A FRIEND OF MINE AND DU'ER IS WORKING HARD TODAY FOR LAMONT AND JUST REQUESTED I SEND A EMAIL TO KAREN HUNTER EDITOR AT HARTFORD CURRENT
AND TELL HER TO DO HER HOMEWORK..
HERE ARE EMAIL ADDRESSES..
readerep@courant.com, letters@courant.com
THIS IS WHAT I JUST SENT THEM AT THE CURRENT!
CHECK THIS OUT PLEASE..OWNER OF DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND SAYS THIS:
Democratic Underground - Why the Lieberman Website Story is Bullshit.
Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-08-06 01:23 PM
Original message
Why the Lieberman Website Story is Bullshit.
Edited on Tue Aug-08-06 01:45 PM by Skinner
I'm watching MSNBC, and the guy from the Lieberman campaign is complaining that an alleged "hack" on their website is making it impossible for them to get their message to people who visit their site.
This is clearly bullshit. Here's why:
The Lieberman campaign has access to their server. Look what you get when you go to the lieberman homepage:
http://www.joe2006.com UPDATE ON THE ATTACK ON THE LIEBERMAN CAMPAIGN WEBSITE
STATEMENT FROM SEAN SMITH: "For the past 24 hours the Friends for Joe Lieberman's website and email has been totally disrupted and disabled, we believe that this is the result of a coordinated attack by our political opponents. The campaign has notified the US Attorney and the Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and the campaign will be filing a formal complaint reflecting our concerns. The campaign has also notified the State Attorney General Dick Blumenthal for his review."
"We call on Ned Lamont to make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately. Any attempt to suppress voter participation and undermine the voting process on Election Day is deplorable and has no place in our democracy."
This proves that they now have access to their server. If they were genuinely concerned about getting their message out to people who visit their site, then they would put their old homepage back up. They haven't done that. Instead, they put up this BS "update".
BOTTOM LINE: The existence of this "update" page proves that the Lieberman campaign has access to their server, and they could put up anything they want.
UPDATE: THEY CHANGED IT BACK! The page now shows the "This account is under construction Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you." Fortunately, I have a screen capture:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/img/06/0808_lieber... I CAN'T COPY THIS AS IT IS A SCREEN CAPTURE:
Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-08-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. I got a screen cap of the update page.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/img/06/0808_lieber... OWNER OF DAILY KOS..MARKOS SAYS:
Kos nails it about Lieberman website
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/8/15948/78690?deta... ">Link
CT-Sen: The hacked site story Hotlist
by kos
Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:09:48 PM EDT
The Lieberman campaign is on a whine attack, claiming the Lamont people "hacked" their site.
If they did, get the FBI on it and the guilty parties should be charged and tried.
But the Lieberman campaign has no evidence that the Lamont campaign had anything to do with it.
I'd be willing to bet that their website host couldn't keep up with increased traffic demands. Covering for their own incompetence, they're blaming it on "hackers".
Daily Kos is under constant Denial of Service attacks. Usually it just slows the site down, on rare instances, it actually brings it down for a few minutes. But then I have competent people working for me, and my web host is run by competent people who can fight off DoS attacks against their clients with little effort.
To claim this is somehow an orchestrated attack by "bloggers" or the Lamont campaign is absolutely ridiculous.
I'd like to see it all backed up with actual evidence, but of course, that's not what this is about. This is a last-minute smear job to cover their own incompetence and that of their vendors.
Stoller has an email from a tech guy offering actual facts. Bottom line? It's not a DoS attack, and Lieberman's web company is incompetent.
1. Unless and until Lieberman's hosting provider releases his logfiles (gateway router, www server, mail server, DNS server) for forensic review, all of this is speculation.
2. Using the following information:
a. the site has been down for 18 hours
b. email to (and from?) Joe2006.com addresses has been affected
c. Joe2006.com and mail.joe2006.com resolve to IP 69.56.129.130
d. the reverse lookup on that IP is 82.81.3845.static.theplanet.com
e. joe2006.com now forwards to
http://server1.myhostcamp.com /
suspended.page/
3. It's highly unlikely this is a true DoS of DDoS attack. This is because we can ping all the IPs noted above and we can see the page at
http://server1.myhostcamp.com /.... page. If this was a real DoS or DDoS attack, we'd not be able to see any of this and their servers would not be answering their ping at an average of 50ms (millisecond) per packet. True attacks bring down servers, routers and networks. From all available outside evidence this does not appear to be the case.
