Your viral intrusion may have come from my viral adversaries { was' Re: An ethics, and possibly legal, violation { was: Fwd: [Bug-gnubg] Site being reported as "Attack Site"

[Roy A. Crabtree]

I regret the possibility that the viral intrusion at gnubg.org may have been due to the viral attacks on me, to reiterate, entirely separate from any aspect of anyone at gnubg.org.

The viral mechanisms are fair to middlin' adept technically, and the hacking code I deal with is above and beyond the symptoms as listed by the mailing list organizers.

Provided you are satisfied with the resolution you find, 

you do not have any pressing need to follow through 
on any information herein: you may have that if it repeats,
or if YOU ascertain such a need.

if you have a recurrence of such now or in the future, you may want to consider the following

backdoor path (among about a hundred other possibilities) that shows how a separate
viral intrusion on an independent individual or site can result in exposure of

  your site

to a viral intrusional attack:

I) Note that the specific keyword in the thread I elected to participate in

    is the word given in the title "cheat", reflecting back to previous discussion
    some time ago, confirmed as still present in the GNUBG archives.

II) my email (and most other web activities) has/have been intruded upon for
   an extended period of time (years): I will not delineate the possible/actual mechanisms
  here.  For argument sake, submit to the idea that it can be done more easily than

   you may suspect by mechanisms out of reach of rectification by the party under
  attack (me).

III) This leads to open access (by the intruding party/parties) of my email contents

IV) Including reading of my email reading patterns

V) Among which has been ongoing perusal of GNUBG mailing list(s).

VI)  A "mocking program" sequence has been run as a "challenge" by the spoofers
     intruding, among other sequences, popping a spam "FBI" message in whenever

   I have touched any FBI site.

VII)  The "mock'/"challenge" in this sequence is:

    A)  Pre-intrude on another site: that would be the origin of the malware detected at google.
    B)  Pop a sequence that results in a trigger phrase insertion

           specifically the word "cheat" in a topical header.

    I will not specify the mechanism(s) possible here.  It can be done even with 

     a good faith origin of the first or subsequent messages.

VIII)  Suppress any warning message on the net side of the person under attack (me,indirectly)

IX)  Wait to see if the trigger phrase has the desire effect of startling an interaction
    (as desired,negative or positive, whatever) between the individuals or groups desired

X) Feed in inflammatories in the resulting thread conversation in order to disenfranchise one of the participants.

   There are ways to do this:

   the labelled technique is called a dialectic maneuver within a parliamentarian gambit:

    and is also called a false parley in terms of scenarios involving thing similar to
    round tables, formally organized administrative groups, or Parliaments:

    A talks to B & C; B&C pass a modification on to D & E; they in turn get angry with F & G

    who in turn pound on H.

  And this is almost untraceable.

  It CAN be done by those whoa re adept at it.

   And it is a new form of disinformational and disreputational practices present within the web

  because of the new abilities that the web networking, social networking within it,

      and automated scripting abilities

  CAN achieve.

   I will not give you the exact methods involved.


XI) repeat as desired elsewhere.

This CAN be done with the apparent originators being ENTIRELY innocuous in the advent.

And, given the relatively low experience, high self opinion, and somewhat obnoxious arrogance

of the people producing (if not virally modified!!!) responses in the consequent interactions
I have had to endure:

   NO, I frankly do NOT think that ANY one (including Mr Petch)

   would have the simple technical expertise or experientially developed _ability_

   to do this type of attack.

(To be snot nosed and obsequious, and generally an obdurate jerk:: yes)
(To rely on an established network of friends and participating buddies who will back up the established correspondent, and IGNORE the netiquette violations while running a whisper chain in the background:  YES.)

But _not_ to engage in the more virulent triggering mechanisms I just described.

They literally do not have what it takes.

Sadly.  They _are_ intelligent enough to be _able_ to learn such methods.


And to circumvent.

