|
|
Spy bot (Community)
Spy bot // Community
Feb 24, 2002, 8:14pm
When I started the thread I was quite alarmed, because
CarolAnn told me what she had there in her log and I
checked several other world logs for the same occurance.
When it turned out that AW caused the trouble, it
reminded me very much on things about microsoft's and
other companies spyware or hidden backdoors in programs.
I'm really, seriously mad when I see things like this,
in my eyes it is misuse of a priviledge, that is necessary
for technical reasons.
In my job I often have confidential informations on servers
(intranet) where I have to trust the admin and he has to
trust me. There are special priviledged technical users
and real users who know the passwords of the technical
users. If any of the real users would misuse the password
of a technical user and anyone would find out, it would
be the last day of this person in this company, and I'm
sure she/he would have trouble to find any IT related job.
Same for the admins, they have access to these confidential
and private data, but would never use these priviledges for
anything but for technical help.
The web is a really unsecure place. If someone has special
priviledges on computers that he does not own or maintain,
and these priviledges are needed for a technical reason,
he should not use these priviledges thoughtless, except he
has been asked or invited to use them.
Once the trust is violated, it is not easy to restore it.
I do not accuse MrGrimm to have stolen any information, but
he has used his priviledges really thoughtless. His bot was
not allowed in the worlds, because there was no need for it.
[View Quote]grimble wrote:
>
> Oooohh Ananas ... Look what you've done!! What the hell happened here?
>
> Has it occurred to anyone that if the intention was to read/steal any
> information from within a world, they would have found a much more inventive
> way of doing it that sticking a damned bot in the world for a few seconds. I
> can't believe so many people are taking offense at this ... is it just part
> of the "Bash AW at any opportunity" mentaility or are people seriously so
> uptight that this is a major issue for them?
|
--
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_
Feb 24, 2002, 8:52pm
It's not a backdoor at all, any CT can see the world features dialog
information.
[View Quote]"ananas" <vha at oct31.de> wrote in message news:3C795D18.F71C1647 at oct31.de...
> Still someone used a program to break into a computer
> where this program was not allowed to be. It used a
> (known but necessary) backdoor for a reason that was
> not sufficient to use this backdoor. The idea of a
> special citizen (came from several people) except for
> #1 would have been good. The idea of a search index is
> good too.
>
> Many programs are only licenced to use, but still you
> would not like the company who owns the licence to enter
> your computer through a backdoor that is in their program
> and collect informations (even not private ones) without
> having informed and asked first.
>
> My problem is really not the idea, my problem is the way.
>
> holistic1 wrote:
bad as cutting across
think of something more
precious "rights" being
USE the world and browser
in and check PUBLICLY
CONNECTED
30929 50
IDENTIFIED '[Search Spider]' 0 1
MASK 0x0
DISCONNECTED
>
> --
> "_
> |
> /\
> \ /
> __/ /_
|
Feb 24, 2002, 8:58pm
Any CT can, yes. And any citizen can extract the
informatios from his cache, and I have no problem
with that. The information isn't secret.
But still the technical user ID of a universe owner
(cit. #1) is a backdoor. Not an illegal one, but it
should only be used when it is necessary.
[View Quote]dion wrote:
>
> It's not a backdoor at all, any CT can see the world features dialog
> information.
>
> "ananas" <vha at oct31.de> wrote in message news:3C795D18.F71C1647 at oct31.de...
|
--
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_
Feb 24, 2002, 9:38pm
Its not a backdoor unless it wasn't made to do that and it is neccesary to
build the database. The bot will be used in the future for updates and we
can't have an eruption of threads every time it happens. Its not coping our
builds or anything its just collecting a few things which will benefit the
cmmunity but the community has to jump on every little thign AW does and
make them look like malicous hackers. Why can't you just accept that they
know what thay're doing (and they do) and leave it alone.
[View Quote]"ananas" <vha at oct31.de> wrote in message news:3C796CAA.DB5AA7EC at oct31.de...
