MediaSentry Super-Secret Squirrel tech
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- MediaDefender/MediaSentry, whatever they call themselves these days, is up to no good. Again.
They may have moved their storefront to Australia, but that’s about all they’ve moved.
Currently, they’re still using USA hosting for their illegal activity and whereas file sharing is a civil infraction of copyrighted intellectual property, IMO, they’re using outright criminal activities to further their income and the bottom line of the ever- evil (insert big $ here) empire’s corporate bullshit.
I saw this YouTube video today which says more people died from the flu than from drunk driving, and that got me thinking. So I did some statistical research of my own and I couldn’t find one lost job, one store closing, one affected shipment or lost sale due to ‘piracy’.
In other words, while the video is about DWI, or OVI (if you watch the video), I found alot of similiarities in the over-reaction in the USA to something as insidious as drunk driving.
So, in my continuing determination to expose the MAFIAA, check this out:
Firstly, DarkStar Management is currently seeding trojans (as you can see from the entry below) to the BitTorrent world by the millions. But I’ll go into that in another article.
Sun May 24 20
09 09:41:42.848 xxx -Blck- local:0 -> 89.238.155.65:6881 (torr) tcp4
‘xxxxxxxx (15767)’ (Open Hosting/possible DarkStar Management:P2P)
DarkStar Management: UK seeding trojans
person: OHtele Hostmaster
address: PO BOX 2094
address: BOLTON
address: BL6 6WW
address: United Kingdom
abuse-mailbox: abuse@openhosting.co.uk
phone: +44 (0) 8701 651 351
nic-hdl: OHT-RIPE
changed: hostmaster@ohtele.com 20050929
source: RIPE
I was logging onto my favorite anonymity site (xxxx) when PeerGuardian2 blocked a site called DarkStar Management. Not finding anything inherently evil after several searches (Yahoo, Google, Ask.com), I “allowed 78.129.146.44 for 15 minutes” – BIG MISTAKE!. My computer immediately rebooted so I knew I was in “deep doo doo”.
After the reboot, I ran a program called Malwarebytes which showed (and deleted) 14 files infected with the ZLOB Trojan.
And MediaSentry is currrently using:
Sun May 24 2009 09:41:58.835 xxx -Blck- local:0 -> 189.47.25.90:4663
tcp4 ‘xxxxxxxx (15767)’ (TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO/
MediaDefender:P2P) : dsl.telesp.net.br
OrgName: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry
OrgID: LACNIC
Address: Rambla Republica de Mexico 6125
City: Montevideo
StateProv:
PostalCode: 11400
Country: UY
Sun May 24 2009 11:41:23.833 xxx -Blck- local:0 ->
174.136.245.48:10409 tcp4 ‘xxxxxxxx (15767)’ (Suavemente/
MediaDefender:P2P) : fiberconnection.demarc.cogentco.com
Suavemente/174.136.245.47
Suavemente/174.136.245.45
174.136.245.44
174.136.245.48
174.136.245.60
174.136.243.8: fiberconnection.demarc.cogentco.com
TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO/189.47.25.90:dsl.telesp.net.br
Suavemente/174.136.243.8
OrgName: Suavemente, INC.
OrgID: SUAVE-1
Address: 8675 Avenida Costa Norte Suite A
City: San Diego
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 92154
Country: US
Sun May 24 2009 11:41:35.332 xxx -Blck- local:20956 ->
92.227.217.34:28813 udp4 ‘xxxxxxxx (15767)’ (HanseNet
Telekommunikation/MediaSentry:P2P) : so-7-1-0-0.cr01.dus.de.hansenet.net
role: HanseNet IP Coordination
address: HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH
address: Ueberseering 33 A
address: D-22297 Hamburg
address: Germany
phone: +49 40 23726 0
fax-no: +49 40 23726 193996
e-mail: hostmaster@hansenet.com
What’s interesting is lookups only worked for the USA Suavemente, mainly because the NETNIC requires your A-NAME record be accessible. The other countries, Uraguay and Germany, don’t call for this.
