Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 311 posts

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#151

Post by _spduchamp »

crhulls wrote: post #122

I find myself looking at the guy's picture and telling myself "of course that is what he looks like!" But on the flip side, we all know it is a bad idea to judge a book by its cover. How many times can we all recall doing this and feeling bad when our snap judgement was incorrect? But look at the guy! What is it we are all picking up on in these comments. I am not the only one. Is there something about how he is posi…

There is a reason that photo was selected for the article. It definitely amplifies a message.

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#153

Post by [deleted] »

crhulls wrote: post #122

I find myself looking at the guy's picture and telling myself "of course that is what he looks like!" But on the flip side, we all know it is a bad idea to judge a book by its cover. How many times can we all recall doing this and feeling bad when our snap judgement was incorrect? But look at the guy! What is it we are all picking up on in these comments. I am not the only one. Is there something about how he is posi…

[deleted]

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#154

Post by [deleted] »

ohashi wrote: post #15

"in a 2020 interview with KrebsOnSecurity, Golestan claimed that Micfo was at one point responsible for brokering roughly 40 percent of the IP addresses used by the world’s largest VPN providers. Throughout that conversation, Golestan maintained his innocence, even as he explained that the creation of the phony companies was necessary to prevent entities like Spamhaus from interfering with his business going forward.…

[deleted]

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#155

Post by overgard »

talent_deprived wrote: post #64
floren wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is a strong argument against IPv4 -- it's an absolute pain in the ass for bidirectional communication. Yeah, NAT acts as a defacto firewall, but you can just... use a real firewall.

> it's an absolute pain in the ass for bidirectional communication You're right and that's what I love about NAT, IPv6 in contrast is a hacker/spy tracking digital superhighway right through my front door and straight into my devices.

I'd rather just use a proper firewall I think. One thing that's super annoying about NAT is how hard it makes it to host your own server. I remember setting up FTP on my router at one point, but it was so annoying and flaky that I ended up not using it. But I can't say I'd be that afraid of having an SFTP server on the internet with a strong password and every non-relevant port firewalled. The whole NAT thing doesn't make it any more secure, it's just way more annoying to setup

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#156

Post by talent_deprived »

kstrauser wrote: post #110
talent_deprived wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is, try the test for yourself in your home over a 30 day period. Drop IPv6 at the router and in your main PC and devices by disabling it. At the end of that 30 days, it will become clear that Ad companies were using IPv6 to track people in the household when Ads for things completely unrelated to their interests and related to the other members of the household start showing on each others PC's and devic…

That's impossible if the devices have privacy extensions enabled, which is the default on all major OSes. My house has a /64 IPv6 prefix. Inside that, the computer I'm writing this on has 8 temporary IPv6 addresses it's using at this moment. An ad company can no more track my individual computer inside my house than it could your computer inside yours. The only difference is that your network is a black box behind pu…

> That's impossible if the devices have privacy extensions enabled

Wrong. Try what I said. It was recent enough the results are reproducible.

> An ad company can no more track my individual computer inside my house than it could your computer inside yours.

Yes, they can and my testing showed me, they do:

https://johannaullrich.eu/assets/papers/ullrich2015_raid.pdf

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#157

Post by southernplaces7 »

crhulls wrote: post #122

I find myself looking at the guy's picture and telling myself "of course that is what he looks like!" But on the flip side, we all know it is a bad idea to judge a book by its cover. How many times can we all recall doing this and feeling bad when our snap judgement was incorrect? But look at the guy! What is it we are all picking up on in these comments. I am not the only one. Is there something about how he is posi…

He's almost like the caricature image of a techbro douchebag scammer CEO, but then all kinds of people can look like all sorts of things and be far from them. SBF, the biggest techbro douchebag scammer CEO of them all, doesn't really look at all like what he is. He perhaps should have looked more like this guy and a few less people would have been fooled (maybe).

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#158

Post by hinkley »

PrivateButts wrote: post #99
lalith_c wrote: post #2

Move to ipv6 already

One complaint that I have about ipv6 and mac addresses is that they use hex separated by colons. Not only is it way longer than an ipv4 address, you can't rattle one off using a number pad. Back when I did full time IT, that sounds like a nightmare if in ipv6 land you have to enter addresses as commonly as you have to enter ipv4 addresses.

I think 1 IP address per human was short sighted. We ran out before the human population doubled. But I think a billion per human was someone liking powers of two, and nothing more. “Ipv5” with 48 bit addressing would have done pretty well. As 6 octets or 4 base 12. For humans you could reserve all ambiguous addresses and have about 50k times as many addresses while people sort themselves out. You could still be able to see at a glance that they were ipv5 addresses. 1047.258.300.0/24

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#159

Post by tlogan »

nodesocket wrote: post #139
tlogan wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. If he had real people or real companies buying these IP addresses (even if they are shell companies) he would be fine. Apparently he started like that but then he got greedy and said: fuck I will just invent some fake people. The actual criminal activity (fradulent affidavits, forged signatures) started in 2017.

I'm not clear why he needed to use fake names and forged signatures? Couldn't he just create legal LLC's in various states (Nevada is a good one) which don't expose the entities owners and use those to purchase the IPs from ARIN? Rinse and repeat.

I assume that he just run out of friends/colleagues/bodies who will run these companies. I do not know how many companies he created but 10 of them were fradulently incorporated.

Re: Tech CEO sentenced to 5 years in IP address scheme

#160

Post by thomastjeffery »

> federal prosecutors in South Carolina, who in May 2019 filed criminal wire fraud charges against Golestan, alleging he’d orchestrated a network of shell companies and fake identities to prevent ARIN from knowing the addresses were all going to the same buyer.

So the sentence is for the "Scheme", not the "IP Address".

This is pretty unclear if you have only read the title.

Post reply on HN