> Any CT can, yes. And any citizen can extract the
> informatios from his cache, and I have no problem
> with that. The information isn't secret.
>
> But still the technical user ID of a universe owner
> (cit. #1) is a backdoor. Not an illegal one, but it
> should only be used when it is necessary.
>
> dion wrote:
news:3C795D18.F71C1647 at oct31.de...
>
> --
> "_
> |
> /\
> \ /
> __/ /_
|
Feb 25, 2002, 12:18am
[View Quote]
> Its not a backdoor unless it wasn't made to do that and it is neccesary to
> build the database. The bot will be used in the future for updates and we
> can't have an eruption of threads every time it happens. Its not coping our
> builds or anything its just collecting a few things which will benefit the
> cmmunity but the community has to jump on every little thign AW does and
> make them look like malicous hackers. Why can't you just accept that they
> know what thay're doing (and they do) and leave it alone.
>
What definition of BACKDOOR are you using? Something that does
something that it was not intended to do is usually referred to as a
"Side Effect".
Check this:
--------------------------------
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/backdoor.html
BACKDOOR: Also called a trapdoor. An undocumented way of gaining access
to a program, online service or an entire computer system. The backdoor
is written by the programmer who creates the code for the program. It is
often only known by the programmer. A backdoor is a potential security risk.
--------------------------------
I and a couple of others are using the term properly. An INTENTIONAL
bit of code put in by the programmers (for whatever reason).
You and other keep getting this confused with "What the bot did." and I
think most of us agree that the bot did not do any harm in this
particular case. So there is no need to keep explaining that to us.
Now read the last sentence of that definition: "A backdoor is a
potential security risk."
That has nothing to do with the competence of the programmer. It has
to do with the ability of a dishonest insider, or a hacker on the
outside becoming aware of the backdoor and how to access it. And I know
with a fair degree of certainty that this has been done on occasion.
How do we know the backdoor exists in the first place? Because people
(AWLD people) have used it in the past and slipped up and left tracks.
Just like they did this time, except in the past the tracks have been
things like screwed up builders lists etc. We KNOW, we have EXPERIENCED
this, we are not just hypothesizing here.
It was NOT necessary to build the database (whatever the database
actually is), since the information could have been solicited from
interested world owners.
Feb 25, 2002, 12:36am
ActiveWorlds is made in such a way that universe caretakers are caretakers
of all the worlds within it. What that Citizen does with those worlds is
perfectly OK as long as it does not go against the TOS that was agreed to by
the owner of the world when it has been built.
Feb 25, 2002, 1:14am
actually it is documented in many places that says citezin number one has
rights in all worlds, etc etc... its pretty common knowledge if you've been
here a while. they arent trying to hide this fact and really can't with
other uni owners knowing about it. It could be a security risk becuase any
user can use cit#1 privs if they know the ppw which is highly unlikely. but
the post is saying that the bot would do harm to the worlds, steal, etc when
the programmer works for AW i think he knows what hes doing unless he wants
to get fired and banned, i think if every world got wiped out or something
they could figure it out pretty easily.
[View Quote]"macb" <Z at X.Y> wrote in message news:3C795789.70102 at X.Y...
> zeo toxion wrote:
>
to
we
our
the
they
>
>
> What definition of BACKDOOR are you using? Something that does
> something that it was not intended to do is usually referred to as a
> "Side Effect".
>
>
> Check this:
>
> --------------------------------
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/backdoor.html
>
> BACKDOOR: Also called a trapdoor. An undocumented way of gaining access
> to a program, online service or an entire computer system. The backdoor
> is written by the programmer who creates the code for the program. It is
> often only known by the programmer. A backdoor is a potential security
risk.
> --------------------------------
>
> I and a couple of others are using the term properly. An INTENTIONAL
> bit of code put in by the programmers (for whatever reason).
