<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_10_212220</id>
	<title>Researchers Take Down a Spam Botnet</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257852360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Register is reporting on the <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/10/fireeye\_takes\_out\_ozdok/">takedown of a botnet once responsible for 1/3 of the world's spam</a>. The deed was done by researchers from the security firm FireEye, who <a href="http://blog.fireeye.com/research/2009/11/killing-the-beastpart-4.html">detailed the action</a> in a series of blog posts. PC World's coverage estimates that lately the botnet has accounted for <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/181851/fireeye\_moves\_quickly\_to\_quash\_megad\_botnet.html">4\% of spam</a>. From the Register: <i>"After carefully analyzing the machinations of the massive botnet, alternately known as Mega-D and Ozdok, the FireEye employees last week launched a coordinated blitz on dozens of its command and control channels. ... Almost immediately, the spam stopped, according to M86 Security blog. ... The body blow is good news to ISPs that are forced to choke on the torrent of spam sent out by the pesky botnet. But because many email servers already deployed blacklists that filtered emails sent from IP addresses known to be used by Ozdok, end users may not notice much of a change. ... With [the] head chopped off of Ozdok, more than 264,000 IP addresses were found reporting to sinkholes under FireEye's control..."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Register is reporting on the takedown of a botnet once responsible for 1/3 of the world 's spam .
The deed was done by researchers from the security firm FireEye , who detailed the action in a series of blog posts .
PC World 's coverage estimates that lately the botnet has accounted for 4 \ % of spam .
From the Register : " After carefully analyzing the machinations of the massive botnet , alternately known as Mega-D and Ozdok , the FireEye employees last week launched a coordinated blitz on dozens of its command and control channels .
... Almost immediately , the spam stopped , according to M86 Security blog .
... The body blow is good news to ISPs that are forced to choke on the torrent of spam sent out by the pesky botnet .
But because many email servers already deployed blacklists that filtered emails sent from IP addresses known to be used by Ozdok , end users may not notice much of a change .
... With [ the ] head chopped off of Ozdok , more than 264,000 IP addresses were found reporting to sinkholes under FireEye 's control... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Register is reporting on the takedown of a botnet once responsible for 1/3 of the world's spam.
The deed was done by researchers from the security firm FireEye, who detailed the action in a series of blog posts.
PC World's coverage estimates that lately the botnet has accounted for 4\% of spam.
From the Register: "After carefully analyzing the machinations of the massive botnet, alternately known as Mega-D and Ozdok, the FireEye employees last week launched a coordinated blitz on dozens of its command and control channels.
... Almost immediately, the spam stopped, according to M86 Security blog.
... The body blow is good news to ISPs that are forced to choke on the torrent of spam sent out by the pesky botnet.
But because many email servers already deployed blacklists that filtered emails sent from IP addresses known to be used by Ozdok, end users may not notice much of a change.
... With [the] head chopped off of Ozdok, more than 264,000 IP addresses were found reporting to sinkholes under FireEye's control..."</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054984</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong title, not 'taken down'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257865920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SHUT UP FART BOY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SHUT UP FART BOY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SHUT UP FART BOY</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056618</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong title, not 'taken down'</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257878400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds also like a damn good reason why it's futile trying to rely solely on US law enforcement to take these bad boys down.</p><p>I bet several of them are hosted in countries that don't give a flying fuck about the US.</p><p>Iran being one of them.</p><p>I wouldn't be surprised if some governments even look the other way on purpose just to spite the west.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds also like a damn good reason why it 's futile trying to rely solely on US law enforcement to take these bad boys down.I bet several of them are hosted in countries that do n't give a flying fuck about the US.Iran being one of them.I would n't be surprised if some governments even look the other way on purpose just to spite the west .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds also like a damn good reason why it's futile trying to rely solely on US law enforcement to take these bad boys down.I bet several of them are hosted in countries that don't give a flying fuck about the US.Iran being one of them.I wouldn't be surprised if some governments even look the other way on purpose just to spite the west.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053406</id>
	<title>Any more?</title>
	<author>SatanClauz</author>
	<datestamp>1257856500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are there any more that have been taken down? This is honestly the first i've ever heard of!<p>

Now, part two: I don't know how these things work, but, why does it seem so hard to track these things down and find the source?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any more that have been taken down ?
This is honestly the first i 've ever heard of !
Now , part two : I do n't know how these things work , but , why does it seem so hard to track these things down and find the source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any more that have been taken down?
This is honestly the first i've ever heard of!
Now, part two: I don't know how these things work, but, why does it seem so hard to track these things down and find the source?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30055202</id>
	<title>sale:jordan 1-25,coach,ed hardy handbags,ugg</title>
	<author>coolforsale2010</author>
	<datestamp>1257867060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to have a warm winter,you have to know Ugg boots.Ugg boots are &ldquo;must have &rdquo; nike air max jordan<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,shoes, caoch,gucci,lv,dg, ed hardy handbagsin the winter.Now here is an onlinestore , discount 30\%-50\% off,free shipping, you may take a look, you may find the UGGS you want here.http://www.coolforsale.com
thanks...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to have a warm winter,you have to know Ugg boots.Ugg boots are    must have    nike air max jordan ,shoes , caoch,gucci,lv,dg , ed hardy handbagsin the winter.Now here is an onlinestore , discount 30 \ % -50 \ % off,free shipping , you may take a look , you may find the UGGS you want here.http : //www.coolforsale.com thanks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to have a warm winter,you have to know Ugg boots.Ugg boots are “must have ” nike air max jordan ,shoes, caoch,gucci,lv,dg, ed hardy handbagsin the winter.Now here is an onlinestore , discount 30\%-50\% off,free shipping, you may take a look, you may find the UGGS you want here.http://www.coolforsale.com
thanks...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054456</id>
	<title>Re:Good!</title>
	<author>nneonneo</author>
	<datestamp>1257863280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is, until botnet operators start using BitTorrent (or a derivative of it) to transmit commands and Comcast gets a new excuse to throttle torrents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is , until botnet operators start using BitTorrent ( or a derivative of it ) to transmit commands and Comcast gets a new excuse to throttle torrents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is, until botnet operators start using BitTorrent (or a derivative of it) to transmit commands and Comcast gets a new excuse to throttle torrents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053638</id>
	<title>Re:And meanwhile...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257857820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spam isn't so much an economics problem as a "some people are just dicks" problem. A lot of the problem with spam is the current system we use for email. It was never intended for such widespread use and has little-to-none in the way of authentication or security measures. You can encrypt emails for security sure, but it doesn't help get around the problem of spam..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam is n't so much an economics problem as a " some people are just dicks " problem .
A lot of the problem with spam is the current system we use for email .
It was never intended for such widespread use and has little-to-none in the way of authentication or security measures .
You can encrypt emails for security sure , but it does n't help get around the problem of spam. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam isn't so much an economics problem as a "some people are just dicks" problem.
