Thread: l33t hacker...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXmv8quf_xM

You may have seen this... but laughing at morons is fun!

Code:

C:\Users\edward>tracert google.com

Tracing route to google.com [209.85.229.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     3 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  10.10.10.126
  2     9 ms     9 ms     7 ms  10.159.144.1
  3    13 ms    10 ms    10 ms  nott-core-1b-ge-310-314.network.virginmedia.net
[82.13.49.241]
  4    12 ms    12 ms    13 ms  nth-bb-b-as1-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.
174.173]
  5    12 ms    16 ms    12 ms  nth-bb-a-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.253.1
85.117]
  6    14 ms    21 ms    15 ms  man-bb-b-as4-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.
64.22]
  7    29 ms    28 ms    20 ms  tele-ic-3-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net [212.43.
163.70]
  8    19 ms    22 ms    50 ms  158-14-250-212.static.virginmedia.com [212.250.1
4.158]
  9    19 ms    23 ms    21 ms  209.85.252.76
 10    47 ms    28 ms    28 ms  72.14.232.134
 11    26 ms    25 ms    25 ms  216.239.49.45
 12     *        *       25 ms  209.85.243.73
 13    26 ms    25 ms    28 ms  ww-in-f99.1e100.net [209.85.229.99]

Trace complete.

Code:

C:\Users\edward>tracert enigma.freethought-internet.co.uk

Tracing route to enigma.freethought-internet.co.uk [194.110.243.2]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     2 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  10.10.10.126
  2    14 ms     7 ms     7 ms  10.159.144.1
  3    11 ms    10 ms     8 ms  nott-core-1a-ge-310-314.network.virginmedia.net
[82.13.49.221]
  4     9 ms    11 ms     9 ms  lee-bb-a-as0-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.
174.169]
  5    21 ms    16 ms    26 ms  pop-bb-b-as1-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.253.1
85.238]
  6    17 ms    17 ms    25 ms  tele-ic-2-as0-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.253.
184.6]
  7    16 ms    15 ms    15 ms  ae0-806.rt2.the.uk.goscomb.net [212.250.14.97]
  8    16 ms    20 ms    15 ms  uk-dedicated-servers-85.gw.goscomb.net [77.75.10
4.85]
  9    16 ms    15 ms    17 ms  no.rdns-yet.ukservers.com [77.74.193.230]
 10   168 ms    26 ms    38 ms  ge-0-0-2.rt0.core.bsq.lon.no-wires.co.uk [94.229
.67.34]
 11    20 ms    17 ms    16 ms  10.1.0.bsq1-rt1.maidenhead.england.freethought.n
et.uk [194.110.243.251]
 12    18 ms    18 ms    17 ms  51.1.0.bsq1-fwcl1.maidenhead.england.freethought
.net.uk [194.110.243.225]
 13    19 ms    20 ms    16 ms  enigma.freethought-internet.co.uk [194.110.243.2
]

Trace complete.

C:\Users\edward>

There's as many people on one of our shared servers as Google!

What the ....
Is this a joke? - This just reminds me of when Jen (IT Crowd reference) was tricked into thinking the Internet was a small black box (which was wireless) with a single red LED on it.

2:55 in -
4 people on a single server.. brilliant. I think Google would be fairly upset if they only had 10 users on at any given point in time.

She was also convinced into telling some board meeting that typing "google" into google would take down the interwebs.

Originally Posted by AdamC

She was also convinced into telling some board meeting that typing "google" into google would take down the interwebs.

Birdies tell me that IT Crowd is coming back...

I can't believe no-one here actually picked up on the fact that the guy tried to resolve 'http://google.com/' via Windows ping and it resolved to an address in 24.0.0.0/8 (allocated to US cable modem customers) - the real WTF was that he wasn't even tracerouting to a Google IP!

This is due to some weird Windows hostname resolution behaviour when you don't pass Windows a valid IP address (i.e. 439.561.234.12) or something which doesn't strictly conform to a valid RFC-compliant hostname (i.e. http://google.com as opposed to google.com).

Hang your heads in shame, people

Originally Posted by TerryFroy

I can't believe no-one here actually picked up on the fact that the guy tried to resolve 'http://google.com/' via Windows ping and it resolved to an address in 24.0.0.0/8 (allocated to US cable modem customers) - the real WTF was that he wasn't even tracerouting to a Google IP!

This is due to some weird Windows hostname resolution behaviour when you don't pass Windows a valid IP address (i.e. 439.561.234.12) or something which doesn't strictly conform to a valid RFC-compliant hostname (i.e. Google as opposed to google.com).

Hang your heads in shame, people

Noticed it and wrote the video off as being a fake I'm pretty sure that Windows always just tells you to stuff off if you put a URL rather than a domain in.

It certinaly does here on Windows XP and Windows 7 and has done in every version I've ever accidentally pasted a URL into the command prompt when troubleshooting.

Also, it's very rare in my expierence for someone that doesn't know the difference between a URL and a domain name to drop the www. off the front of the domain when entering a URL.

Originally Posted by TerryFroy

Hang your heads in shame, people

I was going to list everything that was wrong with it, then realised that would be one mother of a list, and so decided to just carry on living my life

Originally Posted by TerryFroy

I can't believe no-one here actually picked up on the fact that the guy tried to resolve 'http://google.com/' via Windows ping and it resolved to an address in 24.0.0.0/8 (allocated to US cable modem customers) - the real WTF was that he wasn't even tracerouting to a Google IP!

This is due to some weird Windows hostname resolution behaviour when you don't pass Windows a valid IP address (i.e. 439.561.234.12) or something which doesn't strictly conform to a valid RFC-compliant hostname (i.e. Google as opposed to google.com).

Hang your heads in shame, people

I think we did probably all notice it. I know I did but as Joel said, the whole video was bol**cks so why just point out *one* thing?

The other possibility is that his ISP answers all DNS requests (regardless of correctness) which would typically answer with an NXDOMAIN with the IP of a server that serves a generic 'We cannot find this page' with ads on it.

VeriSign tried a similar thing when they stuck a wildcard record in .com - VeriSign SiteFinder.

Perhaps Windows doesn't actually validate the DNS request that it is sending to the resolver and merely hopes that the resolver will validate the record and answer appropriately or just kick back with an NXDOMAIN if it can't validate it ?

Yep.. the ISP have a "DNS hijacking service" running I think someone noted. Personally I couldn't be arsed to look at it to verify, but aparently the last hop is Roadrunner or something.

I think the fact he had an AOL shortcut in his start menu says it all.

Originally Posted by JonWitte

I think the fact he had an AOL shortcut in his start menu says it all.

How about the Norton Anti-Virus

God that was a funny link!!!