Nuxx:6adc969c-7d19-4107-ba4f-8c2b348e0689@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <6adc969c-7d19-4107-ba4f-8c2b348e0689@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,24hoursupport.helpdesk Subject: Re: Name-Shifting ? Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:09:16 -0700 (PDT) References: <2hhb15l6jfua1g8uvsichu4765v8d95rjr@4ax.com> <77lvtcF1hjov5U1@mid.individual.net>   <77oll3F1ite2qU1@mid.individual.net> <65ce1556sngls7bhfdb45k51ho0sa9c4ej@4ax.com> <77oteqF1iegpqU1@mid.individual.net>  <77q5glF1iq0agU1@mid.individual.net>  <77qbblF1gqjgdU1@mid.individual.net>  <28c8a387-108f-4350-9ed5-fb513b3faae2@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <20090614160042.57E343C19@mta-fe.casema.nl> Lines: 34 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244995756 22361 127.0.0.1 (14 Jun 2009 16:09:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3483 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:709808

On Jun 14, 5:00=A0pm, Mike Hunt  wrote: > Simon Brooke "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk: > > > > > On 23 May, 15:47, Judith M Smith  wrote: > > =A0 > >> Posts from IP Address: =A080.254.146.36 to URC over 6 years =3D 7 > > > Just to be clear, there is precisely one header in an NNTP post which > > is not easily forgeable, specifically the Path header. The reason the > > Path header is not easily forgeable is because it is written to by > > each successive store-and-forward node on the path from the > > originating NNTP host to the NNTP host from which the message is read, > > and, even on this header, the originating node and initial part of the > > path before it hits public infrastructure is forgeable. However, it is > > quite possible to forge a plausible initial path for a message, as > > though it originated at the node the forger seeks to masquerade as. So > > far as I know no currently existing NNTP server validates the upstream > > path. Obviously, to forge some headers you need to have a hacked copy > > of an NNTP server running locally. > > > NNTP dates back to the days of innocence on the net, when there were > > relatively few of us and we all thought everyone could be trusted. > > Sadly, those days are now long past. > > You fucking dumb cunt.

He may be, but I didn't see much wrong with that post I must admit. Are you worried that people might use the above information (which is doubtless freely available elsewhere) to forge headers?

And is "Mike Hunt" your real name? If so, I can see why you might be a bit stressed most of the time. ;-)