A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sucuri URL test site query



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 25th 18, 08:30 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Steve Carroll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something wrong with
Tekrider.net?
Ads
  #2  
Old May 25th 18, 10:49 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Steve Carroll wrote:

Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something wrong with
Tekrider.net?


According the the site certificate information, the cert is valid. Use
your unidentified web browser to look at the details of a site's cert.
However, I noticed that the cert's CA (certificate authority) is using
the freebie Let's Encrypt which really isn't a CA. Many sources
consider those certs as insecure. Let's Encrypt never validates who
asked to get a certificate. Since no money was exchanged, there is no
way to "follow the money". The whole process is automated so there is
no overseer on issuance of the certs.

Sites using Let's Encrypt might as well as use their self-signed certs
for as "secure" as those would be regarding actually identifying the
registrant of a cert. This is like users getting freebie e-mail certs
to do x.509 SMIME digital signing and encryption of their e-mails but
there is no validation of just WHO got that e-mail cert, only that the
registrant used the mailbox for which the e-mail cert was issued which
is hardly identifying who owns the cert. Similar to sending the free
e-mail cert via e-mail to whoever requested it (to verify the registrant
has, at least, access to that e-mail account), Lets Encrypt uses ACME
(Automated Certificate Management Environment) to check the server is
the one that gets the site cert. Uh huh, yep, that really identified
the registrant: the one asking for the cert is the one that validates it
was them that asked for it. That's like getting a blank driver's
license and whatever you write on it, oh sure, that must be you.

Only because web browsers pre-install the Let's Encrypt root cert lets
users of those web browsers visit sites using that pseudo-CA. The Let's
Encrypt root certificate is pre-installed in Google Chrome (wasn't a
while ago so Chrome would complain the Let's Encrypt-ed site was not
secure). Mozilla added the root cert to Firefox because, gee, Mozilla
is one of the founders of Let's Encrypt (and, no, if you've used Firefox
for a long time then you know Mozilla does NOT have the user's security
fully prioritized but add lots of **** to assist web sites). In Chrome,
you'll see the cert listed under Lets Encrypt. In Firefox, it is listed
as IdenTrust. Sites going cheap by getting free certs from Lets Encrypt
had problems at first because web browsers didn't have that pseudo-CA
listed/added to their cert store.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...ificate_drama/
(do a search and you'll find other gotchas with Lets Encrypt)

It was a nuisance to have to pay for site certs and having to trust a
3rd party as the regulator but that had some validity and checking as
who got the cert. With the freebies from Lets Encrypt, the registrant
validates themself (rolls eyes).

As for Securi, well, the part you omitted in your post was they said:

Our automated scan was unable to run on your website.

Okay, that could be something as simple as the site uses robots.txt with
a directive telling web crawlers to NOT crawl their web site. I tried
clicking on Securi's "More details" button for "Scanning errors" but
they just re-painted the same web page. I was trying to see WHY they
report they cannot scan/crawl that web site. I had to allow the
mxpnl.com source for scripts in both uMatrix and uBlock Origin to get
the script needed when clicking on the "More details" button. Then all
they said was the same forbidden error they reported above. No further
information. They won't even tell you that actual error status that was
returned by the server when attempt to visit that page. Instead they
just show "40x" as the error status. Yeah, right, very unhelpful.

Apparently to get more details means having to sign-up at Securi. Go
read:

https://sucuri.net/website-security-platform/signup

Then you'll see Securi is using their so-called web site scan as a lure
to get users (perhaps only the site owner) to buy into their site scan
service. Dump Securi. They're a lureware site.

If you want to externally validate a site's SSL certificate rather than
trusting what your own web browser reports, go to:

https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/

That will test lots of aspects of a site (SSL) cert. That it reports
deficiencies does not mean the cert is invalid or misleading, only that
the site needs to improve. Note that for www.tekrider.net, SSLlabs
reports it supports TLS 1.0 but not SSL 3.0. Alas, TLS 1.0 was just a
renaming of SSL 3.0 but with some incompatibilities to differentiate it
from SSL 3.0. A site using TLS 1.0 is no more secure than one using SSL
3.0. SSllabs will note which ciphers are supported by the site,
including those the site will accept that are considered weak.

