6 ms·
Its was definitely hacked .. the log shows that the size of userprefs.js has definitely changed multiple times in the past 25 hrs : http://lerdorf.com/static.lo
by babawere 13y ago
Its was definitely hacked .. the log shows that the size of userprefs.js has definitely changed multiple times in the past 25 hrs : http://lerdorf.com/static.log.gz http://lerdorf.com/static.log.gz
- junto 13y agoThe site that is linked to in the obfuscated code is http://lnkhere.reviewhdtv.co.uk/stat.htm http://lnkhere.reviewhdtv.co.uk/stat.htm and it is that site which Google has marked as unsafe. Php.net has received the malware warning as a result. http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reviewhdtv.co.uk%2F&client=googlechrome&hl=en-US http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnost... Notably the whois on that domain includes the registrants full name and address. Nominet allows personal registrants an opt-out on the full details in whois, so you would be unlikely to try and hack PHP.net and forget to use a privacy service on a domain name that isn't quite so traceable.. The domain record for that site show: Domain name: reviewhdtv.co.uk Registrant: Oli Bachini Registrant type: UK Individual Registrant's address: Rainbow Cottage West Perry Huntingdon Cambs PE28 0BX United Kingdom Registrar: Webfusion Ltd t/a 123-reg [Tag = 123-REG] URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk Relevant dates: Registered on: 13-Oct-2010 Expiry date: 13-Oct-2014 Last updated: 06-Oct-2012 Registration status: Registered until expiry date. Name servers: ns.123-reg.co.uk ns2.123-reg.co.uk WHOIS lookup made at 11:44:39 24-Oct-2013
- OGC 13y agoThat site probably was hacked, too.
- dingdingdang 13y agoAnd this comment probably is too; who can we trust - am I the only one seeing this comment? Will it disappear after reload? WOhaa.
- bruceboughton 13y agoWhile this is publicly available information, I'm not sure what purpose it serves to post it here as they are quite possibly an innocent bystander. You are just making them a target for malicious people who would otherwise be too lazy to find that information. It is pretty bad form to post people's personal addresses on a forum such as this.
- phogg 13y agoWhois data is public in any case, so there's no harm to re-posting it.
- bruceboughton 13y ago>> While this is publicly available information >> You are just making them a target for malicious people who would otherwise be too lazy to find that information. I already addressed that.
- rurban 13y agoWhow $ zcat ~/Downloads/static.log.gz | perl -lne'if (m/ 200 (\d+)/) { print $1 }'|sort |uniq -c 390 0 523 10881 639 12479 16276 1279 178111 2602 1 4071 14 4072 63 4801 112 4812 9431 5097 27654 5821 110 5911 1348 6008 162 7884 256 8278 568 9035 1103 9634 That's a lot of changes
- smsm42 13y agoYou seem to be counting all the files, not just this one file. Update: no, you're correct, this log apparently only has one file.