TMM and TMM / NATS clients Please explain this and SHOW me I'm wrong!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ServerGenius
    Confirmed User
    • Feb 2002
    • 9377

    #1

    TMM and TMM / NATS clients Please explain this and SHOW me I'm wrong!!!!

    Ok below is a snipplet from a raw apache access log of a program who is using
    NATS.

    I've stripped out the ip of the server and other bits that contain other info
    which would reveal anything nobody would like to be revealed and things that
    aren't relevant to the issue.

    I won't disclose which program this is, the ip or anything else of that matter
    as it's irrelevant to the question I ask.....and like to get answered.

    I won't get into challenges to proof what is listed below as frankly I don't
    need to........If you don't believe anything you see awesome.....I won't
    try to change your mind or convince you of anything don't want to believe.

    I also have no interest to damage anyone with any of this neither is there
    anything to gain from by me just like there's nothng I could lose from by this
    or whatever you might want to make believe to.

    So why do I post this you wonder? Simply coz I wonder if what I think of it
    is true and if others who ARE affected by anything like this can ask
    themselves what that means to them. I don't have any grudge to anyone
    including TMM or anyone who works with them.

    The only other reason apart from wondering myself is that I occasionally
    assist others who use NATS and ask me questions I couldn't honestly answer
    too if I would leave things I'm aware off out of my answer......obviously that
    would mean it could bite myself in the ass for something I had no part in.

    Ok short explanation of what you see below

    Raw apache webserver access log from NATS server
    The script which is used for the exploit that was discovered
    The date which isn't as claimed 2 months ago but over 5 months ago
    IP from a range within sagonet their IP block. Sagonet is a different hosting
    provider who sells dedicated hosting only......so this IP isn't from an access
    provider.....it's from a server.....that server doesn't belong to the company
    and/or people who own the server the log is from.....so the ip listed should
    NOT be allowed to access the script listed in the loglines
    Status code for the request is 200 which means authorized and OK
    This should NEVER be 200 for the IP in the loglines.

    My question......please explain and show me this isn't the same output
    pattern as the current problem at hand of which TMM claims didn't occur
    before 2 months ago....

    I only show the lines from 1 server because I don't want to post anymore
    info needed to make my point.......but I do have the same from more than
    one hand full of other NATS installed servers who all belong to different
    programs and people.

    Think I'm bluffing.....cool, not my problem just like I don't feel the need
    to proof to anyone I am......make up your own mind.....don't try wasting
    your time by challenging me anything as I can tell you I won't bite and
    all it would do is wasting your time.

    php?action=add&add%5Busername%3A1%3A6%3A16%5D=fran k1&add%5Bpassword%3A1%3

    (obviously cutoff the password field)

    66.118.176.86 - - [30/Jul/2007:08:15:10 -0500] "GET /admin_reports.php?report=surfer_stats&member=34501 39 HTTP/1.1" 200 23742 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"
    66.118.176.86 - - [30/Jul/2007:08:15:13 -0500] "GET /admin_reports.php?report=surfer_stats&member=34501 26 HTTP/1.1" 200 31529 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"
    66.118.176.86 - - [30/Jul/2007:08:15:17 -0500] "GET /admin_reports.php?report=surfer_stats&member=34500 98 HTTP/1.1" 200 29778 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"
    66.118.176.86 - - [30/Jul/2007:08:15:21 -0500] "GET /admin_reports.php?report=surfer_stats&member=34500 68 HTTP/1.1" 200 30835 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"
    66.118.176.86 - - [30/Jul/2007:08:15:24 -0500] "GET /admin_reports.php?report=surfer_stats&member=34500 28 HTTP/1.1" 200 30210 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"
    66.118.176.86 - - [30/Jul/2007:08:15:27 -0500] "GET /admin_reports.php?report=surfer_stats&member=34500 22 HTTP/1.1" 200 30098 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"
    66.118.176.86 - - [30/Jul/2007:08:15:32 -0500] "GET /admin_reports.php?report=surfer_stats&member=34499 50 HTTP/1.1" 200 30038 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"
    66.118.176.86 - - [30/Jul/2007:08:15:35 -0500] "GET /admin_reports.php?report=surfer_stats&member=34499 08 HTTP/1.1" 200 29818 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"
    66.118.176.86 - - [30/Jul/2007:08:15:38 -0500] "GET /admin_reports.php?report=surfer_stats&member=34498 83 HTTP/1.1" 200 30483 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"
    I'm looking forward to your reply and honestly hope I'm mistaken and when I do I'll gladly admit.....as I have said I'm not out to do any kind of damage to
    anyone who is envolved in all this.......just curious if what I see is what I think it is and if it is.....why nobody knew about it or keep it silent if they did.