A lot of the problem with spam is the current system we use for email.
It was never intended for such widespread use and has little-to-none in the way of authentication or security measures.
You can encrypt emails for security sure, but it doesn't help get around the problem of spam..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053614</id>
	<title>Re:Any more?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1257857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, depends what you're looking at. Other Botnets have been taken down, usually by physically arresting the hacker who started it. I'm sure that they've tried to stop other Spam Botnets before. They didn't actually STOP Ozdok, they just dented it a bit.</p><p>It's difficult to track how these things start because essentially you've got about a million breadcrumbs to go through.</p><p>Lets say you've got 3 computers, A, B, and C. A infects B, B infects C. There is no direct correlation between A and C, so you have to work your way all the way up the chain. Now imagine you've got a million infected PC's. Who infected who? How do you work your way backwards? There's lots of ways to do this, most simple of which is to look at the contacts and determine which of the contacts is infected. Then determine the time and date of which the infection occured (Date Modified/Date Created on the file). Whoever was first was who infected the others.</p><p>The problem with killing it is that it has a "multi layered fallback mechanism" - which is a fancy way of saying it replicates itself. It can do this by either having a secondary program or script copy itself back onto the infected PC when it detects the original infection is gone, or it can do this by RE-infecting any of the computers it was sent to infect in the first place.</p><p>I hope thats enough to make you stagger and wonder exactly how much damage they could have possibly done to this botnet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , depends what you 're looking at .
Other Botnets have been taken down , usually by physically arresting the hacker who started it .
I 'm sure that they 've tried to stop other Spam Botnets before .
They did n't actually STOP Ozdok , they just dented it a bit.It 's difficult to track how these things start because essentially you 've got about a million breadcrumbs to go through.Lets say you 've got 3 computers , A , B , and C. A infects B , B infects C. There is no direct correlation between A and C , so you have to work your way all the way up the chain .
Now imagine you 've got a million infected PC 's .
Who infected who ?
How do you work your way backwards ?
There 's lots of ways to do this , most simple of which is to look at the contacts and determine which of the contacts is infected .
Then determine the time and date of which the infection occured ( Date Modified/Date Created on the file ) .
Whoever was first was who infected the others.The problem with killing it is that it has a " multi layered fallback mechanism " - which is a fancy way of saying it replicates itself .
It can do this by either having a secondary program or script copy itself back onto the infected PC when it detects the original infection is gone , or it can do this by RE-infecting any of the computers it was sent to infect in the first place.I hope thats enough to make you stagger and wonder exactly how much damage they could have possibly done to this botnet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, depends what you're looking at.
Other Botnets have been taken down, usually by physically arresting the hacker who started it.
I'm sure that they've tried to stop other Spam Botnets before.
They didn't actually STOP Ozdok, they just dented it a bit.It's difficult to track how these things start because essentially you've got about a million breadcrumbs to go through.Lets say you've got 3 computers, A, B, and C. A infects B, B infects C. There is no direct correlation between A and C, so you have to work your way all the way up the chain.
Now imagine you've got a million infected PC's.
Who infected who?
How do you work your way backwards?
There's lots of ways to do this, most simple of which is to look at the contacts and determine which of the contacts is infected.
Then determine the time and date of which the infection occured (Date Modified/Date Created on the file).
Whoever was first was who infected the others.The problem with killing it is that it has a "multi layered fallback mechanism" - which is a fancy way of saying it replicates itself.
It can do this by either having a secondary program or script copy itself back onto the infected PC when it detects the original infection is gone, or it can do this by RE-infecting any of the computers it was sent to infect in the first place.I hope thats enough to make you stagger and wonder exactly how much damage they could have possibly done to this botnet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053428</id>
	<title>Good!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257856620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I don't have to worry about throttled torrent downloads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I do n't have to worry about throttled torrent downloads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I don't have to worry about throttled torrent downloads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056862</id>
	<title>Re:Any more?</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1257880620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its a major reversing engineering effect to find out a botnet is controlled.
First you'd need to a get access to a computer running the bot, and
get the code, decompile it, and find out we're its reporting to, then you
have to take down every controlling system. Not easy, and not something
down for fun. ISP should club together and fund more security operations
against botnets. Like the impressive effect in the article.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Computer\%20Security/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Computer Security</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a major reversing engineering effect to find out a botnet is controlled .
First you 'd need to a get access to a computer running the bot , and get the code , decompile it , and find out we 're its reporting to , then you have to take down every controlling system .
Not easy , and not something down for fun .
ISP should club together and fund more security operations against botnets .
Like the impressive effect in the article .
--- Computer Security [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a major reversing engineering effect to find out a botnet is controlled.
First you'd need to a get access to a computer running the bot, and
get the code, decompile it, and find out we're its reporting to, then you
have to take down every controlling system.
Not easy, and not something
down for fun.
ISP should club together and fund more security operations
against botnets.
Like the impressive effect in the article.