Although not specifically an overt red flag, I ponder what
dixie-metal-detectors.com (2nd site cert issued by GoDaddy but which
SSLlabs says is not trusted probably due to a SA [Subject Alternative]
mismatch on multiple domains to which the cert is registered) has to do
with tekrider.net (1st cert using free Lets Encrypt). Also:

nslookup www.tekrider.net
gives an IP address of 192.251.238.3
(which hides using a private domain registration at GoDaddy)

but a reverse DNS lookup on 192.251.238.3
gives alvin.genwebserver.com
(which hides using a private domain registration at privacygarden.org)

and the IP address of 192.251.238.3 is in the IP pool owned by Webby
Enterprises LLC (webbytech.net) who appears to be the webhoster.

I'm not sure Securi is trying to provide for information on a site's
certificate but it appears they are a lure to a paid service. Use
SSLlabs if you want more info on a site's cert than what your web
browser tells you.
  #3  
Old May 25th 18, 03:39 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Sucuri URL test site query

On Fri, 25 May 2018 08:30:53 +0100, Steve Carroll
wrote:

Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something wrong with
Tekrider.net?


Hi David. New nym?

  #4  
Old May 25th 18, 08:06 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Steve Carroll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Sucuri URL test site query

On 25/05/18 10:49, VanguardLH wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:

Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something wrong with
Tekrider.net?


According the the site certificate information, the cert is valid. Use
your unidentified web browser to look at the details of a site's cert.
However, I noticed that the cert's CA (certificate authority) is using
the freebie Let's Encrypt which really isn't a CA. Many sources
consider those certs as insecure. Let's Encrypt never validates who
asked to get a certificate. Since no money was exchanged, there is no
way to "follow the money". The whole process is automated so there is
no overseer on issuance of the certs.

Sites using Let's Encrypt might as well as use their self-signed certs
for as "secure" as those would be regarding actually identifying the
registrant of a cert. This is like users getting freebie e-mail certs
to do x.509 SMIME digital signing and encryption of their e-mails but
there is no validation of just WHO got that e-mail cert, only that the
registrant used the mailbox for which the e-mail cert was issued which
is hardly identifying who owns the cert. Similar to sending the free
e-mail cert via e-mail to whoever requested it (to verify the registrant
has, at least, access to that e-mail account), Lets Encrypt uses ACME
(Automated Certificate Management Environment) to check the server is
the one that gets the site cert. Uh huh, yep, that really identified
the registrant: the one asking for the cert is the one that validates it
was them that asked for it. That's like getting a blank driver's
license and whatever you write on it, oh sure, that must be you.

Only because web browsers pre-install the Let's Encrypt root cert lets
users of those web browsers visit sites using that pseudo-CA. The Let's
Encrypt root certificate is pre-installed in Google Chrome (wasn't a
while ago so Chrome would complain the Let's Encrypt-ed site was not
secure). Mozilla added the root cert to Firefox because, gee, Mozilla
is one of the founders of Let's Encrypt (and, no, if you've used Firefox
for a long time then you know Mozilla does NOT have the user's security
fully prioritized but add lots of **** to assist web sites). In Chrome,
you'll see the cert listed under Lets Encrypt. In Firefox, it is listed
as IdenTrust. Sites going cheap by getting free certs from Lets Encrypt
had problems at first because web browsers didn't have that pseudo-CA
listed/added to their cert store.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...ificate_drama/
(do a search and you'll find other gotchas with Lets Encrypt)

It was a nuisance to have to pay for site certs and having to trust a
3rd party as the regulator but that had some validity and checking as
who got the cert. With the freebies from Lets Encrypt, the registrant
validates themself (rolls eyes).

As for Securi, well, the part you omitted in your post was they said:

Our automated scan was unable to run on your website.

Okay, that could be something as simple as the site uses robots.txt with
a directive telling web crawlers to NOT crawl their web site. I tried
clicking on Securi's "More details" button for "Scanning errors" but
they just re-painted the same web page. I was trying to see WHY they
report they cannot scan/crawl that web site. I had to allow the
mxpnl.com source for scripts in both uMatrix and uBlock Origin to get
the script needed when clicking on the "More details" button. Then all
they said was the same forbidden error they reported above. No further
information. They won't even tell you that actual error status that was
returned by the server when attempt to visit that page. Instead they
just show "40x" as the error status. Yeah, right, very unhelpful.