    Try to ridicule me or make me look like an idiot and I will show you make a big mistake doing so.......I don't want to start drama but if you beg me for it
    I won't be too unpolite to don't give it to you ;-)

    That's not a threat and if you feel like it is.......well then I can only guess
    why you would.......and confirm it was a good idea to ask this question

    For all the people who don't care about any of this......let me ask you
    how many pages you think this thread will goto?

    | http://www.sinnerscash.com/ | ICQ: 370820 | Skype: SinnersCash | AdultWhosWho |
  • Daruma
    Confirmed User
    • Nov 2002
    • 3494

    #2
    this might be a 7+ pager..

    RIP TD

    Comment

    • ~Ray
      visit hardlinks.org
      • Jun 2003
      • 18361

      #3
      I was here... let's trade niche links while we wait a professional reply.. shall we? ... http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=791123
      Adult Backlinks for Adult Websites - Testimonials Available

      Comment

      • F U S I O N
        Confirmed User
        • Jan 2006
        • 1898

        #4
        Where does it end??

        Comment

        • xclusive
          Too lazy to set a custom title
          • Apr 2004
          • 35218

          #5
          Can't wait to hear the reply

          I support MediumPimpin.com / Shemp's Outlawtgp.com /


          Comment

          • L-Pink
            working on my tan
            • Mar 2005
            • 39151

            #6
            This is technically over my head but interesting as hell.

            Comment

            • sicone
              Retired
              • Jan 2004
              • 18453

              #7
              Ouch....

              Comment

              • CyberHustler
                Masterbaiter
                • Feb 2006
                • 28718

                #8
                My sig belongs in this thread
                “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

                Comment

                • BoyAlley
                  So Fucking Gay
                  • Nov 2004
                  • 19714

                  #9
                  Originally posted by sicone
                  Ouch....
                  x2

                  Comment

                  • ARS Bryan
                    Confirmed User
                    • Dec 2005
                    • 875

                    #10
                    This looks like trouble.

                    In other news, ARS has weekly payouts and $75 pps! Check us out
                    ///ARS - Adult Revenue Service


                    ICQ me 25120534

                    Comment

                    • Juicy D. Links
                      So Fucking Banned
                      • Apr 2001
                      • 122992

                      #11
                      Oy Vey Kanka


                      PS:


                      I cant wait to party new years yo !!! and go skiing the slopess!!

                      Comment

                      • TMM_John
                        Confirmed User
                        • May 2004
                        • 6664

                        #12
                        You are saying the IP blocking should be stopping them?

                        The IP blocking is done in NATS, not at the apache level. The apache request will still be 200, but the contents of the page will be blocked by the IP restriction.

                        If you mean something else then I misunderstood you and please explain further.


                        Too Much Media - Makers of the Industry's Leading Payite Management Platform, NATS!

                        Comment

                        • ServerGenius
                          Confirmed User
                          • Feb 2002
                          • 9377

                          #13
                          ehh till now I'm not claiming anything I wrote is shady or proofs anything bad at this point.......I won't do so until someone shows me I'm mistaking and wrong.
                          which is possible.......when they can't show me reasonably that I'm wrong I
                          might change my opinion about this

                          So until now.....don't assume what I wrote really is true or that I'm claiming it's true.......not just yet
                          Last edited by ServerGenius; 12-26-2007, 06:16 PM.
                          | http://www.sinnerscash.com/ | ICQ: 370820 | Skype: SinnersCash | AdultWhosWho |

                          Comment

                          • Daruma
                            Confirmed User
                            • Nov 2002
                            • 3494

                            #14
                            Originally posted by ServerGenius
                            ehh till now I'm not claiming anything I wrote is shady or proofs anything bad at this point.......I won't do so until someone shows me I'm mistaking and wrong.
                            which is possible.......when they can't show me reasonably that I'm wrong I
                            might change my opinion about this

                            So until now.....don't assume what I wrote really is true or that I'm claiming it's true.......not just yet
                            but that didn't really address the question by PBucksJohn ??

                            RIP TD

                            Comment

                            • BoyAlley
                              So Fucking Gay
                              • Nov 2004
                              • 19714

                              #15
                              Originally posted by PBucksJohn
                              You are saying the IP blocking should be stopping them?

                              The IP blocking is done in NATS, not at the apache level. The apache request will still be 200, but the contents of the page will be blocked by the IP restriction.

                              If you mean something else then I misunderstood you and please explain further.
                              What i'm noticing is that the request is coming in 200, but as you said if NATS is blocking them they'd be denied at the script level and still return a 200 code from apache. HOWEVER the size of the page being requested isn't the same each time, which makes me think actual data's being sent back instead of just a denial?

                              If it was just a denial by the script wouldn't each page size being displayed be consistent? Or no?

                              If i'm not mistaken the size returned doesn't include the header size, so any variance caused by those wouldn't account for that?
                              Last edited by BoyAlley; 12-26-2007, 06:21 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...