• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What the what and what? Paul Krugman might have just incriminated himself...

jmotivator

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
35,014
Reaction score
19,478
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This twitter message is ... ill advised


Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman

Well, I’m on the phone with my computer security service, and as I understand it someone compromised my IP address and is using it to download child pornography. I might just be a random target. But this could be an attempt to Qanon me.

It’s an ugly world out there.


He then went on to post....


Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman

The Times is now on the case.



Uhhh... Paul? First, that isn't how IP addresses work... but I don't expect you to know that...

But second... if you are innocent you would call the police, not the New York Times... :shock:
 
jmotivator said:
This twitter message is ... ill advised


Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman

Well, I’m on the phone with my computer security service, and as I understand it someone compromised my IP address and is using it to download child pornography. I might just be a random target. But this could be an attempt to Qanon me.

It’s an ugly world out there.


He then went on to post....


Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman

The Times is now on the case.



Uhhh... Paul? First, that isn't how IP addresses work... but I don't expect you to know that...

But second... if you are innocent you would call the police, not the New York Times... :shock:
Click to expand...

1. I believe that Krugman doesn't know how IT systems work.

2. I believe that someone would find downloading child porn onto his systems a good means of discrediting him.

3. I don't find it very plausible that Krugman would:
A: have a bunch of child porn, and
B: catch wind that an investigation had found him out before he was arrested, and
C: decide it was a good idea was to rush to twitter and make relatively falsifiable statements instead of just going nuts with the Bleach Bit​
 
jmotivator said:
This twitter message is ... ill advised


Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman

Well, I’m on the phone with my computer security service, and as I understand it someone compromised my IP address and is using it to download child pornography. I might just be a random target. But this could be an attempt to Qanon me.

It’s an ugly world out there.


He then went on to post....


Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman

The Times is now on the case.



Uhhh... Paul? First, that isn't how IP addresses work... but I don't expect you to know that...

But second... if you are innocent you would call the police, not the New York Times... :shock:
Click to expand...


Because the NYT will somehow "discover" that it was done by a white nationalist wearing a red MAGA hat. :lol:
 
jmotivator said:
This twitter message is ... ill advised


Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman

Well, I’m on the phone with my computer security service, and as I understand it someone compromised my IP address and is using it to download child pornography. I might just be a random target. But this could be an attempt to Qanon me.

It’s an ugly world out there.


He then went on to post....


Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman

The Times is now on the case.



Uhhh... Paul? First, that isn't how IP addresses work... but I don't expect you to know that...

But second... if you are innocent you would call the police, not the New York Times... :shock:
Click to expand...

Assuming it's true, how would he even know?
 
AProudLefty said:
Assuming it's true, how would he even know?
Click to expand...

Well, there in lie the questions.

As I said, he probably doesn't know the first thing about IT, so it's possible he has a private server that he uses that has been compromised, and he was being told about it by a security firm that he hired to maintain it.

The bizarre thing, for me, is that he would tweet about it and consult his employer... but says nothing about contacting the authorities. If his server was compromised and used to store and distribute child pornography then that is a very serious felony, and the FBI should be involved, not his employer.

It reads like a guy who doesn't want the police involved.. but he doesn't get to make that call.
 
He started peddling his new book yesterday on twitter with a link to where it can be purchased.

I think he hasn't had any pre-orders yet and there is nothing like a juicy story for advertising one's crap.
 
jmotivator said:
It reads like a guy who doesn't want the police involved..
Click to expand...
"Makes it public......doesn't want police to know"

Whew lard, thats some kind of logic on yer part.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
IP address spoofing - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

IP spoofing can't be used to download data because the spoofed IP requests would be routed to the actual system that holds the IP which would have no way of determining what to do with the packets, since the valid IP holder didn't initiate a session with the source. IP spoofing is used for DOS attacks where the sending system doesn't care if the receiving system knows what to do with the packet, only that the receiving system gets bogged down processing the packets.

Um, it is probably his WORK pc.
Click to expand...

No, his work PC is likely on a NATed network where his PC is assigned a non routed IP address within the corporate network, and all corporate machines share a single internet facing IP address.