This meant when I backtraced to find out who owned that IP address, I was blocked by the MAFIAA firewall in the countries that don’t require the ISP to provide this ability.
But what really caught my eye is below:
Sun May 24 2009 10:05:40.820 xxx -Blck- local:20956 ->
174.136.245.47:10261 udp4 ‘xxxxxxxx (15767)’ (Suavemente/
MediaDefender:P2P)
Sun May 24 2009 10:05:40.820 xxx -Blck- local:20956 ->
174.136.245.45:10159 udp4 ‘xxxxxxxx (15767)’ (Suavemente/
MediaDefender:P2P)
Sun May 24 2009 10:05:40.821 xxx -Blck- local:20956 ->
174.136.245.47:10261 udp4 ‘xxxxxxxx (15767)’ (Suavemente/
MediaDefender:P2P)
Sun May 24 2009 10:05:40.821 xxx -Blck- local:20956 ->
174.136.245.45:10159 udp4 ‘xxxxxxxx (15767)’ (Suavemente/
MediaDefender:P2P)
Sun May 24 2009 10:05:40.821 xxx -Blck- local:0 ->
174.136.245.45:10159 tcp4 ‘xxxxxxxx (15767)’ (Suavemente/
MediaDefender:P2P)
Sun May 24 2009 10:05:40.821 xxx -Blck- local:0 ->
174.136.245.47:10261 tcp4 ‘xxxxxxxx (15767)’ (Suavemente/
MediaDefender:P2P)
This tells me they tried UDP access to my IP address first.
UDP is more or less a handshake saying, Yes, I’m online using something Bittorrent can see. Blocking the UDP call is kind of an indirect answer saying ‘Yes, I have what you’re looking for, but No you can’t have it.’ This is ambiguous of content or packet, this is only a\handshake.’ (That’s the best it gets for non-techies out there, sorry).
Directly after the UDP block, MediaDefender tried to GET the file that UDP said I possessed, but couldn’t have.
This is an automated attempt, switching from a UDP request to a TCP request. This shows me, without a doubt, they’re running a Bittorrent client and probably using PeerGuardian to log IP addresses. It’s fairly simple to do.
I have access to the list of EVERY SINGLE IP address that downloaded content from my IP address using a Bittorrent client — albiet modifiedfor safety, but not to the extent it affected the engineering of the experiment.
With this information, I could easily have done what the MAFIAA is doing —- send out infringement notices ad hoc.
So much for ‘super secret squirrel’ technology.
Stay tuned…
Surfer – p2pnet
May, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Seems to me, this seeding malware is a direct violation of the laws on computer privacy/security in the US. Strange isn’t it that no one has taken them to DOJ over it, like they do the smaller headache spam.
May 24th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
mediasentry is obviously above the law and by putting millions of fake and infected files this seems a really good reason to stop stealing copyrighted content right away
just dont do it and stay safe
May 24th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Wow… the MAFIAA shills are really out in force….
May 24th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
why is it the moment someone points out an inconvenient truth we are called ‘shills’?
these people have corrupted the highest levels of govenment sothey are effectively above the law and *will* get you one corrupt means or another its a fact
its really not that hard to understand, now is it?
May 24th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
@dkar
either your a brainwashed zombie, in which case we don’t care..
or you are a MAFIAA troll, in which case we don’t care.
‘.. the truth shall set you free’
-Martin Luther King Jr.
May 24th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
if ‘you dont care’ then why did you respond?
you do care and im not a brainwashed zombie. you just dont likethe facts
May 24th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
to everyone: you dont have to agree with me just dont act like cretins ok?
May 24th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
@DKAR
I THINK YOU HAVE POINT, MAN. WHY PEOPLE BEHAVE LIKE THIS MAYBE SCARED
May 25th, 2009 at 12:30 am
dkar says “mediasentry is obviously above the law and by putting millions of fake and infected files this seems a really good reason to stop stealing copyrighted content right away”
umm, probably not
May 25th, 2009 at 12:55 am
@dkar
First off, I don’t think you’re a “shill”.