>
> You and other keep getting this confused with "What the bot did." and I
> think most of us agree that the bot did not do any harm in this
> particular case. So there is no need to keep explaining that to us.
>
> Now read the last sentence of that definition: "A backdoor is a
> potential security risk."
>
> That has nothing to do with the competence of the programmer. It has
> to do with the ability of a dishonest insider, or a hacker on the
> outside becoming aware of the backdoor and how to access it. And I know
> with a fair degree of certainty that this has been done on occasion.
>
> How do we know the backdoor exists in the first place? Because people
> (AWLD people) have used it in the past and slipped up and left tracks.
> Just like they did this time, except in the past the tracks have been
> things like screwed up builders lists etc. We KNOW, we have EXPERIENCED
> this, we are not just hypothesizing here.
>
> It was NOT necessary to build the database (whatever the database
> actually is), since the information could have been solicited from
> interested world owners.
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 8:45am
Jeeze,
this thread is REALLY out of hand.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. The bot didn't actually "enter" the
world. I logged in, didn't register as an avatar, didn't enter private
worlds, didn't query property, didn't change anything. In fact, all it did
was read a couple of world attributes. I would most definitely rather that
than AWCorp using a bot running as a citizen, which we all know is possible
as I have demonstrated a couple of times.
There are a couple of security risks which I will address to Will (MrGrimm)
and Roland about the scan, but if those are cleared, I don't see what the
concern is about.
I think it was very unwise to name the thread "Spy Bot" since it wasn't
spying, it couldn't even "hear" people within the world.
Anyhow, I strongly advise against further scans until 3.3 world server is
public, or the security of the universe could be SEVERELY compromised. For
those who understand the implications of the impersonation flaw, you will no
doubt be a little concerned about public safety related to a scan using root
rights.
*Crosses fingers and waits for the 3.3 protocol*
Take Care,
Luke.
Feb 25, 2002, 3:15pm
grow up and try learning a little about what you speak.
[View Quote]"filmkr" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message news:3C76A6F2.9BFC5CA8 at privacy.com...
> Wrong Binary... I know you have been around for ages. AW owns the software perhaps... that is really to be seen, but that aside,
> when they SELL and give with that SALE, "FREE" items which the "FREE" items became part of the advertised "Inducement to
> purchase" then they have to honor those FREE items. As for use... they are not allowed to claim rights to intellectual property
> designed by others. AW does not create the Laws of the United States... they must abide by them! They sold worlds and
> advertised certain reasons for owning a world of your own. They cannot go back and change that unless they wish false
> advertising, fraud and a array of other suits and charges brought upon them. Like I said, do what you want to new people but
> we purchased worlds that came with "FREE" Citizenships that renewed with the world payments. Keep in mind the worlds were
> purchased with ONE TIME Software fee. The world license was the only renewable part. The FREE Cits can NEVER be legally
> charged for so long as the world renewal fees are current.
>
> Now I would think since AW posted they had financial problems and needed to hike prices for that reason the last thing they
> should be doing is placing themselves in legal jeopardy for foolish reasons that will gain them zero but cost them everything!
> Have they not noticed the masses that have left because of their BAD BLOOD Tactics of the past 45 days?
>
>
>
> binarybud wrote:
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 3:26pm
ok how about this.....they send a letter out to ASK permission to get the indexing info...and all hell breaks loose in the
newsgroups debating on how and why they should or should not index each world.....got the idea? you people are a waste of their
time and effort.......sit back and enjoy the ride....or get the hell off the ride......:) your starting to ruin the fun for the
people who are in this for fun....;) They are planning the future of their SOFTWARE not your social future..... don't be so
hard on them for trying.
Leo :)
[View Quote]"kah" <kah at kahnews.cjb.net> wrote in message news:3c77b96c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> uhm... MrGrimm said he copyed the title, greeting and keywords... that's the
> property of the owner of the world. Ok, so it isn't as bad as querying the
> world and copying it, but it's a matter of principle, because they could do
> just that later on.