4. Here what might have happened:
a. Web traffic spikes as national focus on the campaign grows
b. Based on (2b) above, if the webserver is throttled by traffic (due to actual traffic or poor response tuning or an attack or a combination of the three), this would also affect mail delivery to joe2006.com. It could also affect outbound mail if users on that domain use that address for SMTP service.
c. The server is most likely a shared one, since the name, server1.myhostcamp.com, implies lots of other hosts live on it.
5. Regardless of the explanation (3 or 4), here is what you do when that happens:
a. You grab your local backup (you do have a local backup of your files (both scripts and database snapshots, right?).
b. You find a host that specialized in high bandwidth hosting and you get an account going ASAP. There are plenty of ISPs that would take your money to expedite this.
c. You move your files up, test that everything is working
d. You redirect your DNS so that Joe2006.com points to you new
server; this change doesn't take very long to propagate because you make sure that the DNS update uses a very low TTL (time to live).
e. If needed, you separate your mailserver mail.joe2006.com from
your webserver joe2006.com/www.joe2006.com so as to keep your mail up and going.
Steps a-e can be accomplished, especially with the kind of site Joe had up and running before this incident (nothing particularly
complex), in less than an hour or so by a competent sysadmin.
Update: The Lamont campaign immediately offered its technical staff (they have competent ones) to the Lieberman campaign to help get their site back up. But the Lieberman campaign refused.
Lieberman's people aren't interested in their crappy website working. They're interested in one last smear.
blogslut (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-08-06 03:04 PM
Original message
The Leiberman "Hack" Bogus?
OR
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1849083 The Leiberman "Hack" Bogus?
Probably.
According to Steve Gilliard, a Lieberamn rep named Dan Gerstein is claiming that Joe's election website has been hacked. As per Mr. Gilliard's blog:
"Several bloggers and readers here have noted that www.joe2006.com, the Lieberman campaign blog was offline for hours with the message, “This site is down for maintenance. Please check back again soon.”
The senator’s aides blamed the shutdown on liberal bloggers and other opponents. “They hate Bush but they use the same tactics as the Bush campaign,” said Dan Gerstein, a Lieberman adviser, referring to the bloggers..."
Gilliard then posts a bit from Justin Rood of TPMCafe In his piece, Mr. Rood displays a copy of an email from a "Dan Geary" - who is apparently the website administrator of Lieberman's site.
"...This note is to confirm that the suspension of displaying the website www.joe2006.com : was not due to to an overdue account. Friends of Joe Lieberman is completely paid in full. The screen that showed yesterday is a default image from the server. In order to isolate where the denial of service attack was coming into the site, we disabled it as rapidly as possible. Once we were able to isolate all the site files for study we were able to add an appropriate one-page maintenance message.
Your campaign has in fact paid every invoice submitted to it within a week and a half.
Regards,
Dan Geary"
LINK to Gilliard:
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/08/pinocchio-ger... Here's the skinny. Lieberman's site went down. The default message that originally appeared was assumed by some to be the default message one sees when a hosting client has not paid their bill. Still others claim that the site went down because they went over their bandwidth limit. The Lieberman camp claim that the site was subject to a Denial Of Service attack - meaning that the site was so flooded with requests, it shut down. The Lieberman camp is blaming Lamont supporters.
Being a webmaster, I researched this story from a webmaster's perspective. I did a WHOIS lookup on www.joe2006.com . When I did this, I discovered some interesting things about Joe's site. First off, Joe is hosting his site on a shared server. That means his site is on the same server as 73 other websites. Another thing I discovered is that Joe hasn't locked his domain. When you don't lock your domain, you take the chance that it can be hijacked. This is irresponsible website administration at best.