But, I understand why they’re calling you one.
Most here know a few things you’ve said are, quite simply, mistaken.
1) “mediasentry is obviously above the law”
No, they’re not.
They are operating under the guise of an “investigative” service, which is supposed to answer to all kinds of law in all countries. They’re not anything near the level of somthing like the CIA, in that, they’re a private contractor.
They’re currently operating from American IP address blocks, while intercepting Australian file transfers without a license to operate in Australia as well as several US states.
The only way companies like MediaSentry can be “above the law” is when people ALLOW them to thumb their noses at the rules by not challenging them. And sure, groups like the RIAA and MPAA might think they’re also above the law, and subsidize these crooked investigation firms and try to hide them under their self-assumed legal “safety umbrella”. That makes the fight a little harder, but we still need to keep exposing their activities and make noise in the right places.
Why do you think the RIAA dropped MediaSentry in the US?
It was because of the increasing exposure and the threat of the impending challenge in the courts of the admissibility of their evidence.
2) “…this seems a really good reason to stop stealing copyrighted content right away…”
First of all, file sharing is NOT STEALING.
That is where you got labelled as “brain-washed”.
You accepted the propaganda as truth.
Second of all, many of us intend to continue to fight for the right to file share.
For those of us, there is NO GOOD REASON to stop, as it would allow corporate oppression to win, and other rights could fall like dominoes in that scenario. That’s why they brow-beat you when you “instructed” them “not to do it”. To us, that’s just ludicrous.
So they’re seeding viruses and malware.
Nothing most of us can’t handle.
It just means file sharers need to educate themselves on security, if they haven’t already.
3) “…you dont have to agree with me just dont act like cretins ok?”
Maybe the chiding wasn’t necessary, but you need to understand you came off as a shill for the things you said. Those of us who are “in the fight” are getting pretty tired of people not thinking for themselves and believing all the BS they’re being told by the MAFIAA.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:49 am
thanks DA, I really didnt have time to educate another sheeple.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:49 am
thanks Devil
with the amount that mediasenty get away with they sertainly feel above the law but i see your point
i still think it best not share copyrited files though. dont buy, dont share they go down like a brick and cant sue anybody hahahahaha!!!
May 25th, 2009 at 10:50 am
sorry by “they” i mean the big media companys
May 25th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Emphasizing the lie that you can nail someone by IP address (here’s looking at you, MediaSentry jokers) here’s an article on how card fraudsters openly chat and trade stolen identities over the internet, safe in the knowledge that they are untraceable:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227091.400-how-much-is-your-identity-worth.html?page=1
Yeah, see how far grabbing their IP gets you.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Devil’s Advocate as usual you nailed it right on.
but as you said, the RIAA will move Media Sentry when exposure is too high.
so what the Aussies need to do is chase them out of “Dodge” and make the RIAA move them else where.
Hopefully the costs of moving them around will get so high that they will drop them for good (unlikely since the RIAA are not good with money)..
May 25th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
I really think the RIAA mission will ultimately fail in the end.
They have successfully minimized their own revenue stream and continue to spend more money than is feasible just trying to maintain their web of propaganda and their legal campaigns. And, as the legal cases seem to be getting harder and harder for them to extract a win from, the revenue from that “venture” won’t justify the means.
As long as people everywhere keep making more noise and refusing to buy their product, we may very well see them fade away some day.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
@surfer
…stw!
: )
May 26th, 2009 at 2:36 am
And that proves what? Proves a kiddies figured a VPS or similar is mediasentry and because your 2bit kiddie script blocks it with that they claim, then it has to be them?
Great article. Can’t wait for the next voodoo kiddie stuff you come up with that shows or proves anything.
174.136.245.47 is from United States(US) in region North America
Whois query for 174.136.245.47…
Results returned from whois.arin.net:
OrgName: Suavemente, INC.
