• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

TemasekReview Repeating like a Broken Recorder

MarrickG

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why they keep on harping on one single issue? They run out of interesting news it is? Trying so hard to keep their readership up?


Temasek Review writes to SPH CEO Alan Chan to seek further clarifications

November 8, 2009 by admin
Filed under Top News

Mr Alan Chan
Chief Executive Officer
Singapore Press Holdings

Dear Mr Alan Chan,

RE: ARTICLE BY STRAITS TIMES JOURNALIST MR GEOFFREY PEREIRA ON 6 NOVEMBER 2009

We refer to the article by Mr Geoffrey Pereira which was published on the Straits Times digital edition on 6 November 2009 at 11.40am titled “Attack on Temasek Review: Not SPH” (read article here)

Mr Pereira claimed that Temasek Review had accused SPH of launching an internet attack on its site in an article published on 2 November 2009. We beg to differ.

Nowhere in the article did we ever accuse SPH of attacking our site via a DDOS or otherwise.

Our correspondent who drafted the article was not familiar with IT matters. We apologize if our article has caused some misunderstanding and we have already clarified the matter in subsequent articles.

We have never intended to implicate SPH with the DDOS attack on our server which had occurred a day earlier and we are sorry for any distress caused.

Please allow us to outline the sequence of events to give you a more complete picture of what had happened exactly.

Our servers are hosted with RTG (Asia) Network in a China Data Centre. On 1 November 2009 at about 12.10am, our correspondent received a phone call from our system administrator informing him that our newly installed anti-DDOS firewall had detected a flurry of network communication requests coming from the same IP address – 203.116.232.234.

A snapshot of our server log provided by our system administrator showed the IP address “grabbing” content from our site. The IP address was traced back to SPH by our data center.

According to our system administrator, this is not ordinary browsing, but “grabbing”. The manner by which contents are being accessed is consistent with search robots or a web grabber – i.e. a website is archived so that a string search can be made.

Our correspondent was told by our system administrator that such “grabbing” can potentially hog our server’s resources, but in this instance, it didn’t because the software firewall on the server itself banned the offending IP address minutes into the action after the IP address exceeded 60 connects per minute, the threshold set by the system administrator.

Technically, if the server were to be not protected by firewall and had been configured poorly, a multiple of requests in excess of 60 connects per minute would have brought our server down.

We were very concerned about the incident because our server was down for 8 hours during the previous day due to a DDOS attack which explained why we made the fateful decision to make it public in the hope that SPH can provide us with some answers since the IP address was traced back to it.

In his article, Mr Pereira had admitted that SPH employees were found to be visiting TR during the time period when the “grabbing” incident was alleged to take place during the period from 10 pm (31 Oct) to 1am (1 Nov).

His revelations corroborated with the findings on our server log which showed an IP address from SPH accessing/grabbing our content.

We hope SPH is able to provide us information on the following:

1. The identity of the employee or bot who was “grabbing” content from TR during the stated time period.

2. Is he/she using a web grabber software to do so?

3. What are his/her motives for “grabbing” our site.

We would like to appeal for your kind understanding and patience that we were quite traumatized by the earlier DDOS attack which disrupted accessibility to our site for almost an entire day and it was an unfortunate coincidence that an IP address from SPH was caught “grabbing” content from our site a day later.

We just want to obtain an understanding of what happened exactly so that it will allay our anxieties and set our hearts at ease that such uninvited “grabbing” of content on our site from SPH will either not occur again or is a routine “operation” by SPH which will not have a detrimental impact on our server.

Thank you very much for your time and attention and we hope to hear a favorable reply from you soon.

EDITOR
TEMASEK REVIEW
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Now blaing their own correspondent which is another persona of G. Hopefully they can come out with a fake interview with Alan Chan.
 

HellAngel

Alfrescian
Loyal
If they are really concerned, just report police and get the matter resolved once and for all.

Maybe they can't because they are not confident with their findings? Afraid to be self pwn?
 

MarrickG

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bingo!

Just like when they said they wanted to sue the Chinese paper, nothing but wayang! This is part of it just to rake up their readership.


