Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Colonel Kernel@sys32.com, Nov 19, 2003.

  1. Colonel

    Colonel Guest

    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
    Colonel , Nov 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    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."
    Colonel Flagg, Nov 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Colonel

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:53:20 -0500, Colonel Flagg
    <> 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 fucking fake-ass wannabe anonymous service and does
    nothing but make usenet miserable for everybody else.

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

    P.S. I think Lance Cottrell is a lot more trustworthy than that fucking
    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? Fucking shitbag!
    Nomen Nescio, Nov 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Colonel

    futureworlds Guest

    says...
    > No, that's probably cos you're one of those trolling shits that hides
    > behind Cotse's shitty fucking fake-ass wannabe anonymous service and does
    > nothing but make usenet miserable for everybody else.
    >
    > You can go back to fucking your Cotse buddy BlueBird now, ya fucking
    > retard.
    >
    > P.S. I think Lance Cottrell is a lot more trustworthy than that fucking
    > 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? Fucking shitbag!
    >


    He seems to do a pretty fine job of protecting his users from the likes
    of people like you. Still pissed off you can't force him to cancel
    accounts of those you don't like, huh?
    futureworlds, Nov 20, 2003
    #4
  5. On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:47:48 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
    <> wrote:

    >>

    >
    >He seems to do a pretty fine job of protecting his users from the likes
    >of people like you. Still pissed 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!
    Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer, Nov 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Colonel

    futureworlds Guest

    says...
    > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:47:48 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >>

    > >
    > >He seems to do a pretty fine job of protecting his users from the likes
    > >of people like you. Still pissed 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.
    futureworlds, Nov 20, 2003
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    says...
    > says...
    > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:47:48 +0100 (CET), futureworlds
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >>
    > > >
    > > >He seems to do a pretty fine job of protecting his users from the likes
    > > >of people like you. Still pissed 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."
    Colonel Flagg, Nov 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Colonel

    starwars Guest

    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!!
    starwars, Nov 20, 2003
    #8
  9. Colonel

    [ Doc Jeff ] Guest

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 01:40:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:53:20 -0500, Colonel Flagg
    ><> 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 fucking 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 fucking your Cotse buddy BlueBird now, ya fucking
    >retard.


    Are you still pissed 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 fucking
    >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? Fucking 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.
    [ Doc Jeff ], Nov 20, 2003
    #9
  10. Colonel

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:28:39 -0800, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <>
    wrote:

    [snip]

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



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


    >Are you still pissed 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 shit 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)!
    Nomen Nescio, Nov 20, 2003
    #10
  11. 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, Nov 20, 2003
    #11
  12. Colonel

    futureworlds Guest

    says...
    > As I've already said, I don't really give a shit 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, Nov 21, 2003
    #12
  13. Colonel

    starwars Guest

    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
    fuckwit 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 fuckwit 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, Nov 21, 2003
    #13
  14. Colonel

    futureworlds Guest

    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, Nov 21, 2003
    #14
  15. In article <>,
    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 pissing 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, Nov 21, 2003
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    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, Nov 21, 2003
    #16
  17. Colonel

    futureworlds Guest

    says...
    > In article <>,
    > 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 pissing 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, Nov 21, 2003
    #17
  18. Colonel

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    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 fucking obvious
    he's alone in his views. Let him whine to the ether.
    Nomen Nescio, Nov 21, 2003
    #18
  19. Colonel

    [ Doc Jeff ] Guest

    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 shit 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 shit 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 ], Nov 21, 2003
    #19
  20. 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, Nov 21, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. a.nonny mouse
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,096
  2. Colonel

    Re: Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems

    Colonel , Nov 20, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    450
    Colonel
    Nov 20, 2003
  3. Bluejay

    Re: Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems - LOL

    Bluejay, Nov 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    440
    Bluejay
    Nov 21, 2003
  4. Nomen Nescio

    Re: Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems - LOL

    Nomen Nescio, Nov 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    424
    Nomen Nescio
    Nov 21, 2003
  5. Bluejay

    Re: Anonymizer Tunnel Server Problems

    Bluejay, Nov 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    480
    Bluejay
    Nov 21, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page