Hammereditor attacks RTB servers - The discussion thread

[KoopaScooper]

Either way,

If you share the same IP address, you share the responsibility and the blame. It is literally everyone on that address' fault for one malicious user's actions on the address.

[Ad Bot]

[Kalphiter³]

fact: the attack came from your IP

Not a fact. Assumption.

fact: either you or pacnet are the culprits

If it had been malware as Hammereditor claims, then neither is a culprit. Hammereditor's story is pretty inconsistent and looks botched.

fact: if you two actually are brothers, and neither of you are fessing up to it, you're in on it together

Poor logic. One can be lying and the other telling the truth.

[Sentry]

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.

You just admitted that you could be the person who DDoSed RTB.

[Kalphiter³]

If you share the same IP address, you share the responsibility and the blame. It is literally everyone on that address' fault for one malicious user on the address.

what the forget kind of logic is this

[IkeTheGeneric]

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.

So what is that supposed to change? You're both still guilty af

[-Jetz-]

Therefore, either one of us could be the hacker.

Yeah, maybe from an outside perspective, but you know whether or not you did it. It's like you're trying to be a detective and the prime suspect at the same time.

[Blake1]

what the forget kind of logic is this

It's more 50/50. This is the internet, for all we know Pacnet and Hammer could be the same person (highly unlikely). Since we don't have hard evidence that they aren't the same person, both are responsible.

[Crispy_]

Not a fact. Assumption.

false.

If it had been malware

not very likely, would still be very stupid of piggereditor if this happened

Poor logic. One can be lying and the other telling the truth.

i agree, the other brother should just get in here and tell us what he knows about this.

[Pandan]

Hammereditor is just being "scientific" again.

"IT COULD BE ME, I MEAN, IT COULD BE ANYBODY?
WHERE IS THE PROOF?"

forget off. inb4 badspot ban forgets you hammer/pacent

[hammereditor³]

Hammereditor is just being "scientific" again.

"IT COULD BE ME, I MEAN, IT COULD BE ANYBODY?
WHERE IS THE PROOF?"

forget off. inb4 badspot ban forgets you hammer/pacent

Why would I be banned?
I did not admit to the DoS.

[Stocking]

Not a fact. Assumption.

My IP address did this DoS. I am not denying this.

My favorite thing about you is how stupid and easy to make fun of you are. Like everything about you is pathetic and laughable at this point, and you show up and try to wave your e-peen around but only serve to remind everyone why we don't like you.

If it had been malware as Hammereditor claims, then neither is a culprit. Hammereditor's story is pretty inconsistent and looks botched.

What the forget are you even saying? Are you contradicting yourself or are you just bad at making thoughts into words?

Poor logic. One can be lying and the other telling the truth.

On what planet does that make any kind of sense? If one of them did the hack and neither of them are fessing up to it or ratting the other out, you ban them both.

[Kalphiter³]

false.

It all depends on Ephialtes' testimony; it's an assumption. Using his specific testimony by itself is an assumption and needs to be pieced together with many other things to make a strong case.

Here's how to construct a case against Hammereditor:
1) Ephialtes' testified against Hammereditor/Pacnet by saying the attack came from their IP.
2) Hammereditor's story is oddly inconsistent
etc...

One of those alone does not say anything.

[Pandan]

Why would I be banned?
I did not admit to the DoS.

Of course a criminal isn't going to admit to his crime flat out.

Also, you said "It could be me or Pacnet"

Why not just say "It was pacent, sorry, he forgeted me over"
If that was the case?

Stop being a scientific friend.

[Crispy_]

Why would I be banned?

because you're being a little stuff.

[-Jetz-]

Hammereditor is just being "scientific" again.

"IT COULD BE ME, I MEAN, IT COULD BE ANYBODY?
WHERE IS THE PROOF?"

forget off. inb4 badspot ban forgets you hammer/pacent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu8AnJxI2LA&t=2m16s