But: to date they do NOT appear to be

  morally adult enough

to actually take those steps.

Whether you believe me or not:

  you had damned well better watch for the new coming wave of these types of attacks.

And get them reduced or stopped.

At this point, I _have_ made enough assertions and committed enough _minor_ infractions
that it _would_ be provident for a formal report to formal authority 

  IF  _YOU_ think so:

 I will NOT be upset by That type of thing.

I actually would welcome it.  I have been _trying_ to get official support

  for about a decade now.

I _will_ remain upset if mischaracterization is involved.

But: you are well insulated from any consequences.

  I do not have the resources: I told you the literal truth about what I am facing.

And I will not likely overcome it by my own efforts, and
   i have to watch for attacks on other people.

    I gave you one (possible) name already impacted;

   I will mention once only in passing that multiple members of my own family OTHER than me HAVE been impacted.

Whatever you do: provided you do it in good faith with 

  proper, professional and properly measured responses to the correct mechanisms present

  to correctly handle this type of thing (however you characterize my interaction the same OR differently from my characterizations)

I will not be upset and will guarantee to hold you  safe /harmless in the consequent sequel.

But I am damned likely to take the time out 

      from trying to survive

to write the 3-4 page technical rebuttal

   to the snot-nosed obsequious wipe-ass comments 

       already fomented and vomited forth on GNUBG

and post it to a couple of net correspondent who WILL vette it and MAY elect to referee it

   back in Mr. Petch's face.  Professionally.

I regret that his trigger points got tripped:

  I tried to avoid them.

But:

  I cannot do that when external third party sequences intrude and inflame the situation beyond the avalanche trigger point of a in-looking participative group of high intelligence people who have at times low professionalism in their conduct..

It HAPPENS.  And that is ONE of the reasons that businesses for profit forced the creation of open source and such organizations as GNU.

Please do not lose that openness aspect that is the life blood of the open source movement:

   you do not ant to replace explicitly PUBLIC for-profit groups

by iconoclastic self appointed un-named-as-such priests enforcing a different hype of

    for-profit

social networking organization that uses open source for their own ends and

  chase people out by indirect usage of

   an arrogant fool who will not grow up.

((Whether you conclude _I_ am that individual or Mr Petch is is up to you;

   or whatever other alternative you elect to come up with).

Another document I am contemplating on writing would be

  an analysis of
   the types of information
   that would need to be held covert
   by professional level profiteering gammoners
   in order to use the non-bene-adriot (mal adroit or neutral)

   capabilities for manipulation 
    within a neural network engine
  
              (can you say "subliminal", folks?

    to win games and train people to play for loss of money

   as do professional world class backgammon players when

     they play in a professional tournament or

      a rigged call-in game based on

     the "tells" THEY can see that the fool, rube, or mark can NOT see.

You really do not want to find out that this is being done with your open source software.

it would be a devastating loss of the public's trust for such a thing to become known

  where GNU and FSF did NOT trap on it and instead ignored

  someone being disenfranchised for mentioning it.

the tools are tremendously powerful:

 my compliments to the historical (maybe not the current in all its membership) team
that has produced GNUBG

Including those who invented neural network's.

including the 5 centuries of math that lead up to them on computers.
And the rest of the 5,000 years plus of human efforts that gave rise
to the web and the resources
that GNU and FSF depend on, implicitly to exist.

Make sure you act in the basic best interests OF that ecology/civilization

in your actions around such circumstances as these.

You may only get one shot before the next tidal wave hits:

  it's coming, folks.  head's up and get ready for it.

Best wishes.

Cheers^1

royc

P^1S:  if I had wanted to inflame the situation, I would add a third document:

   An analysis of the thread involved on the specific rhetorical gambits used by Mr. Petch

      and how they have been known for some 2-3 centuries as techniques of manipulation

delineating the specific false hoods, spins, and double inversions pulled.