If they are really concerned, just report police and get the matter resolved once and for all.

Maybe they can't because they are not confident with their findings? Afraid to be self pwn?
 

cleareyes

Alfrescian
Loyal
Now blaing their own correspondent which is another persona of G. Hopefully they can come out with a fake interview with Alan Chan.

I just realised that in their stupidity and attention seeking mischeif, they had made themselves tracible.

Our servers are hosted with RTG (Asia) Network in a China Data Centre. On 1 November 2009 at about 12.10am, our correspondent received a phone call from our system administrator informing him that our newly installed anti-DDOS firewall had detected a flurry of network communication requests coming from the same IP address – 203.116.232.234.

If SPH does take a case against TR, the above will give them a lead to who or where they are.
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
TR is accusing SPH of hacking using semantics between DDOS and content grabbing. SPH is denying it also using the same semantics quibble.

To me, it's plain hacking whichever way SPH looked it. It is also business sabotage, if I may use another term.

Quite similar to real life chicanery by Machiavellian regimes and compliant press against citizens. peasantry, and Netizenry.
 

MarrickG

Alfrescian
Loyal
Well, as someone said here. Report to the Police and let them see if there is a case against SPH.

It is like being raped and telling the whole world about the crime but refused to report to the police. What is the reason? Maybe the so called victim likes the attention?


TR is accusing SPH of hacking using semantics between DDOS and content grabbing. SPH is denying it also using the same semantics quibble.

To me, it's plain hacking whichever way SPH looked it. It is also business sabotage, if I may use another term.

Quite similar to real life chicanery by Machiavellian regimes and compliant press against citizens. peasantry, and Netizenry.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
This guy is really smart. All that is false. He has been operating successfuly for the last 6 years or so. He writes in that manner to give an impression that its legitimate entity and business. Server in China is probably right as the place is pretty loose. The server operator also can be bothered with bona fides as long as he is paid. I doubt he got a call. He must have called when website went down. The whole setup was done by email just as he did with Ejay and Kelvin.

I just realised that in their stupidity and attention seeking mischeif, they had made themselves tracible.

Our servers are hosted with RTG (Asia) Network in a China Data Centre. On 1 November 2009 at about 12.10am, our correspondent received a phone call from our system administrator informing him that our newly installed anti-DDOS firewall had detected a flurry of network communication requests coming from the same IP address – 203.116.232.234.

If SPH does take a case against TR, the above will give them a lead to who or where they are.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
In fact, they are one of the most popular sites with high readership. I recall a PAP and SPH journalists reading this site. The majority of Singaporeans are not aware of this guy's history. They honestly think that there is panel of writers etc.

Every now and then he will con someone to write and thats about it. The latest is Kelvin. The fact that Geofrey Pererira from SPH acknowledged reading it tells you that even SPH can get con.

Look at the website, it looks very professional and at first glance, you will buy the bullshit. Probably the best run con for years. Look at the guys who comment about his articles.

Seriously why bother? It has a readership of what... 40?
 

HellAngel

Alfrescian
Loyal
You're right scroobal. Only confirmed real writers are those who had placed a picture beside their names. The rest are probably fakes with imaginary CVs.



In fact, they are one of the most popular sites with high readership. I recall a PAP and SPH journalists reading this site. The majority of Singaporeans are not aware of this guy's history. They honestly think that there is panel of writers etc.

Every now and then he will con someone to write and thats about it. The latest is Kelvin. The fact that Geofrey Pererira from SPH acknowledged reading it tells you that even SPH can get con.

Look at the website, it looks very professional and at first glance, you will buy the bullshit. Probably the best run con for years. Look at the guys who comment about his articles.
 

HellAngel

Alfrescian
Loyal
TS, there they go again. Repeating the same issue and it is likely that people within TR are the one who are wacking.

Tsk Tsk. Some just don't learn their lesson. Remember NKF? When SPH bites back, they make sure you bled to death. At the very most TR can only scratch SPH.


