7 ms·
Satoshi's account on p2pfoundation.ning.com also made the first comment since he said "I am not Dorian Nakamoto." back in March. It says: "Dear Satoshi. Your d
by croddin 12y ago
Satoshi's account on p2pfoundation.ning.com also made the first comment since he said "I am not Dorian Nakamoto." back in March. It says:
"Dear Satoshi. Your dox, passwords and IP addresses are being sold on the darknet. Apparently you didn't configure Tor properly and your IP leaked when you used your email account sometime in 2010. You are not safe. You need to get out of where you are as soon as possible before these people harm you. Thank you for inventing Bitcoin."
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0ye0gncqg772o http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topic/listForContributor...
- rufugee 12y agoSo could someone explain how an IP address would leak when using an email account? I suppose potentially in the SMTP header, but this would assume he was using a email server running on his own personal ip, right? So is the guess here (assuming this is even true) that he had an email server running at home, leaked the ip, and then was attacked when someone found it?
- cataflam 12y agoMany SMTP servers include the IP address of the sender in the headers (usually the Received header). Just look around, you'll be surprised.
- rufugee 12y agoUsing webmail would defeat that, though, right?
- encoderer 12y agoNot if the webmail implementation passes-on your IP, which it should if you believe Spam is a bigger issue than email sender privacy. Basically, if a webmail service doesn't pass along your IP, there would be no way for recipient networks to ever block a flood of unwanted email because they could never blacklist, say, yahoo.com. I read something about this lately... maybe from Paul Buchheit?
- cataflam 12y agoDepends on the webmail. Some do, some don't. Easy enough to test for yourself beforehand though.
- zippergz 12y agox-originating-ip?
- mschuster91 12y agoNo. The first hop in the SMTP via headers will usually have your DSL router IP.
- burnte 12y agoOnly if your DSL router hosts an SMTP relay. You're confusing traceroute with email.
- aidenn0 12y agoMany (most?) SMTP servers will include the client IP in message headers. IIRC it's even required by ope of the RFCs.
- Jgrubb 12y agoThere was a line in that long post on here the other day about Gmail, encryption, and the spam fight that mentioned how what's-his-name explicitly ignored the RFC by scrubbing the IP address out of Gamil headers, so I think you do recall correctly...
- BuildTheRobots 12y agoMany (most) people connecting to an SMTP server will be doing so from behind nat. Finding out the users "real" ip address is 10.x.x.x isn't so exciting.
- cataflam 12y agoActually you will usually find BOTH the private IP address behind the NAT and the public IP address of the router in the headers. Check out a few mails you've received from a few different sources, see for yourself. I just picked the two latest I got (and redacted them) as an example. The first one sent through GMail (SMTP I guess, not webmail) : Return-Path: <xyz@gmail.com> Received: from [192.168.1.18] (123-123-123-123...bbox.fr. [123.123.123.123]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ... for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); and another one, through OVH this time : Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.23?) (xyz@abc.fr@123.123.123.123) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; Both "123.123.123.123" were the public IP address from their DSL connections. In both cases as you can see, I could know both IP addresses.
- jrochkind1 12y agogmail, for instance, includes the client IP address in mail headers. I learned this myself recently from an article here on HN, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083798 Haven't checked it myself, just reported there by a former gmail engineer in the context of their anti-spammer efforts.
- nly 12y agoThis has been standard practice since the dawn of SMTP.
- verroq 12y agoGmail has NEVER included the IP in headers (you can easily check this yourself). Hotmail/Outlook on the other hand ...
- kijin 12y agoDepends on how you access Gmail. Webmail doesn't include your IP in the headers. SMTP does.
- verroq 12y agoAh ok. I've only ever used webmail, it makes sense SMTP would include the IP.
- mkiehl 12y agoThis is not completly true. When using Gmail together with Google Apps, Gmail will include the sender's IP in the X-Originating-IP header.