---

Computer Security [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053550</id>
	<title>Re:Any more?</title>
	<author>socceroos</author>
	<datestamp>1257857220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure its so much about finding the source as it is figuring a fool-proof way of taking it down legitimately, legally and permanently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure its so much about finding the source as it is figuring a fool-proof way of taking it down legitimately , legally and permanently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure its so much about finding the source as it is figuring a fool-proof way of taking it down legitimately, legally and permanently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053854</id>
	<title>Er.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257859140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when does 1/3 equal 4\%?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does 1/3 equal 4 \ % ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does 1/3 equal 4\%?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30060146</id>
	<title>Do more,.....do more!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1257090720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;more than 264,000 IP addresses were found reporting to sinkholes under FireEye's control<br>It's not enough, those 264k IP adresses, should be sent out to a sort of ISP provider sanctuary where<br>they need to contact the people who have the infected pcs, and tell them to clean their machines, just<br>leaving the machines with a ongoing malware pinging back home, might still be able to get owned.</p><p>They need to take down those infected that they know is infected, and force those users to update or get fixed.<br>They are a threat to the internet, and need to be delt with...maybe cutting them off the internet for awhile would make them call in<br>their ISP and then they could be warned they had been owned, and need to clean their pcs.<br>Any further attempts on their machines parts to contact that same "hole" would force them again to be locked out...until such time<br>they fixed their machines, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; more than 264,000 IP addresses were found reporting to sinkholes under FireEye 's controlIt 's not enough , those 264k IP adresses , should be sent out to a sort of ISP provider sanctuary wherethey need to contact the people who have the infected pcs , and tell them to clean their machines , justleaving the machines with a ongoing malware pinging back home , might still be able to get owned.They need to take down those infected that they know is infected , and force those users to update or get fixed.They are a threat to the internet , and need to be delt with...maybe cutting them off the internet for awhile would make them call intheir ISP and then they could be warned they had been owned , and need to clean their pcs.Any further attempts on their machines parts to contact that same " hole " would force them again to be locked out...until such timethey fixed their machines , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;more than 264,000 IP addresses were found reporting to sinkholes under FireEye's controlIt's not enough, those 264k IP adresses, should be sent out to a sort of ISP provider sanctuary wherethey need to contact the people who have the infected pcs, and tell them to clean their machines, justleaving the machines with a ongoing malware pinging back home, might still be able to get owned.They need to take down those infected that they know is infected, and force those users to update or get fixed.They are a threat to the internet, and need to be delt with...maybe cutting them off the internet for awhile would make them call intheir ISP and then they could be warned they had been owned, and need to clean their pcs.Any further attempts on their machines parts to contact that same "hole" would force them again to be locked out...until such timethey fixed their machines, no?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30055742</id>
	<title>What to do with the zombies</title>
	<author>mattr</author>
	<datestamp>1257870600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We really need an analysis done and report made to the public security community. This is a unique chance to discover what are the real vulnerabilities to the mass of computing power on which criminals prey.</p><p>A federal or state level court needs to authorize the researchers to do such an analysis. Even a single state would be enough, if the zombie IPs can be reliably mapped to that state. I would envision the analysis to include:</p><p>- Make a full study of many individual zombie PCs: What antivirus, firewall, OS, applications, etc. are installed, including version numbers and a fingerprint (to identify whether they are super-vulnerable copies from warez sites, infected OEMs, etc.).<br>- Monitor usage of a small number of PCs to identify what user habits lead to zombification, based on the theory that these PCs will become zombies of another botnet soon probably. What should be monitored, and for how long?<br>- Contact (with law enforcement assistance) a small number of individual users to interview them. Publish anonymized interviews for representative cases so the public can better learn what constitutes dangerous habits.<br>- Report anonymized individual representative cases, trends and statistics.</p><p>Discuss whether the defanged botnet should be used to destroy other botnets. Too much discussion would alert the other net owners. People could opt in based on a message sent to infected PCs, if the authorities support it, but unless those bots are hardened they might open the owners to retaliatory attacks.</p><p>At least, let's find out if antivirus really doesn't work, what habits led to botnet creation, and how can we alert zombie owners so they adopt more secure practices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We really need an analysis done and report made to the public security community .
This is a unique chance to discover what are the real vulnerabilities to the mass of computing power on which criminals prey.A federal or state level court needs to authorize the researchers to do such an analysis .
Even a single state would be enough , if the zombie IPs can be reliably mapped to that state .
I would envision the analysis to include : - Make a full study of many individual zombie PCs : What antivirus , firewall , OS , applications , etc .
are installed , including version numbers and a fingerprint ( to identify whether they are super-vulnerable copies from warez sites , infected OEMs , etc .
) .- Monitor usage of a small number of PCs to identify what user habits lead to zombification , based on the theory that these PCs will become zombies of another botnet soon probably .
What should be monitored , and for how long ? - Contact ( with law enforcement assistance ) a small number of individual users to interview them .
Publish anonymized interviews for representative cases so the public can better learn what constitutes dangerous habits.- Report anonymized individual representative cases , trends and statistics.Discuss whether the defanged botnet should be used to destroy other botnets .
Too much discussion would alert the other net owners .
People could opt in based on a message sent to infected PCs , if the authorities support it , but unless those bots are hardened they might open the owners to retaliatory attacks.At least , let 's find out if antivirus really does n't work , what habits led to botnet creation , and how can we alert zombie owners so they adopt more secure practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We really need an analysis done and report made to the public security community.
This is a unique chance to discover what are the real vulnerabilities to the mass of computing power on which criminals prey.A federal or state level court needs to authorize the researchers to do such an analysis.
Even a single state would be enough, if the zombie IPs can be reliably mapped to that state.
I would envision the analysis to include:- Make a full study of many individual zombie PCs: What antivirus, firewall, OS, applications, etc.
are installed, including version numbers and a fingerprint (to identify whether they are super-vulnerable copies from warez sites, infected OEMs, etc.
).- Monitor usage of a small number of PCs to identify what user habits lead to zombification, based on the theory that these PCs will become zombies of another botnet soon probably.
What should be monitored, and for how long?- Contact (with law enforcement assistance) a small number of individual users to interview them.
Publish anonymized interviews for representative cases so the public can better learn what constitutes dangerous habits.- Report anonymized individual representative cases, trends and statistics.Discuss whether the defanged botnet should be used to destroy other botnets.
Too much discussion would alert the other net owners.
People could opt in based on a message sent to infected PCs, if the authorities support it, but unless those bots are hardened they might open the owners to retaliatory attacks.At least, let's find out if antivirus really doesn't work, what habits led to botnet creation, and how can we alert zombie owners so they adopt more secure practices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053458</id>
	<title>True heroes</title>
	<author>ManlySpork</author>
	<datestamp>1257856740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>These researchers are true heroes saving the internet from impending doom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These researchers are true heroes saving the internet from impending doom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These researchers are true heroes saving the internet from impending doom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30055442</id>
	<title>Re:Patches?</title>
	<author>Plekto</author>
	<datestamp>1257868500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Better yet, just wipe the hard drives. The users might think harder about security if something other than their net connection gets abused.</b></p><p>Easier yet would be to add those infected machines to the block lists.  That would get people's attention just as well and keep them from infecting others.(as a side effect, most ISPs would find their entire cable modem DNS ranges blocked, but no big loss there... might actually prompt them to get serious about spam, even.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , just wipe the hard drives .
The users might think harder about security if something other than their net connection gets abused.Easier yet would be to add those infected machines to the block lists .
That would get people 's attention just as well and keep them from infecting others .
( as a side effect , most ISPs would find their entire cable modem DNS ranges blocked , but no big loss there... might actually prompt them to get serious about spam , even .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, just wipe the hard drives.
The users might think harder about security if something other than their net connection gets abused.Easier yet would be to add those infected machines to the block lists.
That would get people's attention just as well and keep them from infecting others.
(as a side effect, most ISPs would find their entire cable modem DNS ranges blocked, but no big loss there... might actually prompt them to get serious about spam, even.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30060014</id>
	<title>Re:That's great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but to file a lawsuit you would have to identify yourself as the owner of the spambot network (or at least the herder of all the spambots).  By identifying yourself, you open yourself up to lawsuits from a multitude of ISPs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but to file a lawsuit you would have to identify yourself as the owner of the spambot network ( or at least the herder of all the spambots ) .
By identifying yourself , you open yourself up to lawsuits from a multitude of ISPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but to file a lawsuit you would have to identify yourself as the owner of the spambot network (or at least the herder of all the spambots).
