Name-Shifting ?

In 24hoursupport.helpdesk, VanguardLH wrote:

snipped all but useragent string
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR
3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR
3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB;
rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR
3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

So just WHERE do you see that a different OS was involved?

The first, Windows NT 5.1, is XP. The second, Windows NT 6.0, is Vista.
Two different OSes.

What I see is that *possibly* a different version of the same web
browser was used

Possibly? The first is Internet Explorer 8. The second is Firefox
3.0.10.

(this assume the poster did not change the user-agent string reported
by their web browser, something for which there are many utilities
available).

IME, most UA forgeries don't fill in near all that detail, especially
multiple versions of .NET CLR. I'd say the UAs were legitimate.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

On Sun, 17 May 2009 16:34:56 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

So just WHERE do you see that a different OS was involved? What I see
is that *possibly* a different version of the same web browser was used
(this assume the poster did not change the user-agent string reported by
their web browser, something for which there are many utilities
available).


X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR
3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR
3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

- Mozilla/4.0 compatible; MSIE 8.0 means IE 8
- Windows NT 5.1 means Windows XP

X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB;
rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR
3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

- Mozilla/5.0 [...] Firefox/3.0.10 is Firefox 3
- Windows NT 6.0 is Vista


Different browseers, different operating systems. Could it be forged?
Sure, what can't. And anyone who had the nouse to do that would have
expended half the effort and used an anonymising mail-to-news gateway
instead.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
Judith Smith wrote:



Simple question:

Do you normally post as Guy Chapman?


Simple question;

If he/she answered 'No', would you be convinced?

Not now, no. And now I've answered yours, here's one for you: Would _you_ ?

Are you Judith then ?

On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:59:35 +0100, Phil the Farmer
wrote:

Are you Judith then ?

No, thaksin is probably nully. I'm still waiting to see if judith
notices the fact that the last post by Lou Knee was from a different
IP address, in the ClaraNet dynamic pool.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

Response to "Just zis Guy, you know?" :

Are you Judith then ?

No, thaksin is probably nully. I'm still waiting to see if judith
notices the fact that the last post by Lou Knee was from a different
IP address, in the ClaraNet dynamic pool.


Well, that just *proves* it, you're only trying to cover your tracks now
you've been unmasked! Your fiendish ingenuity is worthy of Moriarty!

--
Mark, UK

Phil the Farmer wrote:
thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
Judith Smith wrote:



Simple question:

Do you normally post as Guy Chapman?


Simple question;

If he/she answered 'No', would you be convinced?

Not now, no. And now I've answered yours, here's one for you: Would
_you_ ?

Are you Judith then ?

Bzzzzzt. "Are you judith then" is not a valid answer to my question.

thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
Judith Smith wrote:



Simple question:

Do you normally post as Guy Chapman?


Simple question;

If he/she answered 'No', would you be convinced?

Not now, no. And now I've answered yours, here's one for you: Would
_you_ ?

Are you Judith then ?

Bzzzzzt. "Are you judith then" is not a valid answer to my question.

I asked Judith a question; are you Judith?

Phil the Farmer wrote:
thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
Judith Smith wrote:



Simple question:

Do you normally post as Guy Chapman?


Simple question;

If he/she answered 'No', would you be convinced?

Not now, no. And now I've answered yours, here's one for you: Would
_you_ ?

Are you Judith then ?

Bzzzzzt. "Are you judith then" is not a valid answer to my question.

I asked Judith a question; are you Judith?

**** off dickhead. I gave you an answer to one question, and asked one
myself - if you're all 'take' and no 'give', you no longer qualify.
Sorry, and all that, but I'm a big fan of equity

thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
Judith Smith wrote:



Simple question:

Do you normally post as Guy Chapman?


Simple question;

If he/she answered 'No', would you be convinced?

Not now, no. And now I've answered yours, here's one for you: Would
_you_ ?

Are you Judith then ?

Bzzzzzt. "Are you judith then" is not a valid answer to my question.

I asked Judith a question; are you Judith?

**** off dickhead. I gave you an answer to one question, and asked one
myself - if you're all 'take' and no 'give', you no longer qualify.
Sorry, and all that, but I'm a big fan of equity

If you're NOT judith; I've only asked /you/ one question, which you have
not answered - so the "all 'take' and no 'give'" response is untrue.

If you ARE judith, why refuse to admit to answering the question?

Phil the Farmer wrote:
thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
thaksin wrote:
Phil the Farmer wrote:
Judith Smith wrote:



Simple question:

Do you normally post as Guy Chapman?


Simple question;

If he/she answered 'No', would you be convinced?

Not now, no. And now I've answered yours, here's one for you:
Would _you_ ?

Are you Judith then ?

Bzzzzzt. "Are you judith then" is not a valid answer to my question.

I asked Judith a question; are you Judith?

**** off dickhead. I gave you an answer to one question, and asked one
myself - if you're all 'take' and no 'give', you no longer qualify.
Sorry, and all that, but I'm a big fan of equity

If you're NOT judith; I've only asked /you/ one question, which you have
not answered - so the "all 'take' and no 'give'" response is untrue.

If you ARE judith, why refuse to admit to answering the question?

I'm sure _you_ know what the ******** you're spouting is supposed to
mean, but would you care to translate for those of us who speak an Earth
language? You asked a question, seemingly of me since it was a followup
to one of my posts, as to whether I'd believe Chapman. I answered, and
asked a question of my own. In direct response, you asked a further
question. Sorry, son, no matter which way you slice it, you're asking me
questions and not answering those asked of you. All 'take' and no 'give'
makes you a dull boy