But: I have not; because I know exactly how difficult it is to SEE some of these things

  when someone ELSE is manipulating Mr. Petch as a stupid fool fall guy

  for THEIR intentions.

but i may decide to let the chips fall where they may.

When resources fall below a certain level for a long enough period of time, the urge to

 shovel it back where it came from directly, if the original source is not in sight
becomes pretty much well nigh irresistible.

But for the efforts of many people within my own life, and over the last 5+ millenia of human history:

  I would have already done so.  hard core.  It is fairly easy to do: find the buttons and push them.

But: I have tried instead to use the methods within the scope of a positive constructive response;
so that Mr. Petch may eventually come to see that some of what he did was repulsive in the extreme

  and that it can be near lethally damaging when applied in a social networking circumstance.

It _IS_ lethal at the street level.  Count on it: I have had to deal with it for 2+ years directly.

Good luck and best wishes to GNU/FSF & GNUBG;

  AND to Mr. Petch:  of the three, he may be most in need of it.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:53, Roy A. Crabtree <address@hidden> wrote:

Specifically improper handling of a viral intrusion attack,
derision and exclusion of a possible source of that intrusion,
and what appears to be improper reference, possibly illegal
to the institution of an allied country (US to UK) or
violation of the laws of that country by a citizen of it (UK only).

You may want to review the correspondence on the GNUBG mailing list.

i was going to do a private side mail to MI5, but it appears their web form only allows
1800 characters.

So I will post it to GNUBG, as well as leaving the correspondence in my gmail Sent box
for inspection by them.

Perhaps your response can be posted there as well.

(Plus the historical archives as well for previous history on the technical topic,
if not a common type of response to it).

My understanding is that referring to a UK institution incorrectly while a citizen of the
   the UK, and at times even of the US,

             in regards to a viral intrusion attack and MI5, for example

 might have severe consequences if that attack goes unchecked
 because an improper response failed to check it correctly.

New technical ideas occur all the time; and the

    philosophical purpose of GNU

as stated, indirectly if not also directly, includes the concept of

   beneficent free will interchange of ideas.

When a member of your voluntary crew transgresses that principle,

     it is bad enough.

when ad hominems are used in place of actual technical discussion,
from a momentary fit of pique, that can be passed off and rectified easily enough.

   When it continues in the face of repeated requests and pleadings to rectify the behavior

   and is compounded by e-nagging on it continuously on it on list afterwards

then netiquette standards older than GNU are in breach

   and the reputation of GNU may come into question.

When an actual viral attack on a GNU web site is in progress

   and a participating member raises a possible explanation of the source o fit

   and ridicule is heaped upon the individual for doing so

   it gets into an area that could be construed as intentional maliciousness
   and possibly slander and libel.

If, in turn that breach of ethics further breaches the specific legal ramifications

   require at law, both domestically and internationally

      as regards handling of the specifics of a viral intrusion attack,

        most of the time it will pass harmlessly off

         ...until someone is damaged or injured extensively
         by such an attack NOT being handled properly.

And when, further, a member of GNU, actually entails a comment that could be
actually in breach of the laws of the sovereign nation/state he is in, or even
simply derogatory as regards the institution of an allied state

   if an actual viral intrusion results in warrantable damage, and

   the actual person responsible at GNU for handling such an affair is the one
   engaging in such a recourse

    it can result in a rather severe set of circumstances if

     the damage reaches a level warranting the official participation of those
     agencies involved to resolve it.

Alternatively , you might possibly conclude I am the source of the problem,
or pulling a grandstanding stunt: I am not.

   If in turn it came to be known that the specific capabilities of a NN engine
    were being used for some purpose OTHER than the public one that was
    being stated in the GNU description of it

   by those maintaining it, or otherwise,

   and you had a chance to forestall that by reacting professionally and properly

        it might be more than merely an embarrassment:

              it could damage the public perception of the free software concept
              and the resulting boon to society in general.