SPH journalist Geoffrey Pereira got “boomzed” on his blog
November 10, 2009 by admin

Straits Times journalist Geoffrey Pereira’s article – “Attack on Temasek Review – not SPH” has won the distinction of being the “most commented” of all the ST blog articles with 28 comments so far! (The average number of comments on Temasek Review articles is 50, with its “most commented” at more than 200)

pereira585.jpg


Mr Pereira had published the article on 6 November 2009 blaming Temasek Review of being “ignorant” of IT matters and “maligning” SPH of launching his imaginary DDOS attack against our site.

His misleading article was demolished almost immediately by us with an article 3 hours later followed by subsequent write-ups explaining the technical aspects of the controversy.

As soon as the matter was cleared up, Mr Pereira’s blog was bombarded with a deluge of comments from netizens lampooning him and SPH for the utterly deplorable piece!

John questioned the IT knowledge of Mr Pereira:

“reading the writers blog seems to suggest that he got his knowledge of IT from reading WIKI and Google….”

Office Tea lady encapsulated our sentiments exactly:

“TR was talking about you guys grabbing TR contents that were archived since 2008. They were NOT talking about you grabbing content SINCE 2008.

What needs to be archived anyway since 2008? So one can do a search? But you can always do that with google. Not unless you want to have copies for safekeeping.

Now you understand why the TR guys are agitated :wink: Hahaha. They all say it’s silly. I know. But speakers at the speaker’s corner normally get agitated when the police starts making video records. We’ll be on the loop.”

Freedom house does not mince his words:

“This is one of the most atrocious articles I have ever read about DDOS and DOS violation in any press. There are so many wide sweeping assumptions which are clearly invalid.I can only assume this must have been a rushed piece. In which case one really needs to question the internal controls in SPH to ask as to why this ill written piece was even allowed to see the day of light. Where may I ask was the editorial checks?

Next time if you have no idea what you are talking about. Please dont write about it. A newspaper is supposed to inform, not to mislead.”

James took a dig at Mr Pereira’s spelling mistakes which were corrected subsequently:

“Geoffrey, your designation is stated as “VPN Journalist, Editorial Systems Suport”. It seems like you don’t have enough support as it is missing a “p”?
Perhaps the ground you’re standing on is not so solid after all. “

Neutral criticized Mr Pereira for not getting basic facts right:

“”In fact, from midnight on Nov 1 to about 6 am, (covering a period of the alleged attack) no one from SPH accessed the TR site.”

Please lar, didn’t even bother to get the date of incident correct : [TR] FACT #2: Timing of the incident occurred between 31st October 2200 hours to 1st November 0100 hours. How to believe what you write like that? ”

Steve Wu quizzed Mr Pereira on his understanding of IP spoofing:

“Well, well. The fact that Geoffrey Pereira is not a techie has worked against him; I have little doubt that he is lying.

Let’s set aside the doubts about IP spoofing and the hit rates for the time being. There is other damning evidence.

I understand that TR uses Apache, so the HTTP header called User-Agent for each request is logged by default (check e.g. /var/log/httpd/access_log). If Pereira and his colleagues were just casually browsing TR as he claimed, the User-Agents which were logged would consist of normal browsers like IE, Firefox, etc. There should be no spiders and other creepy crawlies.

It will be easy to confirm if Pereira is lying. In fact, one may even identify the type of spider that SPH uses, being armed with a more complete list of User-Agents found at http://www.user-agents.org .”

Sysadmin sympathizes with Mr Pereira though:

“Pity this guy really, kenna arrow to write on something he has ZERO knowledge about.

But then who to blame? Want to wayang also must do some reading up. Now kenna thrashed by readers from TR left right, up and down.”

Since the publication of Mr Pereira’s article which is a pretty obvious attempt to discredit us completely, we have been inundated with emails of support and encouragement from our readers.

The Temasek Review team would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to our readers who have stood stoutly by our side during this difficult period of time.

Our editor has written to SPH CEO Mr Alan Chan to seek clarifications on the matter. We have yet to receive an official reply from him or any SPH staff.

We would consider the matter closed and would not comment further on it unless SPH decides to release any more statements through its VPN journalists from Editorial Systems Suport…oops, we mean Support.

http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/11/10/sph-journalist-geoffrey-pereira-got-boomzed-on-his-blog/
 
Top