Regarding the Eus:
Dalton wrote:Can this evidence tell us if mets was attacked to prevent him from playing vidyagames on the interwebs:
1 That is retarded
Pretty certain both your opinions were taken into consideration, if you say your opinion wasn't, that's fine. And I do want to say thanks and appreciate the time you set aside when you didn't have to.
Here's a summary of what Marker/Krazy discussed with me on skype, here's to bring the other viewers up-to-date:
[3/16/2017 10:38:25 PM] Joé (Krazy): k vap, the whole reason this was being kept a secret, is because mets was not able to protect himself, when we figured out what happened, because he had old hardware, with old windows, and shitty firmware
[3/16/2017 10:39:06 PM] Marker: and most likely half the community has the same thing
[3/16/2017 10:39:25 PM] Joé (Krazy): but essentially what happened is that most likely an hijacked web server was sending payloads to mets
[3/16/2017 10:39:32 PM] Joé (Krazy): which caused him to have unstable connection, which is different from a ddos, a ddos is where you would have multiple machines sending data from multiple different locations, this was more a dos where 1 machine a server in this case would send a single type of payload to mets
[3/16/2017 10:40:20 PM] Marker: over what seems to be a vpn
[3/16/2017 10:40:30 PM] Matthew McCulloch: so a single server was overloading mets
[3/16/2017 10:40:33 PM] Marker: or a hijacked web server
[3/16/2017 10:40:38 PM] Joé (Krazy): we know this because it was the same protocol used for all the traffic sent, essentially the same data, yes, a web server
[3/16/2017 10:41:39 PM] Marker: it is unlikely he himself did anything to put himself in danger, through admission
[3/16/2017 10:41:44 PM] Matthew McCulloch: which web server?
[3/16/2017 10:41:53 PM] Matthew McCulloch: were you able to find out?
[3/16/2017 10:41:57 PM] Marker: *POSTED TWO IPS REMOVED FOR SAFETY* ~ Vap
[3/16/2017 10:42:03 PM] Marker: i recommend, u dont go to them
[3/16/2017 10:42:05 PM] Joé (Krazy): dont go to them lol
[3/16/2017 10:42:11 PM] Marker: unless u are on a vpn
[3/16/2017 10:42:16 PM] Joé (Krazy): even on vpn
[3/16/2017 10:42:23 PM] Joé (Krazy): id recommend using a vm lol
[3/16/2017 10:42:26 PM] Marker: i did it on a vm
[3/16/2017 10:42:26 PM] Joé (Krazy): if you really wanted to be safe
[3/16/2017 10:42:30 PM] Joé (Krazy): thank god
[3/16/2017 10:42:30 PM] Marker: and found 1 to be, the landing sight for a web server, that looks to be housing vpns, and the other was a landing page to an error page, to a webserver that is commonly used by sketchy people, cuz normally people use iis or appache to host webservers
[3/16/2017 10:43:14 PM] Joé (Krazy): its most likely a known hijacked web server or some shit
[3/16/2017 10:43:25 PM] Matthew McCulloch: So you found a backdoor that could've been used
[3/16/2017 10:43:37 PM] Marker: i mean backdoors come and go all the time
[3/16/2017 10:43:44 PM] Joé (Krazy): lets say there was a door open
[3/16/2017 10:43:44 PM] Marker: do we know the specific one no?
[3/16/2017 10:43:45 PM] Matthew McCulloch: But at least one taht was in use
[3/16/2017 10:43:49 PM] Marker: yes
[3/16/2017 10:44:08 PM] Matthew McCulloch: but not exactly confirmed to be the one used to perform met's slowdown?
[3/16/2017 10:44:16 PM] Joé (Krazy): it is that for sure
[3/16/2017 10:44:31 PM] Marker: because of the fact
[3/16/2017 10:44:36 PM] Marker: he restarted his computer
[3/16/2017 10:44:48 PM] Matthew McCulloch: It was still there when booted
[3/16/2017 10:44:58 PM] Marker: sortve
[3/16/2017 10:45:00 PM] Marker: it was external
[3/16/2017 10:45:02 PM] Joé (Krazy): I'm guessing the payload was on a timer
[3/16/2017 10:45:22 PM] Marker: and since the webservers were in russia, slovenia, theres no way to trace it back, to someone like ling
[3/16/2017 10:45:43 PM] Matthew McCulloch: So you guys concluded it was a payload attack
[3/16/2017 10:45:49 PM] Joé (Krazy): lets call it a dos, initiated by a Trojan on a webserver, do you have any other questions
[3/16/2017 10:51:42 PM] Matthew McCulloch: thanks krazy
I was trying to discuss with krazy/marker whether we could actually prove met's "attack" had anything to do with ZH.