Apparently to get more details means having to sign-up at Securi. Go
read:

https://sucuri.net/website-security-platform/signup

Then you'll see Securi is using their so-called web site scan as a lure
to get users (perhaps only the site owner) to buy into their site scan
service. Dump Securi. They're a lureware site.


Sucuri is much promoted on Facebook. They employ a lot of people too.

If you want to externally validate a site's SSL certificate rather than
trusting what your own web browser reports, go to:

https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/

That will test lots of aspects of a site (SSL) cert. That it reports
deficiencies does not mean the cert is invalid or misleading, only that
the site needs to improve. Note that for www.tekrider.net, SSLlabs
reports it supports TLS 1.0 but not SSL 3.0. Alas, TLS 1.0 was just a
renaming of SSL 3.0 but with some incompatibilities to differentiate it
from SSL 3.0. A site using TLS 1.0 is no more secure than one using SSL
3.0. SSllabs will note which ciphers are supported by the site,
including those the site will accept that are considered weak.

Although not specifically an overt red flag, I ponder what
dixie-metal-detectors.com (2nd site cert issued by GoDaddy but which
SSLlabs says is not trusted probably due to a SA [Subject Alternative]
mismatch on multiple domains to which the cert is registered) has to do
with tekrider.net (1st cert using free Lets Encrypt). Also:

nslookup www.tekrider.net
gives an IP address of 192.251.238.3
(which hides using a private domain registration at GoDaddy)

but a reverse DNS lookup on 192.251.238.3
gives alvin.genwebserver.com
(which hides using a private domain registration at privacygarden.org)

and the IP address of 192.251.238.3 is in the IP pool owned by Webby
Enterprises LLC (webbytech.net) who appears to be the webhoster.

I'm not sure Securi is trying to provide for information on a site's
certificate but it appears they are a lure to a paid service. Use
SSLlabs if you want more info on a site's cert than what your web
browser tells you.


I really appreciate your long and informative post, VanguardLH.

You'll mostly find me posting on the 'comp.sys.mac.system' group but
because I assist folk who use all manner of operating systems, I follow
what goes on here in this unique Usenet group.

The SSLlabs site is highly informative and, as you say, provides a great
deal of information which is otherwise hidden.

Thank you very much for your help.

SC



  #5  
Old May 25th 18, 08:49 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Sucuri URL test site query

On Fri, 25 May 2018 20:06:55 +0100, Steve Carroll
wrote:

On 25/05/18 10:49, VanguardLH wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:

Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something wrong with
Tekrider.net?


According the the site certificate information, the cert is valid. Use
your unidentified web browser to look at the details of a site's cert.

SNIP

I really appreciate your long and informative post, VanguardLH.


David, this would have been a great opportunity to let VanguardLH know
that you copied/pasted the text of his post into another thread over on
alt.computer.workshop, WITHOUT attribution and thereby claiming it as
your own. You shouldn't really do that.

You'll mostly find me posting on the 'comp.sys.mac.system' group but
because I assist folk who use all manner of operating systems, I follow
what goes on here in this unique Usenet group.


You've never assisted anyone, unless you count the copy/paste of other
peoples' posts (claiming them as your own) or providing the same links
that have already been posted multiple times. No actual assistance,
though. You've made the claim before, you've been asked for examples,
and you've been unable to provide any.

SC


Why the new nym, David? Trying to start over with a clean slate? People
know you as David Brooks, your real name. You might as well stick with
that.

  #6  
Old May 25th 18, 09:53 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Beauregard T. Shagnasty[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Char Jackson wrote:

Steve Carroll STALKER wrote:

SC


Why the new nym, David? Trying to start over with a clean slate? People
know you as David Brooks, your real name. You might as well stick with
that.


It was obvious in the first second that Steve Carroll is David Brooks, the
well-known stalker. In fact, mere moments later the Carroll nym was added
to his 'Special page.'

'BoaterDave', '~BD~', 'BD1', 'BD2', 'Beady', 'Imbeady2', 'David B', 'David
B.', 'DavidB', 'David_B', 'David DewGud', 'DavidDewgud ', 'BDonTJ',
', 'CommanderB', 'Commander_B', 'Angela Bennett',
'Byker', 'DonOldham', 'Tony Smith', 'Tinkerer', 'Davoud1945', 'Brawdy14',
'HunterBD', 'Steve Carroll'. (That's 25 nyms that I know about.)