According to the WHOIS:
http://whois.domaintools.com/joe2006.com The Lieberman site is on the Domain Name Server NS1.THEPLANET.COM. This is the DNS server for a datacenter named ThePlanet. Note that I said DATACENTER. ThePlanet is not a host. ThePlanet owns racks. Racks that individuals can rent. This means that whoever is "hosting" Lieberman's site is either a hosting re-seller or owns their own server that they co-locate at ThePlanet.
I called ThePlanet and spoke to a very nice Tech guy named John. John confirmed my theory. Whoever owns the server is totally responsible for the administration of that server. Even if all 74 sites on the server were attackd, ThePlanet would know nothing about it- it's not their responsibility. I pushed John but he refused to give me the name of the re-seller or individual that owns that server.
What does this all mean? It means that whoever is in control of that server knows exactly whether or not it was subject to a DoS attack. Being that the server is a virtual one - sharing space with 73 other sites, it would be natural to assume that if the server was attacked all 74 sites would be down. As of this moment, the ones I checked were totally online and operational.
My question is: Who is the hosting company for joe2006.com? Who is the site administrator? If it is this Dan Geary person mentioned by Gilliard, he's not a very good administrator. From what I have Googled, Dan Geary is a consultant for companies like Hyatt Hotels, Tump Hotels and Paramount Amusement Park:
"Dan Geary is a private-public policy consultant on environmental, public health, and consumer law issues. He and his organization have worked to institute equal opportunities for the developers and end-users of clean, renewable energy. Additionally, as the Nevada representative to the National Environmental Trust, Mr. Geary works with the nonprofit group to promote sound environmental policies, encourage conservation, and transform polluting industries.
Mr. Geary's career in public policy began as an aide to former U.S. Representative James H. Bilbray. Since that time, he has been a campaign consultant for a variety of federal, state, and local elected officials and, in 1994, was the Clark County campaign manager for U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey's presidential campaign. Mr. Geary also co-founded Nevadans for Medical Rights, an organization that spearheaded changes to the state’s constitution regarding marijuana for the terminally ill. Dan Geary co-owns the Geary Company Advertising Agency in Las Vegas and Geary Interactive, a San Diego-based Internet development and marketing firm..."
http://www.nevadarenewables.org/?section=members&id=349 http://www.gearycompany.com/company.html My guess? Joe Lieberman's people don't know anything about how to host a website properly. You don't launch a Senate campaign on a shared, re-seller's server. You don't neglect to lock your domain. You don't go accusing people of DoS attacks without proof.
AND DO REMEMBER THIS :
Rove's first big splash: Bugging his own campaign headquarters...
Rove soldiered on in obscurity until 1986, when he was working on the second campaign of Bill Clements, a Republican trying to recapture the governor's office after losing it to Democrat Mark White. Rove made news by going public with a complaint that an electronic bugging device had been found in his office--shortly before a scheduled televised debate between the two candidates. "We never took it seriously, because we knew nobody in our shop had anything to do with it," says Dwayne Hollman, who worked for White at the time. Hollman said it was assumed that it was a publicity stunt. "It was investigated by the FBI," Hollman said, "and nothing ever came of it."
Yet some wonder what "came of" Rove's meeting with FBI agent Greg Rampton, who conducted that investigation. Local authorities who looked into the bugging seem to agree with Hollman's assessment. "We were the first on the scene and concluded that Rove had hired a company to debug his office, and that the same company had planted the bug," says a source involved in the Travis County DA office's investigation. But the media reported that Rampton had determined there was nothing to pursue.
Two years later, Rampton began an investigation that involved his setting up shop in the offices of Garry Mauro, the state land commissioner and later the loser in the 1998 gubernatorial race won by George W. Bush. Mauro said Rampton informed him that a former Land Commission employee was involved in an appraisals scheme that involved the commission. "I told my general counsel to tell to come on in," Mauro said. Rampton accepted the invitation. "On the day of the Democratic state convention, I got a subpoena for every document you could possibly imagine," Mauro said.
...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010305/dubose AND THIS...
Where was all this media when the dems had their phone lines jammed in NH ?? and where was the media when the guy was tried and convicted..oh yeah i forgot that was a Rove /Bush operation..we can't hear about that right??
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