   Such as the NNP network of a game playing engine engaging in unfair "cheating"
   AND THEN BEING APPLIED to any other purpose than fairly playing gammon.

       (Example:  I had an intrusion that I do not regard as being GNU based, where
        for about 5 months, a professional gammon playing site popped up whenever I tried
        to go to GNUBG.   This is possible if a context sensitive HTML URL intercept
        is placed anywhere in the chain from server to browser; and half a dozen other
        different ways:  it is only the most obvious one that it could have been an intrusion
       onto the GNUBG web site, and highly unlikely that any effective skulker

                would be stupid enough to do so)

The public perception damage, if that were to be the case and become publicized

   for example, by scurrilious individuals similar in practice, practic, and practique to

       some would say Stephen Ballmer and Microsoft's practices

   it could be used as an advent to shut down open software as a viable alternative.

Sort of like Oprah getting riled because one of her book authors lied to her,
when her staff failed to vet the book and author in the first place.

   not that I think it would  happen, but damaging it to gain control and advantage:

      oh yeah, in a heart beat.

Which I do NOT want to see happen.

This is just a head's up.

Usually when software demonstrates a capability of high utility more broad
than actually anticipated, the response is a positive one.

Unfortunately, it  COULD be taken after the fact to indicate, usually incorrectly,

   that the individual involved doing so

     was actively AWARE of this additional capability and

         for some undisclosed reason

              did NOT want to give away the fact of it.

last, but not least:

  do you really want GNU or even just GNUBG to become known

       (correctly or INcorrectly is largely irrelevant)

   fro hiding something that an intelligence service wants hidden

      and then actually being responsible for disclosing it

   simply because the ordinary chain of events (viral intrusion, report of possible cause)

       was derided with ad hominems in a public forum

    instead of just being routinely reported to the correct intrusion/security authority?

Think on it.

Then maybe get a grip and readjust a couple of attitudes.

The last thing you want

   from someone actually UNDER such an intrusional attack (separate from GNU, let's keep it clear)

    to be compelled under a circumstances of threat of death and

      an actual murder (cited already on the GNU list)

   and denoting a correlation between a viral intrusion onto your web site

      and his or her participation in it

   to actually take the case to Court and prove it in public as

    having been the case.

As I already stated:

   I have few resources to do so:

  but if another person in the common group I _AM_ concerned with DOES die

    I may have to file a Bivens direct pleading on the matter.

I would prefer to have it handled quietly and appropriately long before then.

Whether or not the correlation is CAUSAL rather than temporal/statistical/inferential

   is not the point.

The point is that reports of cause of intrusion on a viral attack sequence

  should not be trimmed in advance of collimation

or any 4th grade skulker will get through your security,

play pinochle on your snout to deride you in public

and walk away having accomplished their purpose.

It is also not about being caught with your pants down.

  And if you do not get THAT, point, then I would suggest spending a vacation day

   in Darfur:  the correlation there IS causal and direct.

I wish you the best.

Cheers.

To MI5: usually a waste of time.  Sadly.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roy A. Crabtree <address@hidden>
Date: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:00
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Site being reported as "Attack Site"
To: Michael Petch <address@hidden>


Good luck, Michael.
You'll need it.
Passed on to GNU Central.

... and MI5.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 17:56, Michael Petch <address@hidden> wrote:

On 24/08/09 3:52 PM, "Michael Petch" <address@hidden> wrote:

I am fall more aware with the situation than you are. I am being watched and by Mi5 agents for years.

As you can tell I disguise myself by making it appear I am not an English speaker . Normally I would have said “I am far more aware with the situation than you are. I have been watched by Mi5 agents for years.”. I have to keep a low profile. Shhh.. Don’t tell anyone, Mike (err, make that Barbara) out!

