Minusonebit..How do you really feel about NATS?

I wish they sold minusonebit action figures i would buy them all, hes my hero!!

Maybe, just maybe it´s the attention he is fishing for?

He is calling shavebucks an affiliate program in the thread quoted above, for example. So it´s at least possible he didn´t have a look at the affiliate software of Traffic Gigolos.

On the other hand he uses a link with an aff code in it. So he should be aware of this contradiction.

They do....



Link to make up for the hotlinked image http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/St...USTS_1535.html

It's obvious he does these things for the attention. I just think that if he's serious about his claims, this doesn't help him plead his case. Whether he is serious or not about all this mess, I have no idea.

Also, the aff. code is a dead giveaway as it leads to http://www.trafficgigolos.com/?nats=...MDoyMQ,0,0,0,0 . The URL doesn't hide the fact that he's sending to a NATS based program.

I have no idea either. But I´m afraid if he would be serious with his "case", he wouldn´t make thread after thread on a message board.

Good one...

Holy Shit. I glanced over his sigs a million times but never thought he could be that stupid. i was wrong.

Hes not too smart

http://bp1.blogger.com/_QQihxWLhzm8/...h/image001.jpg

1. NATS is the problem. Nor are the sponsors who use NATS. Except for British Bucks. I closed my account with them shortly after the NATS issue because the guy who runs that was taking the whole issue way too fucking lightly for my liking.

2. Just because a program uses NATS does not mean I hate them or think they are bad people. Twisty's uses NATS - I have an account there and love them. So does Intense Cash, I like their stuff and their people. There are a few others.

3. When NATS goes away, the programs will move to something else. They'll either make their own backends, or they'll use one of the other options that exist now. Or a new company will come along. But the programs using NATS now - if they were exploited - the damage is already done with regard to my data therein. No point in bitching at the program about it, it was NATS's fault.

4. I do not blame the software licenses (i.e. the programs) for anything except I am getting pissed off about the fact that out of about a dozen programs I have only gotten two e-mails about the breach. That pisses me off because it shows that - again - they are not taking this seriously. A take shared by at least one other person in this industry.

you are such a stupid hypocrite

do you even know what you are saying anymore

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=795095

thief

So instead of wanting to better the existing software that is already in place for many reliable programs, you'd rather tear down an existing piece of software that for the most part is VERY reliable. Aside from the money this would cost programs to custom code software, or the time spent integrating another mass solution, this option isn't very friendly for the programs using NATS.

Now also add the programs that have paid for NATS outright and have invested thousands of dollars is custom additions, Carma installs, RSS Dish, etc, and you're taking some big money losses. In effect by trying to destroy this company, you are wishing that many programs flush away thousands of dollars and loads of time.

I've seen many pieces of software in this industry deal with security programs, holes, etc...All of these companies come out with fast patches, as did NATS. Why not take the time you spend in trying to destroy something, and spend it in helping to better something that will benefit the industry as a whole?

NATs wont be going anywhere

Twistys uses NATs? I'm sure that's news to them.

Wrong.. If you had been paying attention, there are tools inside NATs that could have prevented the data from being compromised... Plus NATs tells the programs about changing passwords etc. that would have prevented the data from being compromised... So not all cases where data was compromised would be the fault of NATs... In some cases it would have been negligence on the part of the programs themselves.

haha, no shit

Exactly what I was thinking

That guy is recommending affiliates change their password, but affiliate passwords were not compromised.

Fuck. OK, so Twistys does not use NATS. See what happens when I try and write five posts at a time? My apologies to Twistys for associating them with the pile of shit known as NATS. Point remains the same.

NATS had a problem with its default install and configuration. They did not release an update to change it in the next version. They left it in a compromised status. They did not tell all of their customers they needed to make a change. They, after an obviously sloppy and inadequate investigation, NATS determined that only a few customers were effected so it only notified those and fixed them. Then it got compromised again. If John went onto his servers looking for hackers and found some but not all, he is either an idiot, a lair or no hackers existed to begin with. I lean towards "all of the above".

First of all, if I know that a production server has been compromised, it is coming offline and I don't care who screams about the outages. And it will not go back up until I am damn sure that all of the holes have been patched and no one is in the box. John's team also failed to do this as well because the reports came out again that people were getting into NATS. Did he at this point pull the whole thing down? Did he send announcement of new security features and come clean on the issue? No he did not. He instead tried to hide the fact that it ever existed.

And lets stop splitting hairs as to whether it was the staff at TMM or NATS that is at fault because it does not fucking matter. The staff is the software and vice versa. The company employs the staff, the staff make the software. The software is a reflection on the staff and the company. The way the company is run or not run is a reflection on all three. The fact that the tools inside of NATS could have stopped the compromises from continuing is irrelevant because John didn't tell his customers this, so they didn't know it was an issue much less that there was a fix. Its John's software and he is responsible for telling people how to use using the best information he has. He knew a compromise was taking place yet he did nothing to protect all of his customers from it. He choose not tell everyone out of fear that it would be bad PR, so the situation was left uncorrected and the problem continued.

Just like Nixon and Stewart: the cover-up is always more damning the act being covered up. If he would have just come clean from the start he could have admitted to a mistake and that would be the end of it. Sure, everyone would have bitched about it for a day or two, but it would have blown over and it wouldn't be in the New York Times. Oh yes, I have not mentioned that yet, have I -- The NY Times is working on a story. And one other big paper is rumored to be doing so as well. I talked to a reporter at NYT yesterday for over an hour, several times. They expect to run with something soon.

Had John done the right thing and come forward, said "Look guys, we had a problem, we made a mistake in the way we set this up, it " I probably would have actually helped him out with the issue and pointed out that notifications are required, fed him some of the statues and he could have had his legal dept put something together for distribution. I probably also would have helped him deal with the customers that contacted him and explaining what the consumers could do to mitigate their exposure. But John didn't do the right thing because thats not the type of person John is. John doesn't do the right thing. He does anything for a dollar, protecting his bank account went ahead of all else and thats why I am riding him so hard.

Ya no kidding, everyone makes it sound like it was the affil passwords

Delusional much?

Seriously, you talk like you're some important person in the business.

Richard Bandler has this very important mantra that many people should adhere to, especially yourself. He calls it, and I quote, "shut the fuck up".

True. The sad truth is this guy has serious mental issues as have been noted a million times on this board.

Heh, you are one to talk with Zango in your sig. LOL

I'm saying not to promote it. Duh.

1. attention whore
2. sig whore
3. idiot
4. hypocrite
5. loser
6. fat fat fat fuck
7. 100% fag
8. hypocrite
9. loser
10. con artist
11. mentail patient
12. thief
and the list goes on Sherm

Thats why you have a refid on the link, right?

Welcome to my ignore list. You have nothing of value to add to this or any other conversation.

His goal isn´t fixing a security hole. He is more or less like a modern Don Quichote of affiliate software. Every software is vulnerable. Be it from the source code or from an employee. So it´s not a NATS problem but a general problem for online distribution.

He won´t listen to your plausible arguments.

I don't know what's worse....minusonbit or the fools who keep giving him the
attention he so desperately needs

Of course. Look at it this way: if someone wants to promote Zango, they will do it anyway. If they use my refid, Zango will be out of 20% of that person's earnings. I don't want to make Zango 20% richer, do you?

because according to the south bend news, his parents said he's a psychiatric patient