> Entering a world to build a search index is "something", so they shouldn't
> have done it without permission. If they had *asked* I'm pretty sure about
> everyone would've let them, but when they don't it's a breach of privacy and
> copyright. You wouldn't like it if your landlord came into your house
> without asking first, even if it was his house, would you? (in this case, it
> isn't even the AWC's own property, so you could look at them as burglars
> entering the house). No, I'm not petty, your comments about my bot don't
> change my feelings about what you're saying on *this* subject. Maybe you are
> petty because you automatically assume I was being petty? Heard about
> integrity?
>
> KAH
>
> <snip>
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 3:30pm
AWLD 1 has always been there and you know it. ALWAYS if you were not aware of it then that's where the problem lies.
AWLD 1 is needed and quite acceptable.....they can come to my world anytime and inspect it. not a problem. if you have a problem
with it then you need to find another playground they own this one...:)
Leo :)
[View Quote]"macb" <Z at X.Y> wrote in message news:3C795789.70102 at X.Y...
> zeo toxion wrote:
>
>
>
> What definition of BACKDOOR are you using? Something that does
> something that it was not intended to do is usually referred to as a
> "Side Effect".
>
>
> Check this:
>
> --------------------------------
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/backdoor.html
>
> BACKDOOR: Also called a trapdoor. An undocumented way of gaining access
> to a program, online service or an entire computer system. The backdoor
> is written by the programmer who creates the code for the program. It is
> often only known by the programmer. A backdoor is a potential security risk.
> --------------------------------
>
> I and a couple of others are using the term properly. An INTENTIONAL
> bit of code put in by the programmers (for whatever reason).
>
> You and other keep getting this confused with "What the bot did." and I
> think most of us agree that the bot did not do any harm in this
> particular case. So there is no need to keep explaining that to us.
>
> Now read the last sentence of that definition: "A backdoor is a
> potential security risk."
>
> That has nothing to do with the competence of the programmer. It has
> to do with the ability of a dishonest insider, or a hacker on the
> outside becoming aware of the backdoor and how to access it. And I know
> with a fair degree of certainty that this has been done on occasion.
>
> How do we know the backdoor exists in the first place? Because people
> (AWLD people) have used it in the past and slipped up and left tracks.
> Just like they did this time, except in the past the tracks have been
> things like screwed up builders lists etc. We KNOW, we have EXPERIENCED
> this, we are not just hypothesizing here.
>
> It was NOT necessary to build the database (whatever the database
> actually is), since the information could have been solicited from
> interested world owners.
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 4:03pm
I bet that if they had asked nobody would've made a fuss and would've let
them...
KAH
[View Quote]"binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message
news:3c7a73d1$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> ok how about this.....they send a letter out to ASK permission to get the
indexing info...and all hell breaks loose in the
> newsgroups debating on how and why they should or should not index each
world.....got the idea? you people are a waste of their
> time and effort.......sit back and enjoy the ride....or get the hell off
the ride......:) your starting to ruin the fun for the
> people who are in this for fun....;) They are planning the future of
their SOFTWARE not your social future..... don't be so
> hard on them for trying.
>
> Leo :)
>
>
>
>
> "kah" <kah at kahnews.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:3c77b96c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
the
the
do
shouldn't
about
and
case, it
are
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 4:28pm
That is just a rumor, and it's not going further than that. Otherwise I
would have heard something more substantial about it by now. :) So fear
not, you have no need to worry. Hopefully.
SW Chris
[View Quote]"aine" <Aine at DeDanaan.com> wrote in message
news:3c7964b5 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
|
"sw chris" <chrisw10 at nckcn.com> wrote in message
news:3c79618e at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Opinion noted, and respected. Let me point something out though... I
don't
> think it's not so much wanting to keep everything secret, it is moreso the
> necessity of not mentioning it. I heard it mentioned that the original
> intention for the secrecy of this matter was to give everyone a pleasant
> surprise when they got the 3.3 update installed. Of course I could be
> wrong, but that's the impression I got.