By identifying yourself, you open yourself up to lawsuits from a multitude of ISPs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054242</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257861300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First they came for the spammers, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I was not a spammer;<br>Then they came for the crackers, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I was not a cracker;<br>Then they came for the hackers, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I was not a hacker;<br>Then they came for the pirates, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I was not a pirate;<br>Then they came for me&mdash;and there was no one left to speak out for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they came for the spammers , and I did not speak out    because I was not a spammer ; Then they came for the crackers , and I did not speak out    because I was not a cracker ; Then they came for the hackers , and I did not speak out    because I was not a hacker ; Then they came for the pirates , and I did not speak out    because I was not a pirate ; Then they came for me    and there was no one left to speak out for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they came for the spammers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a spammer;Then they came for the crackers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a cracker;Then they came for the hackers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a hacker;Then they came for the pirates, and I did not speak out—because I was not a pirate;Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054000</id>
	<title>Re:What OS?</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1257859920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What's the Windows OS percentage of that botnet?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
<a href="http://www.symantec.com/security\_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2008-021215-0628-99" title="symantec.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.symantec.com/security\_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2008-021215-0628-99</a> [symantec.com] <br>
100\%, minus controllers, that might run on any OS</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the Windows OS percentage of that botnet ?
http : //www.symantec.com/security \ _response/writeup.jsp ? docid = 2008-021215-0628-99 [ symantec.com ] 100 \ % , minus controllers , that might run on any OS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the Windows OS percentage of that botnet?
http://www.symantec.com/security\_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2008-021215-0628-99 [symantec.com] 
100\%, minus controllers, that might run on any OS
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053456</id>
	<title>All your SPAMbot are belong to us</title>
	<author>MountainLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1257856740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Had to be said</htmltext>
<tokenext>Had to be said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had to be said</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30058216</id>
	<title>Re:good work</title>
	<author>Erik Hensema</author>
	<datestamp>1257076080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you determine an smtp connection to be 'too much like a bot'?

I'm genuinely interested because I'd like to be able to do that too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you determine an smtp connection to be 'too much like a bot ' ?
I 'm genuinely interested because I 'd like to be able to do that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you determine an smtp connection to be 'too much like a bot'?
I'm genuinely interested because I'd like to be able to do that too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30062912</id>
	<title>Re:Any more?</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1257102360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>physically arresting the hacker who started it.</p></div><p>AKA Meatsnarfing</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>physically arresting the hacker who started it.AKA Meatsnarfing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>physically arresting the hacker who started it.AKA Meatsnarfing
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30057232</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257107280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Why is some obscure security firm doing the job that governments should have done 10 years ago?</i> <br> <br>Exactly we hear about "researchers" even broadcasters doing this. But never about regular law enforcement...<br>Governments don't appear interested it dealing with this. Probably because it isn't the (alleged) profits of the entertainments industry being affected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is some obscure security firm doing the job that governments should have done 10 years ago ?
Exactly we hear about " researchers " even broadcasters doing this .
But never about regular law enforcement...Governments do n't appear interested it dealing with this .
Probably because it is n't the ( alleged ) profits of the entertainments industry being affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is some obscure security firm doing the job that governments should have done 10 years ago?
Exactly we hear about "researchers" even broadcasters doing this.
But never about regular law enforcement...Governments don't appear interested it dealing with this.
Probably because it isn't the (alleged) profits of the entertainments industry being affected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053422</id>
	<title>Patches?</title>
	<author>l0perb0y</author>
	<datestamp>1257856620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope they'll patch these machines. Otherwise, how long will it be before the bot wrangler just takes his net back?<br><br>Better yet, just wipe the hard drives. The users might think harder about security if something other than their net connection gets abused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they 'll patch these machines .
Otherwise , how long will it be before the bot wrangler just takes his net back ? Better yet , just wipe the hard drives .
The users might think harder about security if something other than their net connection gets abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they'll patch these machines.
Otherwise, how long will it be before the bot wrangler just takes his net back?Better yet, just wipe the hard drives.
The users might think harder about security if something other than their net connection gets abused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056732</id>
	<title>Re:good work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just on my tiny little server I run at home for a handful of friends and family, with one single domain, I block an average of 416 SMTP connections per day based solely on DNSRBLs plus another 876 per day based on a slew of custom rules I've developed.  After that, SpamAssassin blocks 82 messages per day and quarantines 48 more.</p><p>That's something in the neighborhood of one spam attempt EVERY MINUTE of every day, 24/7/365, on a tiny little personal server hosting only one domain for a small handful of users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just on my tiny little server I run at home for a handful of friends and family , with one single domain , I block an average of 416 SMTP connections per day based solely on DNSRBLs plus another 876 per day based on a slew of custom rules I 've developed .
After that , SpamAssassin blocks 82 messages per day and quarantines 48 more.That 's something in the neighborhood of one spam attempt EVERY MINUTE of every day , 24/7/365 , on a tiny little personal server hosting only one domain for a small handful of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just on my tiny little server I run at home for a handful of friends and family, with one single domain, I block an average of 416 SMTP connections per day based solely on DNSRBLs plus another 876 per day based on a slew of custom rules I've developed.
After that, SpamAssassin blocks 82 messages per day and quarantines 48 more.That's something in the neighborhood of one spam attempt EVERY MINUTE of every day, 24/7/365, on a tiny little personal server hosting only one domain for a small handful of users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056678</id>
	<title>4\% less SPAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I know not all of you here like SPAM very much, but it has been a classic for many, many years. Now that 4\% of SPAM has cut production, there are going to be many unhappy faces and SPAM inflation. Think of the families struggling to get by! </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know not all of you here like SPAM very much , but it has been a classic for many , many years .
Now that 4 \ % of SPAM has cut production , there are going to be many unhappy faces and SPAM inflation .
Think of the families struggling to get by !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I know not all of you here like SPAM very much, but it has been a classic for many, many years.
Now that 4\% of SPAM has cut production, there are going to be many unhappy faces and SPAM inflation.
Think of the families struggling to get by! </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30067838</id>
	<title>Re:good work</title>
	<author>badevlad</author>
	<datestamp>1257081780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow! I asked myself: "Why I receiving much less SPAM this year than several years ago?"

Now I have the answer. Thank you, Good Guys!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
I asked myself : " Why I receiving much less SPAM this year than several years ago ?
" Now I have the answer .
Thank you , Good Guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
I asked myself: "Why I receiving much less SPAM this year than several years ago?
"

Now I have the answer.
Thank you, Good Guys!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053524</id>
	<title>And meanwhile...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1257857100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another botnet is on the verge of picking up a good number of those systems.  Within a very short while we'll see the spam levels right back where they were before.  Anti-botnet activities are good when done in the name of anti-botnet activity, but they are weak efforts in the name of stopping spam.  The way to stop spam is to fight it as the economic problem that it is; if people continue to go after the symptoms of spam like this they will continue to find themselves quickly thwarted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another botnet is on the verge of picking up a good number of those systems .
Within a very short while we 'll see the spam levels right back where they were before .