- serf 12y agoYou're wrong. Most SMTP requires IP in the header, gmail does not. This causes contempt between certain groups, as while it's a boon for personal privacy, it often hinders investigations. Here's a video with Mike Hearn giving a talk about spam. At the end and middle are mentions about gmail's lack of IP from sent emails, the end specifically from a network admin expressing his grievances about Google's efforts being a hindrance to law enforcement. https://ripe64.ripe.net/archives/video/25/ https://ripe64.ripe.net/archives/video/25/ It is , however, standard practice for most SMTP providers to do this.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- efraim 12y agoIt says "used your email account", so maybe it's the log gmail (and others?) keeps of logins to the account that is visable for a few days back?
- raphman 12y agoAs others have already written, many webmail providers send the user's IP address in the SMTP header. GMX ("satoshin@gmx.com") definitely sends the user's IP address in the header (Source: GMX user myself).
- IvyMike 12y agoWhoa. Now of course the question becomes is the warning genuine, or is it an attempt to cause Satoshi to do something hasty?
- clamprecht 12y agoSatoshi's behavior is the opposite of hasty.
- crazypyro 12y agoExactly why there would have to be an outside message, motivating him to action in a way that would accidentally identify himself? I don't really buy the theory, but that isn't really a counter argument...
- Steko 12y agoWhy is every mention of possible disclosure of Satoshi's identity fraught with heavy overtones of "Your Life Is In Grave Danger"? We have many people who are much richer whose identities are not secret and we don't need to freak out constantly and warn them that They Are In Grave Danger. AFAIK he's not been accused of any crime either. Is it maybe because Bitcoin enthusiasts have a large overlap with monatery cranks who tend to be conspiracy theorists?
- mikedouglas 12y agoWhile you're 95% right, you could also argue that irreversible hundred million dollar transactions are a feature unique to bitcoin. That could appeal to kidnappers.
- Steko 12y agoSo you're saying holding Bitcoin can be hazardous to our health? Whoa, I don't think that's one of the approved talking points.
- nostromo 12y agoIf you have a few thousand dollars of gold in your house, you shouldn't worry too much. But if you have a billion dollars of gold in your basement, you should be very, very paranoid. Even with perfect security, you'd still be a ransom target.
- Steko 12y agoIf you were very paranoid would you rely exclusively on security through obscurity? It might also occur to you to diversify out of the thing that puts you at risk. Maybe there's even some sort of establishment that can hold funds more securely. He should look into that.
- NhanH 12y ago"Security through obscurity" being bad only applies to cryptography, and have no bearing whatsoever to the concept of security in real life. To answer your question, actually, yes, it's almost proven to be the most effective measurement for one's safety: don't want to get hurt? Don't let people find you: get in a forest/ mountain range and hide.
- skizm 12y agoIf Satoshi can't configure Tor correctly how is Joe Blow supposed to figure it out?
- vezzy-fnord 12y agoIf the Tor leak thing is true, this could add to the evidence for the common speculation that Satoshi is a collective pseudonym.
- misiti3780 12y agohow so?
- ZoF 12y agoI think the implication he is trying to make is this: If it was a collective of people it is(might be) more likely that one of them is incompetent(and didn't configure TOR properly) where-as if it was a single competent/careful individual there's a smaller chance of a TOR mis-configuration and resulting IP-address leak. I don't think it lends much credence to the 'multiple entities' theory at all personally, but that's the best I could come up with. Feel free to correct.
- misiti3780 12y agothanks - makes sense
- thegenius 12y agoor Dread Pirate Roberts
- gchp 12y agoPlease excuse my ignorance here, but how does one track a persons location by their IP? Any time I have tried to look up an IP, I get a really vague result. ie "Somewhere in this city". Is it possible to get very specific results?
- kleim 12y agoYou might find it interesting: http://compnetworking.about.com/od/traceipaddresses/f/ip_location.htm http://compnetworking.about.com/od/traceipaddresses/f/ip_loc... IP locations are kept in databases that have many limitations. Some examples of the limitations I found here in France: - at best your ISP links your IP with the DSLAM location or simply the city for the most lazy. Sometimes there are mistakes: one of my friend living in the north of France has his IP "geolocated" in the south of France... - lots of big corporations only give the address of their headquarters - IP location from 3G/4G network is completely wrong 90% of the time
- sandwell 12y agoIt would be difficult to track a person with just their IP address, but used in conjunction with other information it could be useful. E.g. if you worked out the ISP someone was using, and then used some social engineering on the ISP's customer service rep to get a name or address.