OrgID: SUAVE-1
Address: 8675 Avenida Costa Norte Suite A
City: San Diego
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 92154
Country: US
ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.suavemente.net:4321/
NetRange: 174.136.192.0 – 174.136.255.255
CIDR: 174.136.192.0/18
OriginAS: AS14572
NetName: SUAVEMENTE-SAN-DIEGO
NetHandle: NET-174-136-192-0-1
Parent: NET-174-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.SUAVEMENTE.NET
NameServer: NS2.SUAVEMENTE.NET
Comment: Please send all abuse reports to
Comment: suave-abuse@suavemente.net
RegDate: 2008-11-04
Updated: 2008-12-02
RAbuseHandle: SNO26-ARIN
RAbuseName: Suavemente Network Operations
RAbusePhone: +1-866-713-6594
RAbuseEmail: suave-noc@suavemente.net
RNOCHandle: SNO26-ARIN
RNOCName: Suavemente Network Operations
RNOCPhone: +1-866-713-6594
RNOCEmail: suave-noc@suavemente.net
RTechHandle: SNO26-ARIN
RTechName: Suavemente Network Operations
RTechPhone: +1-866-713-6594
RTechEmail: suave-noc@suavemente.net
OrgAbuseHandle: SNO26-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Suavemente Network Operations
OrgAbusePhone: +1-866-713-6594
OrgAbuseEmail: suave-noc@suavemente.net
OrgNOCHandle: SNO26-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Suavemente Network Operations
OrgNOCPhone: +1-866-713-6594
OrgNOCEmail: suave-noc@suavemente.net
OrgTechHandle: SNO26-ARIN
OrgTechName: Suavemente Network Operations
OrgTechPhone: +1-866-713-6594
OrgTechEmail: suave-noc@suavemente.net
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2009-05-25 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN’s WHOIS database.
http://www.suavemente.net/
Let me know when you can substantiate anything, aside from what the kiddie app tells you.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:46 am
@yaaawn:
Surfer’s point was that the activity was coming from Suavemente in the US.
Your WHOIS confirms this. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Nobody’s been saying the IP blocks belong to MediaSentry, if that’s what you’re contesting, but somebody has to provide them with the connection base, which Sauvemente obviously does. (As they do for so many “questionable companies” .
It’s no surprise to me that a “provider” like Suavemente would be involved, either knowingly or otherwise. They’ve been quite active in all sorts of underground internet activities….
http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK8310
(“under the radar” hosting seems to be their thing.)
May 26th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
From the Spamhaus database, on 174.136.192.xxx
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL70118
Bear in mind, if Suavemente routinely claims to have removed these spammers, only to rotate the addresses in this block and allow them to continue, then I’m sure they’re pretty open to hiding someone like MediaSentry, for the right money.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
” Let me know when you can substantiate anything, aside from what the kiddie app tells you. ”
I smell fear. among other stuff.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I have encounered this new company being used by media defender/media sentry and its pretty easy to pin this tail on the donkey as I myself did some weeks ago, do a simple traceroute and look at the last hop before the 174 address, yes the one in the 38 range that belongs to …. not hard is it.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
fuck all of you gimme a break. If “surfer” is going to say… and I quote:
“And MediaSentry is currrently using:… blah, blah blah..
Sun May 24 2009 11:41:23.833 xxx -Blck- local:0 ->
174.136.245.48:10409 tcp4 âxxxxxxxx (15767)â (Suavemente/
MediaDefender:P2P) : fiberconnection.demarc.cogentco.com”
Then he should substantiate it.
Been around the block. I’m higher up the food chain than this droid.
Surfer = rhetoric.
Who here hasn’t bought some shells or bounces or what-ever you wish to call it to either get bots or for other?
Surfer, that’s who.
Any voodoo IP according to this guy is the cartels.
Let me know when he deserves to be a bot master instead of a n00b.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Would you like me to substanciate that they are using the 174 range ? I cant vouch for the other range mentioned but this one is a closed door case, there is no question they are using it.
I took the time to make a few screenshots and simple things like traceroutes and established connections using a TCP viewer, however I cannot confirm they are handing out trojans etc as thats not normally their objective, but who knows…
May 27th, 2009 at 11:30 am
“Been around the block. Iâm higher up the food chain than this droid.
