Hacker News Reader

Comment by datr | Hacker News Reader

Couldn't the agent be referring to a http header, in which case it doesn't seem that improbable.

I've worked on sites before where if you logged in as the admin it started attaching a header with the ip of the application server responsible for generating that page to help with debugging. It's not outside the realms of possibility that something like that could break and start leaking ips.

View on HN

It seems he was serving an embedded CAPTCHA from his real IP.

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/09/dread-pirate-sunk-by-leak...

Maybe he used a CAPTCHA library that generates absolute URLs using the server host name.

The HTTP header is not in the packet header. It is in the data section of the TCP packet. If so, this calls the federal agent's capacity to serve as an expert witness in question.

The TCP packet is not in the 'packet header'. Both the Ethernet and IP frames precede it. How can you possibly suggest that a HTTP header doesn't count, but a TCP packet does?

Weev you are disqualified due to your incorrect assertions from being an expert commentator :D

TCP is a packet-switched protocol. HTTP is a socket-based protocol. HTTP as a protocol is a stream of bits that is carried within the data segments of a packet-based transit protocol. HTTP itself does not have a "packet header". TCP has a packet header, as one can simply verify by googling "TCP packet header". Go do some learnin', bro.

Weev you know me, you also know I'm right. TCP as a protocol is a stream of bits carried within the data segments of a frame based transit protocol. Both TCP and HTTP have headers.

HTTP does have a header, but what is carried within the data sections of TCP/IP packets created by the establishment of an HTTP socket are not packets. HTTP is not in itself a packet switched protocol. It forms a circuit. Seriously, your CCNA does not make you a networking expert.

If the agent's claim is true it wouldn't have come from an HTTP header anyways, but instead the IP address was leaked by the captcha part of the SR website, which the agent would have noticed on his wireshark-equivalent dumping TCP logs.

Well, we should still ask for the evidence.

If by we, you mean Ulbricht's lawyers, I'm sure they're on it since illegal search is basically his only defense.

We, the HN community, could probably find plenty of worthy people to advocate for that don't go around paying for assassinations.

We, the HN community, could probably find plenty of worthy people to smear by accusing them of paying for assassinations.

Well good luck with the Ross Ulbricht canonization effort, sir.

Prosecutors can write whatever fiction they want in a criminal complaint. The false criminal complaint I was once extradited on, for example, was based upon a fictitious claim that AT&T was headed in New Jersey, when a simple search of SEC Edgar or Wikipedia can verify that it is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Federal agents have been caught lying multiple times to everyone from the public to Congress, and yet for some reason people still consistently take the garbage they say seriously.

He has.

Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance; Attempted Witness Murder; Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in Commission of Murder-for-Hire; Aiding and Abetting

https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238...

(This was in response to a sentence that has now been edited out that claimed Ulbricht has never been charged for murder for hire.)

The idea that because some Federal agents have lied therefore we should discount anything all of them say is farcial.

I don't think that's what he's suggesting at all. We shouldn't automatically discount their statements, but we should start scrutinizing them very carefully before we make a call.

Scrutiny is fine, but the "scrutiny" on display in this thread is quite fanciful indeed. It's almost as if people were hoping that FBI is, somehow, someway, wrong, instead of skeptically analyzing the data presented using critical analysis and then following where the evidence leads.

E.g. the top comment right now claims that a footnote practically proves FBI employed parallel construction, based on no reasoned argument, and without examining even the possibility that there is a reasonable explanation on the FBI's behalf.

So if scrutiny is the byword, let's practice scrutiny. But I'm just seeing advocacy.

What does your estimation of Ulbricht's moral standing have to do with anything? The HN community is advocating for due process.

First we're not a monolith. Second, I don't see people advocating for due process so much as I see outright advocacy and willful ignorance of the idea that it's possible for the FBI to indict someone without violating their due process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com