We needed to demonstrate to everyone how it was done, we never even got over that first hurdle.
krazymen wrote:Again just deforming what im saying. I will refrain from posting anything else, however I have never said anything about this being from zh."
The main counter argument I've heard from many others "why would he do that to himself after crushing game 1" which seems to be said for the whole case...
Additional comments from a dear computer scientist..
'an attack'... constituting of 3 frag-packets... which 'took mets offline for hours'. ask him the confidence of that " 'an attack'... constituting of 3 frag-packets... which 'took mets offline for hours'. " because i assert that even that is ludicrous! and IF he claims very high confidence otherwise, then HE needs to show us proof. show example. show supporting information, in your 1-3 you are missing key points like - this actually WAS an attack that could and did take mets offline for hours with 3 fragpackets, thats my A) without that, dont even move forward, and IF -A- is true... then we could move on to- B) it was done by zh-member, like with using his private IP, then we could move to C) it was done by member of opponent team or someone 'working for them' after A,B,C are all confirmed true, THEN it would warrant resurrection and forced-forfeit actions. and neither can we prove A, we can??, '1) someone from zh community was the person who attacked mets, 2) did so by just knowing his IP, 3) the evidence of the case alone is what makes you believe it is an attack', we can get high confidence on that????, really?????, someone from zh community was the person who attacked mets.. i'd say 0% 'proof', 2.) did so by knowing IP alone - ... uhh,,, isnt this contigent on #1 being true first?, so they did the attack on IP alone? that knowing someone's private IP is all it takes to do this attack, the 3-frag-packet death-special??, i sure cannot give ANY confidence to that, i'd say 0%, based on the evidence, unless marker/krazy knows of and can demonstrate such a magic attack, 3) the evidence of the case alone is what you makes you believe it is an attack..., on that evidence alone.. i cannot give any evidence of this being a 'real attack', let alone 'attack by zh member', let alone 'personally targeted IP attack at mets', let alone ' the culprit for bringing mets offline for multiple hours', i'd give it a 0%, but i welcome others who claim to be pro-nasty experts with high confidence claims of undeniable PROOF here, to show us their findings and perhaps demonstrate this magic attack. So to what you said - '1-3 we could at least get a high ish% of likely hood on' - i'd reply: NO, not even close!!, do i need to beat this dead horse anymore? Why are people so swayed by non-experts claiming very-high confidence that they see this 'proof' as CLEAR EVIDENCE of the attack, and then even jumping to say that- 'THEY PROVED IT ALREADY' ? the absurdity here is just mind-boggling, stupifyingly rediculous... [no offense intended.]
More comments from our town drunk...
Why I supported boycotting the rescheduled series:
1. Blitz did not 100% excuse himself from the situation from the beginning. He probably didn't do anything wrong during this situation, but the simple fact is that he remained involved when he shouldn't have been.
2. We had no voice in the original ruling and didn't even know it was being discussed while blitz and mets were directly involved.
3. Evidence wasn't released for an absurd amount of time even with my suggestion of blacking out all personal information. This just made it more difficult to believe it was a direct attack.
4. Aiur did nothing wrong, yet we are supposed to forfeit a playoff series win and start from scratch.
5. The series was played to completion (I did not expect league management or Korhal to stop the games midseries, that's simply unreasonable) and no reward was given for winning the first series even though if Korhal won, we wouldn't have any issues. A 100% reset means that Korhal got a free chance at a win. It doesn't matter if its intentional or not, a free chance is still a free chance at the end of the day. This is why I believe that a 100% reset of the match is unfair and unreasonable to ask of Aiur.
Here's some examples of what was said in the LM Chat, proving Blitz was entirely respectable and kept himself outside of the investigation. Right?? Noo, blitz wouldn't compromise Auir 4 Month Season with no proof...