--
Use Reply-To: & thread your email
after the first: or it may take a while, as
I get 2000+ emails per day.
--

Roy A. Crabtree
UNC '76 gaa.lifer#  11086

(mail, residence)
Roy A. Crabtree
3322 Wheeler Road SE
Oak Hill Apartments #T-4
Washington, DC 20032-4166
202-562-1909 US no voicemail
   (try after 2100EST)

(secondary mail)
Roy A. Crabtree
USPS POB 58097
Washington, DC 20034-8097
703-318-2106
(msgs only, use my name)
(best effort next day M-F pickup)

[When you hear/read/see/feel what a y*ehudi plays/writes/sculpts/holds]
[(n)either violinist {Menuhin} (n)or writer {"The Y*ehudi Principle"} (n)or molder (n)or older]
[you must strive/think/look/sense all of it, or you will miss the meanings of it all]

address@hidden Forwards only to:
address@hidden
address@hidden CC: auto to ^

http://musings-roy-crabtree.blogspot.com [& others]
http://www.authorsden.com/royacrabtree
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/activex/720/resume/full.doc
--
(c) RAC/IP, ARE,PRO,PAST
(Copyright) Roy Andrew Crabtree/In Perpetuity
   All Rights/Reserved Explicitly
   Public Reuse Only
   Profits Always Safe Traded

--
Use Reply-To: & thread your email
after the first: or it may take a while, as
I get 2000+ emails per day.
--

Roy A. Crabtree
UNC '76 gaa.lifer#  11086

(mail, residence)
Roy A. Crabtree
3322 Wheeler Road SE
Oak Hill Apartments #T-4
Washington, DC 20032-4166
202-562-1909 US no voicemail
   (try after 2100EST)

(secondary mail)
Roy A. Crabtree
USPS POB 58097
Washington, DC 20034-8097
703-318-2106
(msgs only, use my name)
(best effort next day M-F pickup)

[When you hear/read/see/feel what a y*ehudi plays/writes/sculpts/holds]
[(n)either violinist {Menuhin} (n)or writer {"The Y*ehudi Principle"} (n)or molder (n)or older]
[you must strive/think/look/sense all of it, or you will miss the meanings of it all]

address@hidden Forwards only to:
address@hidden
address@hidden CC: auto to ^

http://musings-roy-crabtree.blogspot.com [& others]
http://www.authorsden.com/royacrabtree
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/activex/720/resume/full.doc
--
(c) RAC/IP, ARE,PRO,PAST
(Copyright) Roy Andrew Crabtree/In Perpetuity
   All Rights/Reserved Explicitly
   Public Reuse Only
   Profits Always Safe Traded

-- 
Use Reply-To: & thread your email 
after the first: or it may take a while, as
I get 2000+ emails per day.
--

Roy A. Crabtree
UNC '76 gaa.lifer#  11086

(mail, residence)
Roy A. Crabtree
3322 Wheeler Road SE
Oak Hill Apartments #T-4
Washington, DC 20032-4166
202-562-1909 US no voicemail 
    (try after 2100EST)

(secondary mail)
Roy A. Crabtree

USPS POB 58097
Washington, DC 20034-8097
703-318-2106 
(msgs only, use my name)
(best effort next day M-F pickup)

[When you hear/read/see/feel what a y*ehudi plays/writes/sculpts/holds]
[(n)either violinist {Menuhin} (n)or writer {"The Y*ehudi Principle"} (n)or molder (n)or older]

[you must strive/think/look/sense all of it, or you will miss the meanings of it all]

address@hidden Forwards only to:
address@hidden

address@hidden CC: auto to ^

http://musings-roy-crabtree.blogspot.com [& others]
http://www.authorsden.com/royacrabtree

http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/activex/720/resume/full.doc
--
(c) RAC/IP, ARE,PRO,PAST
(Copyright) Roy Andrew Crabtree/In Perpetuity

    All Rights/Reserved Explicitly
    Public Reuse Only
    Profits Always Safe Traded