Surfer = rhetoric.”
If you’re so “high on the food chain”, then ACT LIKE IT!
If there’s actually anything wrong with the information supplied so far, then just explain what that is.
I’m probably even higher than you on your imaginary food chain, yet, the queries surfer has pasted appear quite normal to me, regardless of what software gernerated them, and a few return headers contain reference to MediaDefender. And surfer did say he was posting more later.
You’ve got a obvious hard-on for surfer for some reason.
All you’re doing is ranting and demanding verification, which is really the next logical step anyway.
You haven’t offered anything constructive yourself on anything here, including why surfer should be discredited.
Bottom line: If you’ve got something useful to say from your vantage of “higher knowledge”, then say that, instead of being an outright ass.
One factor keeps me seriously watching this is – Suavemente.
That’s a very “dirty” company that makes its living by pretending to be different providers, hiding spammers and trojan distributors, and anyone else who wants to pay for a constantly-rotating IP origin, without regard to purpose. Naturally, tracing and proving transmissions from one particular user takes time and a certain amount of diligence. (One of the reasons most of us think the evidence extracted by MediaSentry should never have been accepted to prosecute an individual downloader is because it never contains the REPEATED instances of that one user in question. MediaSentry’s activities, however, will undoubtedly keep creating new instances as they continue to join torrent streams.)
May 27th, 2009 at 11:43 am
fyi, I used easily available free tools on the internet, no bots were abused during this experiement.
and if you EVER move out of your mom’s basement, you will realize nobody uses ‘n00b’ anymore, retard.
stw
May 30th, 2009 at 10:18 am
come on guys. this isnt that hard. mediadefender and mediasentry are not the same thing. if you find ranges, please report them to bluetack.co.uk so everyone can benefit. plus, your post would be more useful if it were more accurate and complete. its not rocket science.
Suavemente, Inc. – MediaDefender:174.136.237.0-174.136.237.255
Suavemente, Inc. – MediaDefender:174.136.239.0-174.136.239.255
Suavemente, Inc. – MediaDefender:174.136.241.0-174.136.241.255
Suavemente, Inc. – MediaDefender:174.136.243.0-174.136.243.255
Suavemente, Inc. – MediaDefender:174.136.245.0-174.136.245.255
Suavemente, Inc. – MediaDefender:174.136.247.0-174.136.247.255
Suavemente, Inc. – MediaDefender:174.136.249.0-174.136.249.255
Suavemente, Inc. – MediaDefender:174.136.251.0-174.136.251.255
Suavemente, Inc. – MediaDefender:174.136.253.0-174.136.253.255
Suavemente, Inc. – MediaDefender:174.136.255.0-174.136.255.255
Abovenet – MediaSentry:209.249.10.96-209.249.10.127
Abovenet – MediaSentry:209.249.36.0-209.249.36.255
DarkStar Management Ltd:207.7.136.0-207.7.136.255
Unitedlayer, Inc. – DarkStar Management Ltd:67.221.161.128-67.221.161.255
Unitedlayer, Inc. – DarkStar Management Ltd:67.221.175.0-67.221.175.255
Open Hosting Ltd – DarkStar Management Ltd:89.238.149.130-89.238.149.255
Open Hosting Ltd – DarkStar Management Ltd:89.238.150.0-89.238.150.255
Open Hosting Ltd – DarkStar Management Ltd:89.238.151.0-89.238.151.127
Open Hosting Ltd – DarkStar Management Ltd:89.238.155.0-89.238.155.255
Open Hosting Ltd – DarkStar Management Ltd:89.238.156.0-89.238.156.255
May 30th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
“…mediadefender and mediasentry are not the same thing…”
I hope you mean this in the way “Bell Canada”, “Bell TV”, “Bell Internet”, and “Bell Mobility” are (supposedly) “not the same thing”.
MediaDefender does own MediaSentry now.
For the purposes of the topic on this page, findings for BOTH should be considered.