Anti-botnet activities are good when done in the name of anti-botnet activity , but they are weak efforts in the name of stopping spam .
The way to stop spam is to fight it as the economic problem that it is ; if people continue to go after the symptoms of spam like this they will continue to find themselves quickly thwarted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another botnet is on the verge of picking up a good number of those systems.
Within a very short while we'll see the spam levels right back where they were before.
Anti-botnet activities are good when done in the name of anti-botnet activity, but they are weak efforts in the name of stopping spam.
The way to stop spam is to fight it as the economic problem that it is; if people continue to go after the symptoms of spam like this they will continue to find themselves quickly thwarted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053474</id>
	<title>Re:good work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257856860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like that too. Although, my IPCOP firewall with CopFilter installed has been killing 99.92\% of the spam coming into our network. Really pleased with it.
<br> <br>
On a more related note, would this be classed as vigilante justice? Justified?
<br> <br>
I think its a cool idea for universities with security classes to study this kind of thing and 'bring it down - safely' as a project. I know I'd enjoy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like that too .
Although , my IPCOP firewall with CopFilter installed has been killing 99.92 \ % of the spam coming into our network .
Really pleased with it .
On a more related note , would this be classed as vigilante justice ?
Justified ? I think its a cool idea for universities with security classes to study this kind of thing and 'bring it down - safely ' as a project .
I know I 'd enjoy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like that too.
Although, my IPCOP firewall with CopFilter installed has been killing 99.92\% of the spam coming into our network.
Really pleased with it.
On a more related note, would this be classed as vigilante justice?
Justified?
 
I think its a cool idea for universities with security classes to study this kind of thing and 'bring it down - safely' as a project.
I know I'd enjoy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053710</id>
	<title>Re:good work</title>
	<author>Lennie</author>
	<datestamp>1257858240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You obviously don't work for an ISP, we have to drop SMTP-connections on everything which looks to much like a bot just because of the large number of connection that we get, so we're able to have the legit connections and because scanning all the content would just be to much to handle.<br><br>You would be amazed at the volumes of e-mail ISP's get. More then 98\% of it is crap you don't want to receive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously do n't work for an ISP , we have to drop SMTP-connections on everything which looks to much like a bot just because of the large number of connection that we get , so we 're able to have the legit connections and because scanning all the content would just be to much to handle.You would be amazed at the volumes of e-mail ISP 's get .
More then 98 \ % of it is crap you do n't want to receive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously don't work for an ISP, we have to drop SMTP-connections on everything which looks to much like a bot just because of the large number of connection that we get, so we're able to have the legit connections and because scanning all the content would just be to much to handle.You would be amazed at the volumes of e-mail ISP's get.
More then 98\% of it is crap you don't want to receive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054100</id>
	<title>Re:Er.</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1257860400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 'net used to account for 1/3, but since that time it has either shrunk due to patches or other 'nets have vastly outpaced it. That caught me off guard, too.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'net used to account for 1/3 , but since that time it has either shrunk due to patches or other 'nets have vastly outpaced it .
That caught me off guard , too.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'net used to account for 1/3, but since that time it has either shrunk due to patches or other 'nets have vastly outpaced it.
That caught me off guard, too.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053896</id>
	<title>Re:And meanwhile...</title>
	<author>Capt.DrumkenBum</author>
	<datestamp>1257859320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Another botnet is on the verge of picking up a good number of those systems.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I seem to remember a year or so ago reading about someones honeypot experiment. One of the first things done to the machine after the hacker got access was to close several common vulnerabilities.<br>
I don't know about this botnet, but if I were an evil bastard who managed to take over your computer, the first thing I would do would be to make sure your computer stayed mine.<br>
In fact from time to time I have considered the possibilities of a virus that would turn on automatic updates, turn on the firewall, and install an anti-virus product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another botnet is on the verge of picking up a good number of those systems .
I would n't be so sure about that .
I seem to remember a year or so ago reading about someones honeypot experiment .
One of the first things done to the machine after the hacker got access was to close several common vulnerabilities .
I do n't know about this botnet , but if I were an evil bastard who managed to take over your computer , the first thing I would do would be to make sure your computer stayed mine .
In fact from time to time I have considered the possibilities of a virus that would turn on automatic updates , turn on the firewall , and install an anti-virus product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another botnet is on the verge of picking up a good number of those systems.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
I seem to remember a year or so ago reading about someones honeypot experiment.
One of the first things done to the machine after the hacker got access was to close several common vulnerabilities.
I don't know about this botnet, but if I were an evil bastard who managed to take over your computer, the first thing I would do would be to make sure your computer stayed mine.
In fact from time to time I have considered the possibilities of a virus that would turn on automatic updates, turn on the firewall, and install an anti-virus product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053486</id>
	<title>Wrong title, not 'taken down'</title>
	<author>RichardDeVries</author>
	<datestamp>1257856860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<blockquote><div><p>Only two command server were found to be located outside the USA.  So does it mean that shutting these servers down would result in a complete botnet shut down?  Keeping in view Ozdok's multi layered fallback mechanism the answer here is 'no'.</p></div></blockquote><p>and</p><blockquote><div><p>After seeing all these fallback mechanisms, it doesn't look very easy to kill Ozdok in one go but hurting this beast might not be that difficult.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Only two command server were found to be located outside the USA .
So does it mean that shutting these servers down would result in a complete botnet shut down ?
Keeping in view Ozdok 's multi layered fallback mechanism the answer here is 'no'.andAfter seeing all these fallback mechanisms , it does n't look very easy to kill Ozdok in one go but hurting this beast might not be that difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Only two command server were found to be located outside the USA.
So does it mean that shutting these servers down would result in a complete botnet shut down?
Keeping in view Ozdok's multi layered fallback mechanism the answer here is 'no'.andAfter seeing all these fallback mechanisms, it doesn't look very easy to kill Ozdok in one go but hurting this beast might not be that difficult.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054624</id>
	<title>That's great, but...</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1257864120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the cynic in me wonders <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=8800603" title="informationweek.com">whether or not the researchers might be risking legal problems by doing this</a> [informationweek.com] (at least in Illinois, Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming and possibly Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Texas as well).</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the cynic in me wonders whether or not the researchers might be risking legal problems by doing this [ informationweek.com ] ( at least in Illinois , Colorado , Delaware , Michigan , Oregon , Pennsylvania , and Wyoming and possibly Arkansas , Florida , Georgia , Massachusetts , Tennessee , and Texas as well ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the cynic in me wonders whether or not the researchers might be risking legal problems by doing this [informationweek.com] (at least in Illinois, Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming and possibly Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Texas as well).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053974</id>
	<title>In the words of Riddick...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257859800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You keep what you kill."</p><p>Now...  what to do with this enormous botnet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You keep what you kill. " Now.. .
what to do with this enormous botnet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You keep what you kill."Now...
what to do with this enormous botnet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056568</id>
	<title>Re:good work</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257877980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much of it actually passes an integrity/authorization check like dkim or spf?</p><p>Maybe if those were made more widespread we could do a good bit better job tracing and jailing these bastards...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or blacklisting accomplice ISPs that don't give a rat's arse about the spam they are sending.</p><p>Forgery allows spammers to operate anonymously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of it actually passes an integrity/authorization check like dkim or spf ? Maybe if those were made more widespread we could do a good bit better job tracing and jailing these bastards... ...or blacklisting accomplice ISPs that do n't give a rat 's arse about the spam they are sending.Forgery allows spammers to operate anonymously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of it actually passes an integrity/authorization check like dkim or spf?Maybe if those were made more widespread we could do a good bit better job tracing and jailing these bastards... ...or blacklisting accomplice ISPs that don't give a rat's arse about the spam they are sending.Forgery allows spammers to operate anonymously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30061520</id>
	<title>Re:good work</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1257096420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think yourself lucky. On my personal email address alone, I hit a new record on Tuesday - 1219 spam emails in just one day, to just one account. The amount of spam for the last few months has really started to climb rapidly, I expect that I'll be getting in excess of 2000 spam emails to this one account per day within 4 months.</p><p>Fortunately, SpamAssassin catches all but a very small handful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think yourself lucky .
On my personal email address alone , I hit a new record on Tuesday - 1219 spam emails in just one day , to just one account .
The amount of spam for the last few months has really started to climb rapidly , I expect that I 'll be getting in excess of 2000 spam emails to this one account per day within 4 months.Fortunately , SpamAssassin catches all but a very small handful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think yourself lucky.
On my personal email address alone, I hit a new record on Tuesday - 1219 spam emails in just one day, to just one account.
The amount of spam for the last few months has really started to climb rapidly, I expect that I'll be getting in excess of 2000 spam emails to this one account per day within 4 months.Fortunately, SpamAssassin catches all but a very small handful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054092</id>
	<title>Re:Er.</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1257860340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>once responsible</b> for an estimated third of the world's spam</p><p><b>lately</b> the botnet has accounted for 4\% of spam</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>once responsible for an estimated third of the world 's spamlately the botnet has accounted for 4 \ % of spam</tokentext>
<sentencetext>once responsible for an estimated third of the world's spamlately the botnet has accounted for 4\% of spam</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30058732</id>
	<title>Fsck you slashdot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I submitted this story on the 6th and it was deleted.</p><p>Now someone else posts it, and now it's up on the front page.</p><p>I'm never submitting a story again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I submitted this story on the 6th and it was deleted.Now someone else posts it , and now it 's up on the front page.I 'm never submitting a story again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I submitted this story on the 6th and it was deleted.Now someone else posts it, and now it's up on the front page.I'm never submitting a story again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053578</id>
	<title>A little known fact about security firm "FireEye"</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1257857400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At company picnics, employees are encouraged to take part in "Whack-a-mole" competitions during summertime, and ice sculpting during the winter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At company picnics , employees are encouraged to take part in " Whack-a-mole " competitions during summertime , and ice sculpting during the winter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At company picnics, employees are encouraged to take part in "Whack-a-mole" competitions during summertime, and ice sculpting during the winter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053540</id>
	<title>Jinx...</title>
	<author>imaniack</author>
	<datestamp>1257857220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just hope Netcraft does not jinx this by reporting premature death of botnets...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just hope Netcraft does not jinx this by reporting premature death of botnets.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just hope Netcraft does not jinx this by reporting premature death of botnets...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30071528</id>
	<title>Re:good work</title>
	<author>sglines</author>
	<datestamp>1258035780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can attest to the volume of junk passed as email. I've had the same email address since the early 1990's. I get ~30 legitimate emails a day. My filters (Spamassassin, RTBL's and iptables - yes I run Linux) reject between 3,000 and 8,000 emails every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can attest to the volume of junk passed as email .
I 've had the same email address since the early 1990 's .
I get ~ 30 legitimate emails a day .
My filters ( Spamassassin , RTBL 's and iptables - yes I run Linux ) reject between 3,000 and 8,000 emails every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can attest to the volume of junk passed as email.
I've had the same email address since the early 1990's.
I get ~30 legitimate emails a day.
My filters (Spamassassin, RTBL's and iptables - yes I run Linux) reject between 3,000 and 8,000 emails every day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30060680</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing that this got through moderation...</p><p>Hmmmm... lesee... "let" the government take responsibility for "protecting" the National Information Infrastructure.....  Hmmm lesee what happens when the government takes "responsibility" for anything like this.</p><p>we have gotten:</p><p>1) FBI's Carnivore  (everything is secure, except to the FBI)<br>2) FBI's $25k fine to all telecom providers which will not provide individual phone line tapping capabilities to all new switched PBX, and other telecom equip.<br>3) NSA's Echelon (extra US cell phone tapping)<br>4) Cracked PGP (hounding Phill Zimmerman for over a decade), cracked DES, RSA, etc.<br>5) Known crackable AES as a "standard encryption" enforced by the government<br>6) Open FBI presentations at DEFCON exposing WEP cracking in seconds<br>7) Warrentless wiretapping which is exposed to have been occuring for over a decade<br>8) AT&amp;T and other telecoms admit having provided open trunks to NSA for monitoring<br>9) Government involvement in ISO, etal. stds orgs fighting adoption of standards for trunk encryption and authentication (including CIX)<br>10) Goverment backs away from control/influence of ICANN and Network Solutions (etal) only to be besieged and then backtrack when it is found that without US govt involvement/leadership the entire net becomes something far beyond Wild Wild West.</p><p>Hey I'm only summarizing the huge stupidity of expecting a government run by vote fradusters to treat the net for the strategic resource that it is.</p><p>And this got an Insightful moderation (5 points)???</p><p>If any resource deserves/needs a benevolent dictatorship (or group [oligarchy]), it is the net, and certainly not the US government unchecked.  The problem will always be that congress critters are (and I propose will always be) more motivated by re-election than by any desire or willingness to understand something with a life and value far beyond anything they can really do much more with than influence.  They (congress) have an inherent need/desire to control everything they touch, and that is the inherent failure.  Something so signficant should be controlled in their view.  The idea that something like the net can be so influenced by non-ownable things/entities (like ICANN, NSI, etal) escapes them completely, and so... they retrench to "policies" and "funding" for policy enforcement.  This ultimately means they are caught with limp efforts at best for dealing with creative anarchist crap like spam.</p><p>The best solutions to this have very little to do with government (except some notional secret squirrel sort of stuff dealing with direct counterthreat stuff), and much more to do with enlightened quasi-governmental influence.  The government is most distinctly NOT equipped to deal with "protecting" the NET (less so than even healthcare).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing that this got through moderation...Hmmmm... lesee... " let " the government take responsibility for " protecting " the National Information Infrastructure..... Hmmm lesee what happens when the government takes " responsibility " for anything like this.we have gotten : 1 ) FBI 's Carnivore ( everything is secure , except to the FBI ) 2 ) FBI 's $ 25k fine to all telecom providers which will not provide individual phone line tapping capabilities to all new switched PBX , and other telecom equip.3 ) NSA 's Echelon ( extra US cell phone tapping ) 4 ) Cracked PGP ( hounding Phill Zimmerman for over a decade ) , cracked DES , RSA , etc.5 ) Known crackable AES as a " standard encryption " enforced by the government6 ) Open FBI presentations at DEFCON exposing WEP cracking in seconds7 ) Warrentless wiretapping which is exposed to have been occuring for over a decade8 ) AT&amp;T and other telecoms admit having provided open trunks to NSA for monitoring9 ) Government involvement in ISO , etal .