>
> SW Chris
|
On the other hand, the rumormill is now talking about AWC charging $30 extra
for that update to 3.3, even though world and 3D Homepage owners are still
required to pay the Tourist Fee, free cits for world owners have been
reduced or eliminated, and citizen prices have been raised.
How much more money do they expect us to pay before we even get a glimpse at
the "promised new features"?
*shakes head*
And they have hopes of selling this browser on a CD?
They just don't get it down there at the home office, do they?
Aine
Feb 25, 2002, 4:31pm
The software is our social future. That is its purpose.
If they ask, a debate would spring up, sure. But each person owning a world
would be individually responsible for allowing or not allowing the world to
be indexed. The debate that would inevitably happen wouldn't matter much at
all.
SW Chris
[View Quote]"binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message
news:3c7a73d1$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> ok how about this.....they send a letter out to ASK permission to get the
indexing info...and all hell breaks loose in the
> newsgroups debating on how and why they should or should not index each
world.....got the idea? you people are a waste of their
> time and effort.......sit back and enjoy the ride....or get the hell off
the ride......:) your starting to ruin the fun for the
> people who are in this for fun....;) They are planning the future of
their SOFTWARE not your social future..... don't be so
> hard on them for trying.
>
> Leo :)
>
>
>
>
> "kah" <kah at kahnews.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:3c77b96c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
the
the
do
shouldn't
about
and
case, it
are
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:07pm
using an analogy......
point being it's their "book"...... and they have every right to post and publish an INDEX to ALL of it...:)
whether you want/or like them to do it.....:) everyone needs to quit "bucking the system" and quit doing it with the claim of
"privacy" or "rights" THEY own the software...:) don't like it play elswhere :)
[View Quote]"sw chris" <chrisw10 at nckcn.com> wrote in message news:3c7a830c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> The software is our social future. That is its purpose.
>
> If they ask, a debate would spring up, sure. But each person owning a world
> would be individually responsible for allowing or not allowing the world to
> be indexed. The debate that would inevitably happen wouldn't matter much at
> all.
>
> SW Chris
>
> "binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message
> news:3c7a73d1$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> indexing info...and all hell breaks loose in the
> world.....got the idea? you people are a waste of their
> the ride......:) your starting to ruin the fun for the
> their SOFTWARE not your social future..... don't be so
> news:3c77b96c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> the
> the
> do
> shouldn't
> about
> and
> case, it
> are
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:25pm
More like they're the publishing company, and you should have the choice if
you want your work into that book.
-Silenced
[View Quote]"binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message
news:3c7a8b58$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> using an analogy......
> point being it's their "book"...... and they have every right to post and
publish an INDEX to ALL of it...:)
> whether you want/or like them to do it.....:) everyone needs to quit
"bucking the system" and quit doing it with the claim of
> "privacy" or "rights" THEY own the software...:) don't like it
play elswhere :)
>
>
>
> "sw chris" <chrisw10 at nckcn.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a830c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
world
to
much at
the
each
off
of
that's
querying
could
privacy
house
burglars
don't
you
about
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:30pm
Too late, you already signed the contract that never stated anything about
requiring consent for such a thing.
[View Quote]"silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a8f90$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> More like they're the publishing company, and you should have the choice
if
> you want your work into that book.
>
> -Silenced
>
> "binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message
> news:3c7a8b58$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
and
> publish an INDEX to ALL of it...:)
> "bucking the system" and quit doing it with the claim of
> play elswhere :)
> news:3c7a830c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> world
world
> to
> much at
get
> the
> each
> off
> of
> that's
> querying
> could
sure
> privacy
> house
this
> burglars
> don't
Maybe
> you
> about
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:32pm
Contract? I don't remember signing a contract. An illegal business practice
is an illegal business practice. (that is using a backdoor to get
information that is not allowed.. ie using a bot when bots aren't allowed)
-Silenced
[View Quote]"dion" <GovDion at subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a90ea$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Too late, you already signed the contract that never stated anything about
> requiring consent for such a thing.
