news, a cotse remailer, and free e-mail. Free accounts, open
> interfaces, easy access, man did it get abused. Mid 2000 we gave up and
> shut it down. In 2001 we became a subscription service and clamped
> down. There has been no unhandled abuse of the net since then. Since
> then all complaints have been about someone like bluejay ****ing off
> someone like this anon guy. That is not abuse, that's just someone
> getting annoyed with someone else, very common.
>

Ah, I didn't look that far back, I also only searched your name.
Searching under Cotse I can see some minor flooding pre 2000, BI 55.
Even that is far less than we see from other free public anonymous
services (BI on the remailer floods is somewhere around 30,000) so I
think you did a pretty damn good job back then too. The subscription
service was a good idea. People are less likely to abuse what they pay
for, which I can also see because after you went subscription I don't
see any abuse of the net issues.

Regarding usenet, don't let this guy get your goat. Pretty much every
service has people whining about "unstopped abuse" when someone
irritated them, as I'm sure you know from being a nanau reg. Plus, you
do a much better job of control than most other services when it comes
to real abuse. But, a word of advice, you might be better off just
ignoring the whiners like this guy, they'll burn out quicker that way.

futureworlds

says...
> Ah, I didn't look that far back, I also only searched your name.
> Searching under Cotse I can see some minor flooding pre 2000, BI 55.
> Even that is far less than we see from other free public anonymous
> services (BI on the remailer floods is somewhere around 30,000) so I
> think you did a pretty damn good job back then too. The subscription
> service was a good idea. People are less likely to abuse what they pay
> for, which I can also see because after you went subscription I don't
> see any abuse of the net issues.
>
> Regarding usenet, don't let this guy get your goat. Pretty much every
> service has people whining about "unstopped abuse" when someone
> irritated them, as I'm sure you know from being a nanau reg. Plus, you
> do a much better job of control than most other services when it comes
> to real abuse. But, a word of advice, you might be better off just
> ignoring the whiners like this guy, they'll burn out quicker that way.
>

I second that. I'm glad COTSE exists, they offer an awesome service.
Steve, please ignore the whiny little puke, it's pretty ****ing obvious
he's alone in his views. Let him whine to the ether.

Nomen Nescio

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:30:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<> wrote:

>>... 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!

Okay, I'm going to bite this one time. Please provide proof of your
allegation above.

>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.

Again. Please provide proof of your allegations. Aside from my basic
curiosity, I'd like to know what it is that's making you so angry.

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

Maybe they don't have as many customers...

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

And yet it obviously bugs you a great deal...

>>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!

Ah, now this makes a little more sense. It's not COTSE's services that
you have a problem with. It's the idea that you have to pay to use
them. I see.

>>--
>>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!!

I don't need to defend COTSE. The truth speaks for itself and all
that. My interest here is only to find out why you keep spouting off
all this negative crap about COTSE.

>Typical Cotse Fanboys (or whatever gender suits)!

Touche'...

--
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.

[ Doc Jeff ]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:53:20 -0500, Colonel Flagg
<> wrote:

>In article <3fbb5756$0$143$>, Colonel
> 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!!

George Orwell