TRS Exclusive: Ibrox Leak?

[simplythebest 0]

Not really I'm not one for one huge conspiracy theory being at the root of our travails, just a perfect storm of bastards all seeking their fill by sucking the Rangers tit.

 

I know you love that phrase but mind thinking up something different for my benefit?

[TheTinMan99 0]

I imagine it was just a generic account set up by someone at Ibrox to keep an eye on things (there's probably a few for every forum) and Imran took it over would be the simplest explanation.

 

There's always the other option to keep the conspiracy theorists happy!

 

My spidey senses are smelling a rat. I'm not entirely convinced both accounts were the same person, although I'm 99% sure one was Ahmad. Some things just don't add up...

[Zappa 0]

I was thinking more along the lines of his car crash of an interview with STV and his scarcely credible responses to Whyte's allegations.

 

There's also the bogus Neil Murray suspension and the Sandaza sacking which is being appealed (and the PFA think the player has a good case).

[simplythebest 0]

There's also the bogus Neil Murray suspension and the Sandaza sacking which is being appealed (and the PFA think the player has a good case).

 

The PFA always think the player has a good case.

[Zappa 0]

The PFA always think the player has a good case.

 

Yes, but in this case he might well have one if Green cocked it up and sacked him without a rock solid case. Green certainly made a mistake with his comments when asked about it in the STV interview.

[barca72 440]

I can assure you that anyone logging into a forum such as RM is not doing so through a VPN or any such secure connection.

 

It is a simple public request from a web client via port 80 to a web server creating web pages on the fly using PHP.

 

Like I said in a previous post I was an RM mod in the past and we could see every poster's IP address, all of which were simple public IP's.

 

I'm sure you are trying to make a valid point but for me it is very, very far fetched.

 

Your wikipedia / how things work cut and paste efforts add no weight to your argument.

 

I have never used party poker but I assume it is some kind of certificate based https secure connection. End to end similar to VPN.

 

This is not remotely comparable to a standard webserver connection across the public internet.

 

Please don't see this as a deflection but I feel that we are now well off topic and I usually get £550 a day for such consultation.

 

@Barca your technical understanding of this is a country mile off sorry.

The IP as you call it(public ip recorded when you post on a forum), will be shared by everyone on the network/domain.

Without getting to technical because I don't think you will understand your comparison to party poker has no relevance whatsoever.

 

@meandmyweepaljoe.. it would surprise you rise in connections from a VPN to public forums these days.. not going to say its impossible to trace the internal IP though

 

 

Is it a fact that the IANA has set up a range of private addresses to be used inside of a private network? Is it a fact that a home router has a function called a NAT built in? Is it a fact that the router can automatically assign these addresses to each computer within the private network? Is it a fact that a router has a separate interface that connects it to the internet? Is it a fact that this address is assigned by the ISP and known as a Public IP address? Is it a fact that a private IP address is prohibited from talking directly on the internet because of packet instability? Is it a fact that any time a computer on the network side of the router wishes to speak to a computer on the internet side of the router it sends a connection message to the router ( it knows it has to send it to the router because its Default Gateway Parameter is set to the address of the router)? Is it a fact that the router takes that request ( 'SYN request' in TCP/IP) and changes the source address ( the 'reply-to' address ) from that of the private IP to that of the Public IP of the router, so that the response will be sent to the router? Is it a fact that the router remembers who initiated the message by an entry in a database, the NAT? Is it a fact that when the reply returns from the remote computer, a 'SYN-ACK', that the router looks in the NAT and sees that a connection to that host on that port was previously initiated by a private IP of the computer and forwards it within the network? Is it a fact that in this way packets can continue to transit back and forth between networks, with the router transparently changing addresses so that it works? Is it a fact that all routers have a faux-DMZ which allows you to type an IP address into your routers configuration and all incoming connections go there? Is it a fact that all network connections request a 'port' and that this port is just a number and its part of how a computer knows what the packet is? Is it a fact that IANA has specified that port 80 is to be used for HTTP? Is it a fact that an incoming packet that says port 80 must be a request for a web server? Is it a fact that port forwarding on your router allows you to enter a port number and an IP address and all incoming connections with a matching port number will be sent to the internal computer matching that address? Is it a fact that the RM server will talk to port 80 on the router and identify it with its public IP address and it cannot identify an internal computer because it has no idea of the NAT table entry?

Ok, gentlemen I think the point has been made. If I am technically off by a mile and my argument is fuddled let me clear that up for you. I like you was attempting to present a 'contrived scenario' in a non-patronizing manner to any members of the forum who were reading at the time. I did take a bit of licence when I said that the trace could be taken back to Ahmad's work station, however that was for illustrative purposes only, we know that if he is inside a router that can't happen. However, I don't know for sure that Ahmad or anyone else was posting from his work station. All we had to work on was that TRS believed Ahmad to be the person posting the information. Forlanssister speculated that Ahmad had linked his @rangers account to an old email account. TRS posted the tweets coming from the @rangers address. How then could they be linked back to Ahmad? When I gave you the far fetched scenario of the Wi-Fi access by remote software I was thinking more along these lines. Suppose Ahmad has a computer at home that is paid for by Rangers. If he then has a router hard wired to his computer but also has a Wi-Fi network set up on that router then the far-fetched scenario grows legs. If he cliented the old email account and the @rangers address to the home computer there is no way anyone can trace anything to a remotely connected computer to his Wi-Fi network - remember the kernel software in the wikepedia explanation. I know this works because I have my desktop hardwired to my router and my wife's laptop and kindle accesses the internet via the Wi-Fi network which is locked. So it is then possible for Ahmad, or someone else I suppose since he's innocent until proven guilty, to connect from his work station remotely to his home computer and access port 80 on his router to talk to the RM server. All anyone would see is a non-VPN computer but with a public IP not owned by Rangers. Now can you tell me rather than speculate that this scenario wouldn't work? Now gentlemen feel as free as you like to be patronizing. Oh, and I should tell you that before I retired I was responsible for commissioning over a hundred Nortel DMS 250/300 3G Fibre Optic Long Distance network switches for the likes of A.T.&T, Sprint, PacBell and a host of other Telcos. The last one I did was the first 4G DMS 350 for A.T & T for their test labs in Burien, Washington. I believe that to be the network node most high-speed wireless devices are using today. Oh, and by the way MYWEEPALJOE, this information did not come from Wikepedia but from one of my old course notebooks. That was what took up the time in replying. Cheers.