May 31st, 2009 at 8:24 am
mediadefender’s parent company artistdirect did indeed purchase mediasentry, but that does not necessarily mean the companies change their behaviour. mediadefender will continue releasing decoy files and gathering statistics just as mediasentry will continue it’s private eye cloak and dagger nonsense. i dont know why the author thinks 92.227.217.34 and 189.47.25.90 are mediasentry, because he is defiantly incorrect. right now, you dont have to look further than abovenet to find mediasentry, as that is who hosts all their currently active ranges. he was spot on with the mediadefender and darkstar though.
May 31st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
“i dont know why the author thinks 92.227.217.34 and 189.47.25.90 are mediasentry”
I would imagine because he received “HanseNet Telekommunikation/MediaSentry:P2P” and “TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO/MediaDefender:P2P” respectively in the traceroute results of those addresses. I can’t imagine why these fields would identify them if they weren’t using the IPs at the time the results were generated.
Now, I realize you’re of the opinion that MediaDefender activities should be disregarded, but surfer’s including them. Personally, I think it certainly doesn’t hurt to do this.
May 31st, 2009 at 6:09 pm
i provided correct blocks for both companies if you took time to look. 92.227.217.34 and 189.47.25.90 are not mediasentry. but why believe me when you can check the peering yourself.
MediaSentry:64.125.152.0-64.125.152.255
MediaSentry:64.125.154.0-64.125.154.255
MediaSentry:64.125.182.0-64.125.182.255
MediaSentry:209.66.116.0-209.66.116.255
MediaSentry:209.133.73.0-209.133.73.31
MediaSentry:209.133.121.0-209.133.122.255
MediaSentry:209.133.126.64-209.133.126.95
MediaSentry:209.249.10.96-209.249.10.127
MediaSentry:209.249.36.0-209.249.36.255
MediaSentry:209.249.45.0-209.249.47.255
MediaSentry:209.249.114.0-209.249.114.255
MediaSentry:209.249.244.0-209.249.244.255
May 31st, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Devil’s Advocate: What? Do you even know what traceroute is or does?
The “/MediaSentry:P2P” is clearly non-official information, probably added by Surfer himself. Indeed, this article is pretty poor because it doesn’t separate facts from speculation and doesn’t clearly tell how each piece of information was determined. How were the IP addresses determined? Did you just pick any that send a packet to your machine?
Your best option is to go to whois.domaintools.com and use that to lookup WHOIS information. It’s much easier than doing the same manually with the whois tool, especially as it recurses automatically.
I don’t know whether 174.136.192.0/18 is MediaSentry/Defender but there’s definitely coming a lot of P2P spam from this range currently.
There’s actually little news here. Most if not all ranges are already well-known.
Also surfer must be using some bad/outdated WHOIS server or tool because 92.227.217.34 actually resolves. Again, just use whois.domaintools.com or dnsstuff.com.
Last but not least, if you’re computer reboots just because you don’t ban some IP address range, then you have some serious security issue with your computer and/or your operating system. Wouldn’t surprise me though if that was caused by a bug in PG2 itself. I don’t quite understand how the trojans ended up on your filesystem. I doubt that’s really related to the reboot because if anyone can go that far, you’d end up with a rootkit instead.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:02 pm
174.136.192.0/18 is MediaDefender, the author was correct about that. they were first spotted on ~May 2, 2009 and have been on most p2p blocklists since. the method the author developed is iffy at best. thankfully more effective means of identifying these peers exist and new ones are developed often enough. and fyi, ip address are resolved using DNS, whois databases are completely different.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Resolving IP addresses to hostnames is completely irrelevant, unnecessary and can be misleading at times because the operator can configure it to resolve to whatever he wants including google.com.
WHOIS, on the other hand, provides most-valuable information, often at least the company name or the responsible person – information that can be used to find out more. Not to mention that only WHOIS can tell you the allocated range.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:31 am
dude your a buttfuck get a life, familys are stuggeling to make ends meet, working two jobs, and bearly gettin by. if theye download a free movie every now and then… BIG F)cXn WHOOP. You think those movie stars and music artist need more of the peoples money?!