Posted on 08/22/2006 9:38:43 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
You said -- "Wow. In 5 seconds. Amazing. And some relate to this thread exclusively. Really strange thread to do this on, you know?"
It's possible that a hacker has an algorithm using relevent words "around" and in association with what the user is doing (or has files for). So, the algorithm can quickly scan documents and or files, then put together a dictionary list of key words for purposes of hacking a password -- under the assumption that people will use passwords that they are most associated and familiar with.
Thus, this attack turns into an alphabetical list of certain "combinations" of words that are picked from surrounding documents and/or files.
In light of that "hypothesis" -- no, it would not be strange. The algorithm would be doing what it was intended to do.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said -- Sure he did. He said "not guilty". But he isn't tech support.
No, that's not what I read. My "reading" of Jim Robinson's statement was that he meant he wasn't the one who was acting the matter. Hence -- he was saying "not guilty" in reference to himself (not being involved in what was going on in this thread).
HOWEVER, I'll admit that I could be wrong on this particular matter -- because -- *two words* leave a lot open to "interpretation". Without further clarification (from Jim himself) -- this is what I would have to say that he meant.
I'll leave it for Jim to comment, if he wishes to. Otherwise, we could then *assume* (in the absence of a comment from him) that what I'm saying is correct.
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. -- Another interpretation is that the Admin is "not guilty"... who knows..., two words don't quite "cut it"....
>>>>P.S. Calpernia..., did you make any more sense of this incident?
What you posted, makes sense; but I don't think it may be related to this incident.
I've found these words keyed into other posts.
And I found them pasted as a message post.
I did post here asking what the names were on the other words; but no one replied.
Is that how you read it? I think JimRob was ruling himself not guilty.
Exactly. By this means, they can get whatever results they want. A real estate agent who receives a "buyer" who claims to be an upper-middle-class professional, but who looks and acts like a ghetto thug, is going to do what with him?
Is he going to take him at his (easily-checked as false) word and parade him thru his upper-middle-class listing and give the people who hired him the impression that he's letting gang-bangers case their homes?
A solution is to have each prospective buyer fill out a form where he attests that the facts he presents are true and accurate, and prosecute to the hilt phoney National Fair Housing Alliance people
It's an old thread. I'll take Calpernia at his/her word. It seemed a bizarre attack and I felt Cal was being way too defensive and not as shoulder-shruggingly apologetic. But it's over now. If Jim has no problems with it, neither do I.
Yes. It can go both ways. Anybody can see that. And chose which way to take it. Sometimes ambiguity is intentional. Intentional ambiguity is intent to deceive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.