you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Ah, ok. Just the obvious for now, then.

Let's hope the spammers don't figure out how to use Private Browsing, because that'll invalidate the cookie authentication init string and reduce flummox detection; quite an effective way of bypassing the kernel sockpuppet identifier.

What'd be even worse is if they used two laptops at once; then you couldn't even use the IPv10 MAC address detection to identify their shared machine, because they'd be using different computers. But I suppose that wouldn't have much of an advantage as regards the paumed protection.

Of course, a manual check would make it clear what they were doing immediately, so I suppose it wouldn't be too much of a problem.


Edit: It'd be especially problematic if they used a homoglyph attack to make all of their usernames look similar; then even a manual check wouldn't succeed because you wouldn't be able to see that separate users were involved in the first place!

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ha interesting possibilities, I've never heard of a homoglyph attack before, that's very interesting.

I doubt we'll be dealing with anything that sophisticated right now, but maybe someday. I'll keep it on my radar.