I would be VERY surprised in the Times IT network is so poorly managed that Krugman's work PC was downloading child porn since that would usually pass several layers of network security first.... and hackers don't usually crack a corporate network and then target random IPs for attacks like that anyway. It would be overly difficult if the hacker was trying to target Paul Krugman. They would have better luck targeting a home PC where security is less, and the chances that the device is getting a direct internet IP address are better.


Edit: Also, in a NATed network the systems on the NATed side usually have short leased IP addresses from the Network DHCP server which means that the systems on the network have a sort of anonymity to a potential hacker. If a hacker were trying to crack Paul Krugman's work PC they would have to get into the NYT corporate network and then hunt for whatever IP address out of hundreds, or thousands, that Paul's PC would have that day.

The most common IP scheme for a NATed network would be 192.168.0.0 as the network... meaning that there are 64,516 potential IPs to search through to find Paul's machine... and then how do you know you have Paul's machine?

So, you see... it's complicated, and your lack of understanding isn't a good substitute for knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
"Makes it public......doesn't want police to know"

Whew lard, thats some kind of logic on yer part.
Click to expand...

You didn't use the same words I used, you changed the meaning of what I said, and you don't understand the subject. Should I just expect that this is going to be your contribution to this thread and ignore you?
 
Very simple fix if he's innocent. The FBI's cybercrime division will easily be able to find out if he was 'spoofed' or not. Maybe finding out who did it will be harder, but it wouldn't take them long to establish it wasn't him. I'm guessing he had already been in touch with the authorities before the NYT and the tweet.

As for all this crying the reason he went public is to cover his tracks that is Trumpist projection. The Donald does his crimes in plain sight reasoning if everyone sees it, it's not a crime. Nobody else does that.

If Krugman is guilty we shall know soon enough.
 
jmotivator said:
IP spoofing can't be used to download data because the spoofed IP requests would be routed to the actual system that holds the IP which would have no way of determining what to do with the packets, since the valid IP holder didn't initiate a session with the source. IP spoofing is used for DOS attacks where the sending system doesn't care if the receiving system knows what to do with the packet, only that the receiving system gets bogged down processing the packets.



No, his work PC is likely on a NATed network where his PC is assigned a non routed IP address within the corporate network, and all corporate machines share a single internet facing IP address.

I would be VERY surprised in the Times IT network is so poorly managed that Krugman's work PC was downloading child porn since that would usually pass several layers of network security first.... and hackers don't usually crack a corporate network and then target random IPs for attacks like that anyway. It would be overly difficult if the hacker was trying to target Paul Krugman. They would have better luck targeting a home PC where security is less, and the chances that the device is getting a direct internet IP address are better.
Click to expand...
You are guessing on ALL aspects of this event, you have ZERO information on what happened, where it happened. Spoofing is NOT limited to DOS attacks. You are arguing from a ignorant POV.

Again, WTF does this have to do with "media bias"?
 
jmotivator said:
You didn't use the same words I used, you changed the meaning of what I said, and you don't understand the subject. Should I just expect that this is going to be your contribution to this thread and ignore you?
Click to expand...
If a person makes it public, he is not hiding it from the police. This line of yours, this "logic", is beyond stupid.

Again, WTF does this have to do with "media bias"?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
If a person makes it public, he is not hiding it from the police. This line of yours, this "logic", is beyond stupid.

Again, WTF does this have to do with "media bias"?
Click to expand...

Yeah it's pretty odd way to hide it from the police.
 
jmotivator said:
IP spoofing can't be used to download data because the spoofed IP requests would be routed to the actual system that holds the IP which would have no way of determining what to do with the packets, since the valid IP holder didn't initiate a session with the source. IP spoofing is used for DOS attacks where the sending system doesn't care if the receiving system knows what to do with the packet, only that the receiving system gets bogged down processing the packets.
Click to expand...


IP spoofing only makes it look like an IP address was used. Going to the source - the original server and PC - will show whether it actually was or not. So the authorities can answer that question relatively easily. If they are sure after looking at those that it was Krugman then, they got him.
 
jmotivator said:
This twitter message is ... ill advised


Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman

Well, I’m on the phone with my computer security service, and as I understand it someone compromised my IP address and is using it to download child pornography. I might just be a random target. But this could be an attempt to Qanon me.