> "silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
> news:3c7a8f90$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> if
> and
quit
a
> world
> get
hell
future
keywords...
they
> sure
> this
bot
> Maybe
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:35pm
point is there is NOTHING illegal about it . so stop crying about it. sheeesh like you have something you want private so
lets go put it in an Active Worlds World that's pretty safe huh? LOL you guys are a hoot fer sure. hehehe
[View Quote]"silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message news:3c7a9131$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Contract? I don't remember signing a contract. An illegal business practice
> is an illegal business practice. (that is using a backdoor to get
> information that is not allowed.. ie using a bot when bots aren't allowed)
>
> -Silenced
>
> "dion" <GovDion at subdimension.com> wrote in message
> news:3c7a90ea$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> quit
> a
> hell
> future
> keywords...
> they
> bot
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:40pm
Uh, I'm not crying about it. It's very illegal to use a backdoor to get
information on something. I would just liked to have known if they were
going to do this.. maybe a universe message would've been nice. Why do
people complain about other people complaining? If you don't like it, don't
read it, simple as that. Much less respond to it.
-Silenced
[View Quote]"binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message
news:3c7a9213$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> point is there is NOTHING illegal about it . so stop crying about it.
sheeesh like you have something you want private so
> lets go put it in an Active Worlds World that's pretty safe huh? LOL
you guys are a hoot fer sure. hehehe
>
>
> "silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a9131$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
practice
allowed)
about
choice
post
it
owning
the
matter
permission to
index
the
as
because
they
pretty
breach of
your
(in
as
my
subject.
Heard
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:52pm
just trying to enlighten you guys.....pay attention....it's real simple....there is not a "back door" it's account AWLD1 they
have access to everything they always have, and always will...it's their software....please write this down so you remember...:)
[View Quote]"silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message news:3c7a9328$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Uh, I'm not crying about it. It's very illegal to use a backdoor to get
> information on something. I would just liked to have known if they were
> going to do this.. maybe a universe message would've been nice. Why do
> people complain about other people complaining? If you don't like it, don't
> read it, simple as that. Much less respond to it.
>
> -Silenced
>
> "binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message
> news:3c7a9213$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> sheeesh like you have something you want private so
> you guys are a hoot fer sure. hehehe
> news:3c7a9131$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> practice
> allowed)
> about
> choice
> post
> it
> owning
> the
> matter
> permission to
> index
> the
> as
> because
> they
> pretty
> breach of
> your
> (in
> as
> my
> subject.
> Heard
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:53pm
i doubt it. there would be a huge argument saying its their worlds etc
etc....either way peopel are goign to complain and this way they arent
waisting their time
[View Quote]"kah" <kah at kahnews.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:3c7a7c55 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I bet that if they had asked nobody would've made a fuss and would've let
> them...
>
> KAH
>
> "binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message
> news:3c7a73d1$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
the
> indexing info...and all hell breaks loose in the
> world.....got the idea? you people are a waste of their
> the ride......:) your starting to ruin the fun for the
> their SOFTWARE not your social future..... don't be so
> news:3c77b96c$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
that's
> the
> the
could
> do
> shouldn't
> about
privacy
> and
> case, it
burglars
don't
you
> are
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:54pm
its not like their gettign you adress and phone number my god.....
[View Quote]"silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a9328$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Uh, I'm not crying about it. It's very illegal to use a backdoor to get
> information on something. I would just liked to have known if they were
> going to do this.. maybe a universe message would've been nice. Why do
> people complain about other people complaining? If you don't like it,
don't
> read it, simple as that. Much less respond to it.