stds orgs fighting adoption of standards for trunk encryption and authentication ( including CIX ) 10 ) Goverment backs away from control/influence of ICANN and Network Solutions ( etal ) only to be besieged and then backtrack when it is found that without US govt involvement/leadership the entire net becomes something far beyond Wild Wild West.Hey I 'm only summarizing the huge stupidity of expecting a government run by vote fradusters to treat the net for the strategic resource that it is.And this got an Insightful moderation ( 5 points ) ? ?
? If any resource deserves/needs a benevolent dictatorship ( or group [ oligarchy ] ) , it is the net , and certainly not the US government unchecked .
The problem will always be that congress critters are ( and I propose will always be ) more motivated by re-election than by any desire or willingness to understand something with a life and value far beyond anything they can really do much more with than influence .
They ( congress ) have an inherent need/desire to control everything they touch , and that is the inherent failure .
Something so signficant should be controlled in their view .
The idea that something like the net can be so influenced by non-ownable things/entities ( like ICANN , NSI , etal ) escapes them completely , and so... they retrench to " policies " and " funding " for policy enforcement .
This ultimately means they are caught with limp efforts at best for dealing with creative anarchist crap like spam.The best solutions to this have very little to do with government ( except some notional secret squirrel sort of stuff dealing with direct counterthreat stuff ) , and much more to do with enlightened quasi-governmental influence .
The government is most distinctly NOT equipped to deal with " protecting " the NET ( less so than even healthcare ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing that this got through moderation...Hmmmm... lesee... "let" the government take responsibility for "protecting" the National Information Infrastructure.....  Hmmm lesee what happens when the government takes "responsibility" for anything like this.we have gotten:1) FBI's Carnivore  (everything is secure, except to the FBI)2) FBI's $25k fine to all telecom providers which will not provide individual phone line tapping capabilities to all new switched PBX, and other telecom equip.3) NSA's Echelon (extra US cell phone tapping)4) Cracked PGP (hounding Phill Zimmerman for over a decade), cracked DES, RSA, etc.5) Known crackable AES as a "standard encryption" enforced by the government6) Open FBI presentations at DEFCON exposing WEP cracking in seconds7) Warrentless wiretapping which is exposed to have been occuring for over a decade8) AT&amp;T and other telecoms admit having provided open trunks to NSA for monitoring9) Government involvement in ISO, etal.
stds orgs fighting adoption of standards for trunk encryption and authentication (including CIX)10) Goverment backs away from control/influence of ICANN and Network Solutions (etal) only to be besieged and then backtrack when it is found that without US govt involvement/leadership the entire net becomes something far beyond Wild Wild West.Hey I'm only summarizing the huge stupidity of expecting a government run by vote fradusters to treat the net for the strategic resource that it is.And this got an Insightful moderation (5 points)??
?If any resource deserves/needs a benevolent dictatorship (or group [oligarchy]), it is the net, and certainly not the US government unchecked.
The problem will always be that congress critters are (and I propose will always be) more motivated by re-election than by any desire or willingness to understand something with a life and value far beyond anything they can really do much more with than influence.
They (congress) have an inherent need/desire to control everything they touch, and that is the inherent failure.
Something so signficant should be controlled in their view.
The idea that something like the net can be so influenced by non-ownable things/entities (like ICANN, NSI, etal) escapes them completely, and so... they retrench to "policies" and "funding" for policy enforcement.
This ultimately means they are caught with limp efforts at best for dealing with creative anarchist crap like spam.The best solutions to this have very little to do with government (except some notional secret squirrel sort of stuff dealing with direct counterthreat stuff), and much more to do with enlightened quasi-governmental influence.
The government is most distinctly NOT equipped to deal with "protecting" the NET (less so than even healthcare).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053520</id>
	<title>Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257857100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great work! I would of done it but I was at home sick... *Cough*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great work !
I would of done it but I was at home sick... * Cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great work!
I would of done it but I was at home sick... *Cough*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053982</id>
	<title>Re:And meanwhile...</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1257859860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The way to stop spam is to fight it as the economic problem that it is; if people continue to go after the symptoms of spam like this they will continue to find themselves quickly thwarted.</i></p><p>Sure. Let's educate every farking idiot on the face of the earth. Just like we did with consumers the world over in every single city across the fruited plain. It's worked well for hundreds of years! "Buyer beware" and Heaven help you if you should get defrauded...</p><p>What's that you say? We didn't do that? Instead, we instituted "consumer protection" laws that require vendors to adhere to minimal standards of conduct and safety? Laws that prevent manufacturers from making unsafe cars and selling poisoned food? You mean, I can go into pretty much any restaurant and be confident that I probably won't get some terrible disease from poorly cooked food and un-refrigerated meats?</p><p>Yes, on the 'net, it's the wild, wild west, all over again. But now problems "over there" have become problems "over here", and suddenly, things like the sorry legal state of Nigeria and Somalia are in our face. Will we fix it overnight? No, but we will fix it. Sure, we'll never get rid of it completely - the Mafia still exists, and gangs still thrive in areas of  the mostly controlled First World. (We can get greatly mitigate the gangs by legalizing their primary revenue stream, the drugs, but while related, that's another post)</p><p>The thing is that by legally controlling the terms of commerce, we promote healthy commerce. Outlawing commerce altogether has roughly the same effect of not regulating it at all - fraud and crime sets in, legitimate business moves out. To control spam, we need to control commerce, world wide. And that's a big, big problem that will take at least a generation or two to handle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way to stop spam is to fight it as the economic problem that it is ; if people continue to go after the symptoms of spam like this they will continue to find themselves quickly thwarted.Sure .
Let 's educate every farking idiot on the face of the earth .
Just like we did with consumers the world over in every single city across the fruited plain .
It 's worked well for hundreds of years !
" Buyer beware " and Heaven help you if you should get defrauded...What 's that you say ?
We did n't do that ?
Instead , we instituted " consumer protection " laws that require vendors to adhere to minimal standards of conduct and safety ?
Laws that prevent manufacturers from making unsafe cars and selling poisoned food ?
You mean , I can go into pretty much any restaurant and be confident that I probably wo n't get some terrible disease from poorly cooked food and un-refrigerated meats ? Yes , on the 'net , it 's the wild , wild west , all over again .
But now problems " over there " have become problems " over here " , and suddenly , things like the sorry legal state of Nigeria and Somalia are in our face .
Will we fix it overnight ?
No , but we will fix it .
Sure , we 'll never get rid of it completely - the Mafia still exists , and gangs still thrive in areas of the mostly controlled First World .
( We can get greatly mitigate the gangs by legalizing their primary revenue stream , the drugs , but while related , that 's another post ) The thing is that by legally controlling the terms of commerce , we promote healthy commerce .
Outlawing commerce altogether has roughly the same effect of not regulating it at all - fraud and crime sets in , legitimate business moves out .
To control spam , we need to control commerce , world wide .
And that 's a big , big problem that will take at least a generation or two to handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way to stop spam is to fight it as the economic problem that it is; if people continue to go after the symptoms of spam like this they will continue to find themselves quickly thwarted.Sure.
Let's educate every farking idiot on the face of the earth.
Just like we did with consumers the world over in every single city across the fruited plain.
It's worked well for hundreds of years!
"Buyer beware" and Heaven help you if you should get defrauded...What's that you say?
We didn't do that?
Instead, we instituted "consumer protection" laws that require vendors to adhere to minimal standards of conduct and safety?
Laws that prevent manufacturers from making unsafe cars and selling poisoned food?
You mean, I can go into pretty much any restaurant and be confident that I probably won't get some terrible disease from poorly cooked food and un-refrigerated meats?Yes, on the 'net, it's the wild, wild west, all over again.
But now problems "over there" have become problems "over here", and suddenly, things like the sorry legal state of Nigeria and Somalia are in our face.
Will we fix it overnight?
No, but we will fix it.
Sure, we'll never get rid of it completely - the Mafia still exists, and gangs still thrive in areas of  the mostly controlled First World.
(We can get greatly mitigate the gangs by legalizing their primary revenue stream, the drugs, but while related, that's another post)The thing is that by legally controlling the terms of commerce, we promote healthy commerce.
Outlawing commerce altogether has roughly the same effect of not regulating it at all - fraud and crime sets in, legitimate business moves out.
To control spam, we need to control commerce, world wide.
And that's a big, big problem that will take at least a generation or two to handle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053460</id>
	<title>Mega-D 2.0</title>
	<author>tacarat</author>
	<datestamp>1257856800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Counter-attack researchers<br>
2) Analysis and evaluation<br>
3) Rebuild and redeploy<br>
4) Profit<br> <br>

Hopefully those hacked machines get addressed quickly.  While the botnet itself is down, there's probably a few ways to grab the zombies and make a new system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Counter-attack researchers 2 ) Analysis and evaluation 3 ) Rebuild and redeploy 4 ) Profit Hopefully those hacked machines get addressed quickly .
While the botnet itself is down , there 's probably a few ways to grab the zombies and make a new system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Counter-attack researchers
2) Analysis and evaluation
3) Rebuild and redeploy
4) Profit 

Hopefully those hacked machines get addressed quickly.
While the botnet itself is down, there's probably a few ways to grab the zombies and make a new system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053968</id>
	<title>Re:And meanwhile...</title>
	<author>popo</author>
	<datestamp>1257859740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How exactly does one fight the economic problem?   And does it involve giving everyone a pony?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly does one fight the economic problem ?
And does it involve giving everyone a pony ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly does one fight the economic problem?
And does it involve giving everyone a pony?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30057612</id>
	<title>Re:And meanwhile...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the "first world" is actually not the USA, because a) most spam originates from the USA and b) the USA is well known for avoiding regulations to limit enterprise in favour of citizen rights (note that I'm not using the word "consumer" to describe citizen!).</p><p>Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I'd gladly be proven wrong...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Simon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the " first world " is actually not the USA , because a ) most spam originates from the USA and b ) the USA is well known for avoiding regulations to limit enterprise in favour of citizen rights ( note that I 'm not using the word " consumer " to describe citizen !
) .Perhaps I 'm being too cynical , but I 'd gladly be proven wrong... /Simon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the "first world" is actually not the USA, because a) most spam originates from the USA and b) the USA is well known for avoiding regulations to limit enterprise in favour of citizen rights (note that I'm not using the word "consumer" to describe citizen!
).Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I'd gladly be proven wrong... /Simon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053504</id>
	<title>What OS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257856980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the Windows OS percentage of that botnet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the Windows OS percentage of that botnet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the Windows OS percentage of that botnet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053804</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1257858780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is some obscure security firm doing the job that governments should have done 10 years ago?
<br> <br>
Seriously.  Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation that rogue CnC servers and registrars are allowed to continue operations?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is some obscure security firm doing the job that governments should have done 10 years ago ?
Seriously. Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation that rogue CnC servers and registrars are allowed to continue operations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is some obscure security firm doing the job that governments should have done 10 years ago?
Seriously.  Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation that rogue CnC servers and registrars are allowed to continue operations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054116</id>
	<title>Re:Er.</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1257860460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was \_once\_ responsible for 1/3 of the spam. By the time the researchers got to it and took it out it had already dropped to only 4\% for other reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was \ _once \ _ responsible for 1/3 of the spam .
By the time the researchers got to it and took it out it had already dropped to only 4 \ % for other reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was \_once\_ responsible for 1/3 of the spam.
By the time the researchers got to it and took it out it had already dropped to only 4\% for other reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053518</id>
	<title>Re:Good!</title>
	<author>socceroos</author>
	<datestamp>1257857040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot to include your closing sarcasm tag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to include your closing sarcasm tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to include your closing sarcasm tag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053352</id>
	<title>good work</title>
	<author>HalifaxRage</author>
	<datestamp>1257856200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>now get going on the other 96\%</htmltext>
<tokenext>now get going on the other 96 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now get going on the other 96\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30055814</id>
	<title>Re:good work</title>
	<author>Verdatum</author>
	<datestamp>1257871020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I notice that the article is tagged with "vigilante". While we're at it, let's go the next step:</p><p>"What are you!?!"</p><p>"I'm Botman."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I notice that the article is tagged with " vigilante " .
While we 're at it , let 's go the next step : " What are you ! ? !
" " I 'm Botman .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I notice that the article is tagged with "vigilante".
While we're at it, let's go the next step:"What are you!?!
""I'm Botman.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053474</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30057612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30058216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30060680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30061520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30055442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30057232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30055814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30060014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30071528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30067838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30062912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_212220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30060680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30057232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30055442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30055814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053710
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056732
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30061520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056568
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30058216
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30071528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30067838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30060014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30057612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30062912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_212220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30053486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30056618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_212220.30054984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