It’s an ugly world out there.


He then went on to post....


Paul Krugman
@paulkrugman

The Times is now on the case.



Uhhh... Paul? First, that isn't how IP addresses work... but I don't expect you to know that...

But second... if you are innocent you would call the police, not the New York Times... :shock:
Click to expand...

How about what cpwill said?

I notice you only responded to people who identify as left-lean. Why not respond to cpwill?
 
uptower said:
IP spoofing only makes it look like an IP address was used. Going to the source - the original server and PC - will show whether it actually was or not. So the authorities can answer that question relatively easily. If they are sure after looking at those that it was Krugman then, they got him.
Click to expand...

Well, no. A TCP/IP packet is like an nesting doll of layered routing data with a packet in the middle, and each router that the packet is passed to adds a new layer, to tell the next router of server how to send the return packet.

In normal TCP/IP communication the originating system encapsulated the data packet in routing data that contains it's IP address, and then encapsulates that in the address of the intended system. That then travels the internet getting repackaged as the route is created, until it gets to the destination system that strips away the packet layers until it gets to the layer that tells it who the packet is from, and if a request for return data is part of the packet, the receiving system then repackages the packet with it's own IP as the "from:", and the sender's IP as the "To:" and the packet starts the reverse journey.

Spoofing an IP is when the sending machine if configured to send a packet with a false "from" address. The reason this doesn't work to download data is the receiving system will route the return packet to the false from address, not the actual originating system, so you can't establish a data transfer since no handshake is possible.
 
Mr Person said:
How about what cpwill said?

I notice you only responded to people who identify as left-lean. Why not respond to cpwill?
Click to expand...

Nothing cpwill said was mutually exclusive to what I said. He thinks that framing Krugman is plausible, and it would be weird if Krugman was guilty and decided to out himself on Twitter... I haven't disagreed with any of that. I have simply mentioned how bizarre it is for Krugman to make these statements and then claim that the New York Times is on the case... and never mention the most essential member of a felony, the FBI.

The reason I am responding to left-leaning people in this thread is because they are trying to argue using a poor understanding of IT, and I am educating them. I'm offering a free service that most people pay me for. You're welcome!
 
AProudLefty said:
Yeah it's pretty odd way to hide it from the police.
Click to expand...

If he notified the FBI then why not say so? If his PC is now a crime scene then the last thing the FBI would want is for the NYT IT staff to be poking around in it.

On discovery of any equipment used in the commission of a felony, it is ALWAYS best practice to shut the system down and contact the authorities. Poking around in such a system is tampering with evidence.
 
jmotivator said:
If he notified the FBI then why not say so? If his PC is now a crime scene then the last thing the FBI would want is for the NYT IT staff to be poking around in it.

On discovery of any equipment used in the commission of a felony, it is ALWAYS best practice to shut the system down and contact the authorities. Poking around in such a system is tampering with evidence.
Click to expand...

Well it's out now, isn't it?
 
AProudLefty said:
Well it's out now, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is, but clearly you don't grasp what I just said.

It would be like Krugman stumbling on a murder scene in his house and calling his journalist friends over to start combing for clues rather than call the police. The police wouldn't be very happy to find that Krugman and his sleuthing pals had been tampering with potential evidence.
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, it is, but clearly you don't grasp what I just said.

It would be like Krugman stumbling on a murder scene in his house and calling his journalist friends over to start combing for clues rather than call the police. The police wouldn't be very happy to find that Krugman and his sleuthing pals had been tampering with potential evidence.
Click to expand...

You don't need to explain your obvious point. I am pretty sure the legal team would inform them that it is a bad idea. Lawsuit you know? Arrests?
 
AProudLefty said:
You don't need to explain your obvious point. I am pretty sure the legal team would inform them that it is a bad idea. Lawsuit you know? Arrests?
Click to expand...

Well, again, you'd think legal and law enforcement would have made it into his recount of his ordeal if, ya know, he handed it off to legal, and the authorities...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom