>> But what apparently did in Nandor was a certain amount >> of laziness uncharacteristic of his hero, Garciaparra. >> In his first attempt, in May, Orwant said, Nandor used >> the same e-mail address. His last attempt, in June, he >> used the same phone number (111-222-3333) and Zip Code >> (11111). > >My guess is that you'd have to insure that the telephone >exchanges matched up with the zip codes, in order to do >a thorough job of it. That seems like a pretty tall order. No no. There's got to be an online version of the Boston area phone book available - even if one had to pay a little bit for some commercial phone book CD thingy. Then, just pull random items from that. Much better, much easier, much harder to trace. And, of course, you'd have to fire off web hits from multiple randomly spoofed addresses (those that matched up to dialup links to local ISPs - not too hard, they're usually sequential). And, all hits would have to occur at pseudo random times - weighted to be more frequent during business hours and between 6 & 9 pm. Please bear in mind that this is all OTOMH. I don't do this for a living or even for fun. I'm JASysadmin, not a JAPH. >I wouldn't call it laziness, I'd call it a pratical >compromise, though it seemed pretty likely that the stunt >would be discovered... In fact, it looks suspiciously like >those numbers were intended to be discovered... Yeah, It seems rather sloppy for even an average high-end hacker. ;-) Although, making it intentionally detectable makes it more of a prank and less of a real compromise of the voting process. And that's important if one is *trying* to play a prank! > >It still doesn't explain how they traced it to Chris? One of these articles said they had his "internet address", which would mean an IP dotted quad that they feel likely is his. Again, sloppy - either intentionally or not. -Jeff ===== Want to unsubscribe from this list? ===== Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to macperl-request@macperl.org