--
-bts
  #7  
Old May 25th 18, 11:51 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Steve Carroll wrote:

On 25/05/18 10:49, VanguardLH wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:

Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something wrong with
Tekrider.net?


Apparently to get more details means having to sign-up at Securi. Go
read:

https://sucuri.net/website-security-platform/signup

Then you'll see Securi is using their so-called web site scan as a lure
to get users (perhaps only the site owner) to buy into their site scan
service. Dump Securi. They're a lureware site.


Sucuri is much promoted on Facebook.


I was not aware that anyone could submit negative feedback upon a
Facebook member. Facebook ratings are WORTHLESS. You can only vote
positively. You cannot vote negatively. The number of positive votes
is not tallied against a count of users that could vote, would vote, or
voted Nay. It's the stupidity of yes-only voting. That's like no one
ever complaining at a restaurant. The manager only knows of the glowing
reviews by a few of his patrons while not how many were disappointed
with their experience.

The stupidity of a Likes button is pervasive. When trying to read
product reviews, lots of BOOBS think a review is just a Like post
("great", "liked it", "better than the rest", "love it"). Those are NOT
reviews and exhibit voting by morons that haven't a clue how to write an
actual review. Even worse is that sites will rank a product based on
voting but the users are allowed to vote without qualifying (commenting)
why they voted that way; for example, there could 100 5-point Likes but
only 2 bothered to write a review of which you're very lucky if one of
those actually wrote a review. Drive-by yes-voting sucks.

A voting scheme of Likes is meaningless without contrasting Dislikes.
Obviously such voting will NEVER reflect the entire populace that visits
a Facebook member's page.

They employ a lot of people too.


228 (according to Hoover's). Doesn't seem very high considering they
want to present a worldwide image plus not very much to perform all the
research and analysis on security issues. The own site is more
reserved: https://sucuri.net/company/ says on 125 employees. Since that
shows 28 corporate offices, that's only an average of 4-5 employees per
office which is about the minimum what you need to have an office with
"staff": a [regional or office] manager, secretary/receptionist, and a
couple grunts so the manager has a purpose. Alas, no way to know how
large and often they use contractors. Some "offices" may merely be a
presence, a room in a building, manned by just 1 person.
  #8  
Old May 26th 18, 12:21 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mike Easter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,064
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Steve Carroll wrote:
Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something wrong with
Tekrider.net?


It means tekrider site is blocking the stupid misguided sucuri tool from
scanning its site.

Previously the sucuri site was giving a bogus malware alert, so the site
blocked its tool.

So, historically something was wrong with the sucuri tool. Now, nothing
is 'wrong'; tekrider justifiably doesn't want the tool scanning it.

--
Mike Easter
  #9  
Old May 26th 18, 01:23 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 08:30:53 +0100, Steve Carroll
wrote:

Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something wrong with
Tekrider.net?


Hi David. New nym?


No.

See comp.lang.c for the long-term bombing
campaign by the Steve Carroll bot.

The bot just copies text it finds.

Paul
  #10  
Old May 26th 18, 01:54 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Sucuri URL test site query

In article , Paul
wrote:

On Fri, 25 May 2018 08:30:53 +0100, Steve Carroll
wrote:
Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?



Hi David. New nym?


No.

See comp.lang.c for the long-term bombing
campaign by the Steve Carroll bot.

The bot just copies text it finds.


he is now using the identity of the steve carroll bot.

check the headers.
  #11  
Old May 26th 18, 04:19 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Steve Carroll news:OYONC.388869$XF1.225599
@fx27.fr7 Fri, 25 May 2018 07:30:53 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10,
wrote:

From: Steve Carroll
Subject: Sucuri URL test site query
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 8
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:


Really David? You're socking now in order to phish for new suckers (I
mean, people)? Who aren't aware of your known activities and
incorrectly assume they're being helpful by answering your questions.
Not realizing at the time, they're actually helping you stalk and or
slime someone else. Such a shame.



--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for.
  #12  
Old May 26th 18, 04:19 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Char Jackson
Fri, 25 May 2018
19:49:03 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

On Fri, 25 May 2018 20:06:55 +0100, Steve Carroll
wrote:

On 25/05/18 10:49, VanguardLH wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:

Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something
wrong with Tekrider.net?

