Re: [bitfolk] I know I should not take it personally but ...

Now what would it take to get them to notice you and fix the problem and compensate you? A lawsuit. How does this differ from a robber who is trespassing on your property and looking to see whether any of your doors is ajar? If one of your machines is located in the US, you have locus standi in that jurisdiction to pursue the trustees of Stanford. Is that jurisdiction California? Can bitfolk map the address range to which your machines respond to a US server farm located in Palo Alto or Menlo Park? It need only be for a month or a week, although damages would follow length of exposure to the hazard. -------------------------------------------- En date de : Mer 10.4.19, Keith Williams <keithwilliamsnp(a)gmail.com> a écrit : Objet: Re: [bitfolk] I know I should not take it personally but ... À: "BitFolk Users" <users(a)lists.bitfolk.com> Date: Mercredi 10 avril 2019, 1h50 It still continues, but at a reduced rate. Still no response to my email to the abuse mailbox. They have advertised a seminar on cybersecurity which is going on round about now. That is ironic. On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 00:44, Keith Williams <keithwilliamsnp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I was just going to say it had stopped, LOL, a 15 minute break, then a burst, then a few minutes break. Seems to be slowing down but another is giving port 80 a hammering. Because I give these blackholes different names I can see the new contender is one of the content spammers. Oh well it's past midnight here so I will let them get on with their games On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 23:03, admins <admins(a)sheffieldhackspace.org.uk> wrote: Sounds sensible to me. I also blanket ban anyone having a go at SSH simply as whilst it may start there, it never ends there. Sounds like a retarded infestation to me. Most bots are not that clever in and of themselves, once you have had a rummage through their code. There have been some clever tricks put into coding them though. kirbs On 09/04/2019 15:50, Keith Williams wrote: Every packet that arrives from them is sent to a chain by the firewall which logs them and then drops them. The log records the port they were blocked on. That's how I found the 7777. I had no idea what it was. I picked them up first because they hit on 22. that got them put in the set. Others in the set made a couple of attempts then disappeared. There is one oyher persistent pest, a well known comment spammer that keeps coming back and having a go for a while then disappearing, then just the usual rubbish On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 22:27, Dom Latter <bitfolk-users(a)latter.org> wrote: On 09/04/2019 10:59, Keith Williams wrote: <bitfolk-users(a)latter.org wrote: wrote: go for ports 22.23.53, 80, 443 nasty. backdoor opened up by Windows malware. reasons. I was particularly referencing 7777 (hence the quoted context).  You've not got anything on that port, and even if you did, it wouldn't be compatible. I don't think I'd even notice an attempt to connect to 7777. Because a connection is not made... _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)lists.bitfolk.com https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)lists.bitfolk.com https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)lists.bitfolk.com https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)lists.bitfolk.com https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users -----La pièce jointe associée suit-----