Chatenay-Malabry lab computer hacked

[CowPunk]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_s111425A.xml.html

[xzzy]

if this isn't an Onion Radio News spoof, and this is for real, then I would
say this has parallels to when l'Equipe spewed on Armstrong and then later
retracted saying they made up their story.

"CowPunk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_s111425A.xml.html
>

[Carl Sundquist]

> "CowPunk" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_s111425A.xml.html
>>

Can't that lab keep _anything_ secure?

[need more sun]

xzzy wrote:

> if this isn't an Onion Radio News spoof, and this is for real, then I would
> say this has parallels to when l'Equipe spewed on Armstrong and then later
> retracted saying they made up their story.
>


When did l'Equipe retract a story? I certainly don't remember it, in
fact they stand over what they wrote..

[Davey Crockett]

"CowPunk" > writes:

> http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_s111425A.xml.html

Davey sorta disbelieves that anyone hacked into CHATENAY-MALABRY.COM
since they are using 'Whois IDentity Shield' on West Hastings St. in
Vancouver, BC, one of the Worlds best, and they don't have an open
relay mailserver as the miscreant who spoofed the headers on the phony
emails already knew or found out very quickly.

Not that Davey is interested in hacking anybody, but just for
interest, he tried to see if it might be possible to get into their
system.

Without employing tactics and equipment which are probably not
available to even a reasonably proficient hacker, their system is
secure.

--
Davey

[need more sun]

Davey Crockett wrote:

>
> Without employing tactics and equipment which are probably not
> available to even a reasonably proficient hacker, their system is
> secure.
>


DC, maybe it's secure now... But I wonder if this security has been
newly introduced as a result of the problems? Would seem to make sense
that they would do something, rather than leaving the back window
open...!

[Davey Crockett]

"need more sun" > writes:

> Davey Crockett wrote:
>
> >
> > Without employing tactics and equipment which are probably not
> > available to even a reasonably proficient hacker, their system is
> > secure.
> >
>
>
> DC, maybe it's secure now... But I wonder if this security has been
> newly introduced as a result of the problems? Would seem to make sense
> that they would do something, rather than leaving the back window
> open...!

The last record update preceeded the current kerfuffle although there
is no record of what the update was - probably a DNS change - reminding
Davey that his needs changing too now he's got a better ISP!

What I surmised happened is that the Lamer tried to get into the
system, failed, and then forged the lab reports - they are apparently
forged - then dummied up the emails with the spoofed 'sender'
fields. It's easy to do, and Davey has actually been doing it the last
week or so since he got a net connection again until he can get all
the configs etc. updated and DNS changed over

A Tempeest in a Teacup 'puter security wise in actual fact

In actual fact the lab servers do not appear to be in France but in
the UK

Here's the traceroute on it from Antibes, France:

traceroute to CHATENAY-MALABRY.COM (217.68.70.69)
1 82.242.110.254 (82.242.110.254)
2 213.228.20.254 (213.228.20.254)
3 lyon-6k-1-v804.intf.routers.proxad.net (212.27.50.102)
4 th2-6k-1-po51.intf.routers.proxad.net (212.27.51.197)
5 th2-6k-2-po51.intf.routers.proxad.net (212.27.51.202)
6 router.cogentco.proxad.net (212.27.40.42)
It finally gets off the Free.fr/Proxad net here
7 p12-0.core01.par01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.1.238)
8 p3-0.core02.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.2.33)
9 t3-1.mpd01.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.1.62)
10 intechnology.demarc.cogentco.com (149.6.80.2)
11 213.146.128.122 (213.146.128.122)
12 217.68.65.153 (217.68.65.153)
13 london-ha-hf-cluster.medialogik.com (217.68.70.69)

But if the perpetrator is liked to Landis, it could be another nail in
his coffin

--
Davey

[dbrower]

Davey Crockett wrote:

>
> In actual fact the lab servers do not appear to be in France but in
> the UK
>
> Here's the traceroute on it from Antibes, France:
>
> traceroute to CHATENAY-MALABRY.COM (217.68.70.69)
>

Too bad that's something completely different. As far as I can tell
right now, they have no website at lndd.com, and mail only by MX
record. What website there is seems to be the parent administrative
organization at http://www.cpld.fr/site/interieur.php?rubr=4&ssrubr=16

-dB

[Tony Rall]

Davey Crockett wrote:
> In actual fact the lab servers do not appear to be in France but in
> the UK
>
> Here's the traceroute on it from Antibes, France:
>
> traceroute to CHATENAY-MALABRY.COM (217.68.70.69)
> 9 t3-1.mpd01.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.1.62)
> 10 intechnology.demarc.cogentco.com (149.6.80.2)
> 11 213.146.128.122 (213.146.128.122)
> 12 217.68.65.153 (217.68.65.153)
> 13 london-ha-hf-cluster.medialogik.com (217.68.70.69)

You're a bit off the track here.

1. Châtenay-Malabry is a commune, not the name of the lab.
2. The domain CHATENAY-MALABRY.COM is not really in use. It is a
"parked" domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parked_domain)
registered to the registrar Nameview.

So CHATENAY-MALABRY.COM has nothing to do with the lab, and your tests
were all in vain.

--
Tony Rall

[MMan]

>Chatenay-Malabry lab computer hacked

It was a Nazi frogman!