>
> -Silenced
>
> "binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message
> news:3c7a9213$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> sheeesh like you have something you want private so
LOL
> you guys are a hoot fer sure. hehehe
> news:3c7a9131$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> practice
> allowed)
> about
> choice
> post
to
like
> it
> owning
> the
> matter
> permission to
> index
> the
the
> as
> because
so
> they
> pretty
> breach of
> your
> (in
them
> as
about
> my
> subject.
> Heard
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:56pm
It's the principle of the thing.
-Silenced
[View Quote]"zeo toxion" <b.nolan2 at verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3c7a966a at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> its not like their gettign you adress and phone number my god.....
>
> "silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
> news:3c7a9328$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> don't
> LOL
anything
the
to
needs
> to
> like
person
allowing
wouldn't
not
get
> the
bad
> so
into
you?
> them
> about
petty?
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 5:58pm
You don't need to "enlighten" us. You're not the all knowning person, it is
a back door, read one of the previous posts to see why it is. Yes it's
always been there, yes they have access to everything, and yes they always
wil, does this make it right? No, it doesn't, it's supposed to be a last
resort. Why not allow users to have their world indexed if they want it to
be? It's not AWLD1 btw, it's just AWLD.. get it right if you're going to
"enlighten" us please.
-Silenced
[View Quote]"binarybud" <lmauk at traverse.net> wrote in message
news:3c7a95e3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> just trying to enlighten you guys.....pay attention....it's real
simple....there is not a "back door" it's account AWLD1 they
> have access to everything they always have, and always will...it's their
software....please write this down so you remember...:)
>
>
> "silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a9328$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
don't
LOL
anything
the
to
needs to
like
person
allowing
wouldn't
not
get
the
bad
so
into
you?
them
about
petty?
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 6:05pm
Hey, I explained this before. Citizen 1 is the owner of the ActiveWorlds
Universe. In all Universes, the caretaker of the universe may enter any
world, private or not, allowing bots or not. He has full control of
everything. You did agree to a TOS when you bought the world. That TOS is
the 'contract' in this analogy.
The caretaker of the world and universe can over-ride all the permissions,
including bots and enter privelages. Citizen 1 is AWLD, which is a universe
caretaker and may enter and over-ride any and all privelages that you
cancel. It is not a backdoor! Are you clear about this? This is not a
secretive thing? A backdoor is if they had added a thing on your computer
that opened a port allowing them to connect directly to your computer and
take information off of it that did not have anything to do with your
ActiveWorlds World! This information in your rights and privelages and
features is not private. It is sent out to every person that enters your
world.
If you consider that a backdoor, to grab information that is sent to them...
then you are a nutcase.
[View Quote]"silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a9131$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Contract? I don't remember signing a contract. An illegal business
practice
> is an illegal business practice. (that is using a backdoor to get
> information that is not allowed.. ie using a bot when bots aren't allowed)
>
> -Silenced
>
> "dion" <GovDion at subdimension.com> wrote in message
> news:3c7a90ea$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
about
choice
post
> quit
owning
> a
matter
to
index
> hell
> future
> keywords...
> they
they
pretty
of
your
as
> bot
Heard
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 6:06pm
You wouldn't live a day in court with a 'principle of the thing'.
[View Quote]"silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a96e8$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> It's the principle of the thing.
>
> -Silenced
>
> "zeo toxion" <b.nolan2 at verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3c7a966a at server1.Activeworlds.com...
get
were
do
it.
business
> anything
> the
right
> to
> needs
> person
> allowing
> wouldn't
> not
> get
planning
> bad
"something",
I'm
> into
> you?
at
> petty?
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 6:13pm
> Hey, I explained this before. Citizen 1 is the owner of the ActiveWorlds
> Universe. In all Universes, the caretaker of the universe may enter any
> world, private or not, allowing bots or not. He has full control of
> everything. You did agree to a TOS when you bought the world. That TOS is
> the 'contract' in this analogy.
