Hammereditor attacks RTB servers - The discussion thread

[Stocking]

What I meant was to find specific quotes and explain how they prove that I attacked RTB.

So the issues we were having were unfortunately a malicious attack. Even more unfortunate is the fact that the source ip address is hammereditor's home ip.

I've added appropriate firewall rules to all webservers to drop his incoming traffic and everything's returned to normal now. Sorry for the inconvenience folks.

Yeah, given the circumstances: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=gD9mXc16

That's a small selection of connections (netstat output) from hammereditor's home IP opening connections to port 80 on the rtb webserver to max out the connection limit. I'd rather not discuss this any further in the thread but do feel free to take it over to drama and I'll be happy to discuss more.

do i really need to explain them now

[Ad Bot]

[KoopaScooper]

What I meant was to find specific quotes and explain how they prove that I attacked RTB.

How about the quote on the OP you numbnuts

Yeah, given the circumstances: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=gD9mXc16

That's a small selection of connections (netstat output) from hammereditor's home IP opening connections to port 80 on the rtb webserver to max out the connection limit. I'd rather not discuss this any further in the thread but do feel free to take it over to drama and I'll be happy to discuss more.

[Night Fox]

What I meant was to find specific quotes and explain how they prove that I attacked RTB.

if you don't think the burden of proof should be on you, why do you think it should be on pacnet?

[hammereditor³]

do i really need to explain them now

Those don't prove whether any one of us did it.
That is proof that the attacks came from my IP address, but it does not prove which one of us is the culprit.
I was asking for proof that specifically indicates if either I did it or Pacnet did.

if you don't think the burden of proof should be on you, why do you think it should be on pacnet?

That's not my point. My point is that there is no evidence that distinguishes me as the hacker, and not Pacnet.
IP addresses can prove nothing about this.
And just because Pacnet can't post, and was banned 2 weeks ago, doesn't mean he isn't guilty.

[KoopaScooper]

IP addresses can prove nothing about this.

lol yes it can you loving handicap jesus christ stop being so goddamn obvious and shrugging every intelligent post off as nothing

[IkeTheGeneric]

What I meant was to find specific quotes and explain how they prove that I attacked RTB.

Man, I could put days worth of effort into gathering proof of the malicious attacks from you and pacnet, but you would either tiptoe around it or simply stop responding. That, and even then it's futile because I wouldn't be proving anything to anyone, considering everyone already thinks you're guilty.

How about you get some proof that you didn't attack RTB?

[Stocking]

Those don't prove whether any one of us did it.
That is proof that the attacks came from my IP address, but it does not prove which one of us is the culprit.

Assuming you two are brothers, why not just key revoke both of you if neither of you rat the other one out? Seems fair to me.

[devildogelite]

Assuming you two are brothers, why not just key revoke both of you if neither of you rat the other one out? Seems fair to me.

GOD STOP ASSUMING STUFF!!! YOU'RE SO IGNORANT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS GOD!!!

[Night Fox]

How about you get some proof that you didn't attack RTB?

that isn't really how the burden of proof works

[hammereditor³]

GOD STOP ASSUMING STUFF!!! YOU'RE SO IGNORANT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS GOD!!!

This is truth, not an assumption.

Assuming you two are brothers, why not just key revoke both of you if neither of you rat the other one out? Seems fair to me.

So the punishment should be based on the forum's opinion? Why not do it based on fact, instead?

[Kalphiter³]

But there's no reason to single you out. Why would he risk his moderator status to put you short one Blockland key?

The same way he risked his moderator status by breaking several rules in the past. In other words, there is no risk.

[Stocking]

So the punishment should be based on the forum's opinion? Why not do it based on fact, instead?

fact: the attack came from your IP
fact: either you or pacnet are the culprits
fact: if you two actually are brothers, and neither of you are fessing up to it, you're in on it together

you're both guilty, so you should both be key revoked

[Crispy_]

now give us proof about the loving malware
we're still waiting

[hammereditor³]

Man, I could put days worth of effort into gathering proof of the malicious attacks from you and pacnet,

Key word: "you and Pacnet".
Of course,
My IP address did this DoS. I am not denying this.
But this is what I have been arguing about for the past 24 pages of this topic:
Although it comes from my IP address, Pacnet and I are brothers and have the same address. Therefore, either one of us could be the hacker.

[Crispy_]

so now it's a guessing game???

ohh, lets see...
ban both.