[simplythebest 0]

My eyes hurt.

[barca72 440]

My eyes hurt.

 

I'm sorry guys. I tried twice to stay away from anything technical, but sometimes you just have to explain yourself.

[blueflag 378]

Is it a fact that the IANA has set up a range of private addresses to be used inside of a private network? Is it a fact that a home router has a function called a NAT built in? Is it a fact that the router can automatically assign these addresses to each computer within the private network? Is it a fact that a router has a separate interface that connects it to the internet? Is it a fact that this address is assigned by the ISP and known as a Public IP address? Is it a fact that a private IP address is prohibited from talking directly on the internet because of packet instability? Is it a fact that any time a computer on the network side of the router wishes to speak to a computer on the internet side of the router it sends a connection message to the router ( it knows it has to send it to the router because its Default Gateway Parameter is set to the address of the router)? Is it a fact that the router takes that request ( 'SYN request' in TCP/IP) and changes the source address ( the 'reply-to' address ) from that of the private IP to that of the Public IP of the router, so that the response will be sent to the router? Is it a fact that the router remembers who initiated the message by an entry in a database, the NAT? Is it a fact that when the reply returns from the remote computer, a 'SYN-ACK', that the router looks in the NAT and sees that a connection to that host on that port was previously initiated by a private IP of the computer and forwards it within the network? Is it a fact that in this way packets can continue to transit back and forth between networks, with the router transparently changing addresses so that it works? Is it a fact that all routers have a faux-DMZ which allows you to type an IP address into your routers configuration and all incoming connections go there? Is it a fact that all network connections request a 'port' and that this port is just a number and its part of how a computer knows what the packet is? Is it a fact that IANA has specified that port 80 is to be used for HTTP? Is it a fact that an incoming packet that says port 80 must be a request for a web server? Is it a fact that port forwarding on your router allows you to enter a port number and an IP address and all incoming connections with a matching port number will be sent to the internal computer matching that address? Is it a fact that the RM server will talk to port 80 on the router and identify it with its public IP address and it cannot identify an internal computer because it has no idea of the NAT table entry?

Ok, gentlemen I think the point has been made. If I am technically off by a mile and my argument is fuddled let me clear that up for you. I like you was attempting to present a 'contrived scenario' in a non-patronizing manner to any members of the forum who were reading at the time. I did take a bit of licence when I said that the trace could be taken back to Ahmad's work station, however that was for illustrative purposes only, we know that if he is inside a router that can't happen. However, I don't know for sure that Ahmad or anyone else was posting from his work station. All we had to work on was that TRS believed Ahmad to be the person posting the information. Forlanssister speculated that Ahmad had linked his @rangers account to an old email account. TRS posted the tweets coming from the @rangers address. How then could they be linked back to Ahmad? When I gave you the far fetched scenario of the Wi-Fi access by remote software I was thinking more along these lines. Suppose Ahmad has a computer at home that is paid for by Rangers. If he then has a router hard wired to his computer but also has a Wi-Fi network set up on that router then the far-fetched scenario grows legs. If he cliented the old email account and the @rangers address to the home computer there is no way anyone can trace anything to a remotely connected computer to his Wi-Fi network - remember the kernel software in the wikepedia explanation. I know this works because I have my desktop hardwired to my router and my wife's laptop and kindle accesses the internet via the Wi-Fi network which is locked. So it is then possible for Ahmad, or someone else I suppose since he's innocent until proven guilty, to connect from his work station remotely to his home computer and access port 80 on his router to talk to the RM server. All anyone would see is a non-VPN computer but with a public IP not owned by Rangers. Now can you tell me rather than speculate that this scenario wouldn't work? Now gentlemen feel as free as you like to be patronizing. Oh, and I should tell you that before I retired I was responsible for commissioning over a hundred Nortel DMS 250/300 3G Fibre Optic Long Distance network switches for the likes of A.T.&T, Sprint, PacBell and a host of other Telcos. The last one I did was the first 4G DMS 350 for A.T & T for their test labs in Burien, Washington. I believe that to be the network node most high-speed wireless devices are using today. Oh, and by the way MYWEEPALJOE, this information did not come from Wikepedia but from one of my old course notebooks. That was what took up the time in replying. Cheers.

 

shit my eyes hurt too. its 8am too early for that on a weekend.

I think your using technology to miss the point.. consider this... someone who knew from inside ibrox and leaked it ? jeesus . or

the email address was leaked by staff on rm? or the database was compromised. . or hows about a french paporzzi was hiding on the roof of ibrox with a 6ft lens and and caught ol ahmed om the camera logging into rangersmedia on his iphone way down in that directors box haja

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[bluebear54 0]

On that line of thought, I wouldn't put it past people like CG, IA and especially CW to use bugs and other forms of surveillance. That kind of technology is freely available, not expensive and pretty good.