Not the owner, but the "caretaker." You don't agree to a TOS when you buy a
world, maybe an agreement if you run the windows server.. but if you run the
unix one.. you don't get that.
> The caretaker of the world and universe can over-ride all the permissions,
> including bots and enter privelages. Citizen 1 is AWLD, which is a
universe
> caretaker and may enter and over-ride any and all privelages that you
> cancel. It is not a backdoor! Are you clear about this? This is not a
> secretive thing? A backdoor is if they had added a thing on your computer
> that opened a port allowing them to connect directly to your computer and
> take information off of it that did not have anything to do with your
> ActiveWorlds World! This information in your rights and privelages and
> features is not private. It is sent out to every person that enters your
> world.
Do you know what a backdoor is? It's something programmed in to allow
unrestricted access to information (in general). It doesn't have to be
secret to be a back door. Allowing access to a part of your computer is a
trojan backdoor, but where do you think these worlds are hosted? On someone
else's computer.. so it's accessing their computer. It still took
information off it, even if it was part of the universe. You're right, it's
not, but the way in which they went about to get it was.
> If you consider that a backdoor, to grab information that is sent to
them...
> then you are a nutcase.
No, it's a backdoor, look up the definition. Do you not realize how serious
this could be? All we have is MrGrimm's word that he didn't do anything,
but we don't exactly know.
-Silenced
[View Quote]> "silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
> news:3c7a9131$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> practice
allowed)
> about
> choice
> post
it
> owning
the
> matter
permission
> to
> index
the
as
because
> they
> pretty
breach
> of
> your
(in
> as
my
subject.
> Heard
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 6:15pm
Listen, the information that the bot is getting is coming from your world.
Your world server sends that information to the browser of every person who
enters. That's like me giving you a car and then calling you a theif!
[View Quote]"silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a9ae3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
is
>
> Not the owner, but the "caretaker." You don't agree to a TOS when you buy
a
> world, maybe an agreement if you run the windows server.. but if you run
the
> unix one.. you don't get that.
>
permissions,
> universe
computer
and
>
> Do you know what a backdoor is? It's something programmed in to allow
> unrestricted access to information (in general). It doesn't have to be
> secret to be a back door. Allowing access to a part of your computer is a
> trojan backdoor, but where do you think these worlds are hosted? On
someone
> else's computer.. so it's accessing their computer. It still took
> information off it, even if it was part of the universe. You're right,
it's
> not, but the way in which they went about to get it was.
>
> them...
>
> No, it's a backdoor, look up the definition. Do you not realize how
serious
> this could be? All we have is MrGrimm's word that he didn't do anything,
> but we don't exactly know.
>
> -Silenced
>
> allowed)
to
like
> it
> the
> permission
> the
the
> as
> because
so
> breach
> (in
them
about
> my
> subject.
>
>
|
Feb 25, 2002, 6:18pm
If I was going to take it to court, I'd pick a more suitable reason. Since
this is a newsgroup, I have no need to. And why isn't it illegal? No one's
said anything different then "it just takes things that are already
transmitted." But what about the way they went about getting it? Entered a
world where the owner didn't explicitly give them rights to enter, or
without consent of a world owner. That my friend is illegal. It's someone
else's data on someone else's computer, and is most definately not AW's data
when you host it yourself. Even if they have AWLD's priv, it still doesn't
make it right to violate someone's privacy (which means entering a world
where the owner didn't specificy them to be allowed). If they had asked or
posted something, it would've been fine, but they didn't, they did it in
secret.
-Silenced
[View Quote]"dion" <GovDion at subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a9944$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> You wouldn't live a day in court with a 'principle of the thing'.
>
> "silenced" <nospam at privacy.com> wrote in message
> news:3c7a96e8$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> get
> were
> do
it,
> it.
> business
get
aren't
have
> right
don't
should
their
ride....or
> planning
so
and
as
principle,
> "something",
> I'm
a
came
would
> at
comments
*this*
>
>
|
|