According the the site certificate information, the cert is
valid. Use your unidentified web browser to look at the details
of a site's cert.

SNIP

I really appreciate your long and informative post, VanguardLH.


David, this would have been a great opportunity to let VanguardLH
know that you copied/pasted the text of his post into another
thread over on alt.computer.workshop, WITHOUT attribution and
thereby claiming it as your own. You shouldn't really do that.


This post?

MID:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152730024400

You'll mostly find me posting on the 'comp.sys.mac.system' group
but because I assist folk who use all manner of operating systems,
I follow what goes on here in this unique Usenet group.


You've never assisted anyone, unless you count the copy/paste of
other peoples' posts (claiming them as your own) or providing the
same links that have already been posted multiple times. No actual
assistance, though. You've made the claim before, you've been
asked for examples, and you've been unable to provide any.


ROFL! So true.

SC


Why the new nym, David? Trying to start over with a clean slate?
People know you as David Brooks, your real name. You might as well
stick with that.


Ayep. I don't think his efforts to reinvent himself since his
reputation online is pretty much just as bad now as his rl one is
will help. He did this entirely on his own, though. Too much booze.

OTH, Vanguard obviously didn't even examine the contents of the site
David Asked him about. [g] So, he was easy to phish for help, and,
happily assisted a known stalker in attempting to learn more about
another of his known stalking victims. Bravo I says, great job! High
five and all that.


--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
  #13  
Old May 26th 18, 04:19 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Paul news May 2018 00:23:49 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 08:30:53 +0100, Steve Carroll
wrote:

Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something
wrong with Tekrider.net?


Hi David. New nym?


No.


Yes. He's now using the bots name.

See comp.lang.c for the long-term bombing
campaign by the Steve Carroll bot.


Which has nothing to do with the Steve Carroll who created this
thread.

The bot just copies text it finds.


David and the bot both have that in common. However, in this case,
it's David, not the bot responsible for the post which originated
this thread.


--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
President Bush is rehearsing his speech for the Beijing 2008 Olympic
Games.
He begins with "Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!"
Immediately his speech writer rushes over to the lectern and whispers
in the President's ear:
"Mr. President, those are the Olympic rings. Your speech is
underneath."
  #14  
Old May 26th 18, 04:19 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Mike Easter
Fri, 25 May 2018 23:21:12 GMT
in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

Steve Carroll wrote:
Why does the Sucuri URL test site now report this?

"Site returning error (40x): HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.tekrider.net#

Is there something wrong with the Sucuri tool or is something
wrong with Tekrider.net?


It means tekrider site is blocking the stupid misguided sucuri
tool from scanning its site.

Previously the sucuri site was giving a bogus malware alert, so
the site blocked its tool.

So, historically something was wrong with the sucuri tool. Now,
nothing is 'wrong'; tekrider justifiably doesn't want the tool
scanning it.


So David managed to fool three? of you into thinking he's another
poster who presents a harmless and valid question or a bot copying
and pasting text elsewhere. Considering the small amount of us who've
posted in this thread so far, that's not too bad an average for
David. Either I've under estimated him by a significant margin here,
or, several of you are extremely gullible people. I really doubt it's
the former.


--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
Everyone loves a moose. They just may not know it.
  #15  
Old May 26th 18, 04:19 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default Sucuri URL test site query

Steve Carroll
news in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

On 25/05/18 10:49, VanguardLH wrote:

[snip]

I really appreciate your long and informative post, VanguardLH.


Thanking the poor sod for falling for one of your phishing attempts
is like pouring salt on an open wound, David. Although you're well
known for doing it, I was surprised to see you do it in this manner
to Vanguard.

You'll mostly find me posting on the 'comp.sys.mac.system' group
but because I assist folk who use all manner of operating systems,
I follow what goes on here in this unique Usenet group.


You don't assist anyone with anything. Especially not of a technical
nature, David.

Infact, this is what you did with his post:

MID:

You lifted it, verbatim no less, without attribution of any sort.

And, you played him via socking to get the post in the first place.
[g]

The SSLlabs site is highly informative and, as you say, provides a
great deal of information which is otherwise hidden.

Thank you very much for your help.

SC


Hahaha. Cute, David. You even did a quickie fake 'signature'. Nice
touch.


--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
Why are there Interstates in Hawaii?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.