I received a warning from Google ......

[~BD~]

Peter Foldes wrote:
> BD
>
> Mark will never let you post there on his site so do not even keep on
> trying.

You know this - *how*?

> You know the story Burn me once ,Shame on me. Burn me twice ,you are
> gone. And you keep showing the same continuously to this day with the
> exception of scorched - earth. It will not be long there either..

You English is terrible. I have no idea what you mean. You are making a
fool of yourself, Peter Foldes.

Btw, why do you say everyone lies to me ..... here:-

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi...a.aioe.org%3E+

> Banned by Ahuma,Annex,Doganet, 6 other servers. And you do not know why?
> LOL. You are a Troll and a complete idiot

I was particularly interested in the server statistics of
www.dogagent.com - principally because the administrator of same was
(is?) the same 'Li' (Troll Lady) who administers the groups at Annexcafe
(and who monitors what goes on at SE!). Oh yes! - also because most of
time the prime user of the Dogagent server has been ....... CoyoteV!
(Mark B. Hoover).

I find that ..... odd!

Doubly interesting that Mark cares not one jot about his group member,
Roy C, posting a link which invoked the Google 'warning' - something
just doesn't quite ring true!

[~BD~]

~BD~ Edits!

Ooops!

*Your* English is terrible!

[FromTheRafters]

"~BD~" <BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WeidnQxlHuhbCsDRnZ2dnUVZ8tGdnZ2d@bt.com...

[...]

> You know far more about computing than I ever will. If you experiment
> with Google Chrome you will note that if you change *133* to 132 or
> 134 there is *no* similar warning. It relates simply to the thread
> started by Roy C.
>
> Perhaps this matter is of little significance but I'd be interested in
> your view.

Perhaps not the post, but something *in* the post warrants an alert.
Some anti-badstuff programs not only scan for malware, but follow found
links to *other* locations and search them too. A posted URL to a photo
hosting site that is "infected" with an iframe to a known malware server
site might get investigated by antimalware/safe surf type programs.

Do you recall the "price of rice in china" post I made a while back? It
turned out that I posted a URL that was currently (or at one time)
leading to malware, a safe surfing browser feature finding that post on
a web based NNTP gateway could make one believe the gateway itself was
infected because the safe browsing feature followed links posted there
to exploits with no teeth.

[Ant]

"~BD~" wrote:

> I was using Safari and got a warning when I visited a URL

- - -
$> wget -s h**p://uncoached.com/

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:58:03 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.16 (CentOS)
Last-Modified: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:29:02 GMT
ETag: "f70c8-63-48d1535b92b80"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 99
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

The site is currently down for maitenance. It will be back up shortly. Thank you for your patience
- - -

Nothing to warn about there. Perhaps they were compromised and are
cleaning up.

[~BD~]

Ant wrote:
> "~BD~" wrote:
>
>> I was using Safari and got a warning when I visited a URL
>
> - - -
> $> wget -s h**p://uncoached.com/
>
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:58:03 GMT
> Server: Apache/2.2.16 (CentOS)
> Last-Modified: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:29:02 GMT
> ETag: "f70c8-63-48d1535b92b80"
> Accept-Ranges: bytes
> Content-Length: 99
> Connection: close
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
>
> The site is currently down for maitenance. It will be back up shortly. Thank you for your patience
> - - -
>
> Nothing to warn about there. Perhaps they were compromised and are
> cleaning up.
>
>

*Now* you may enjoy the photographs of the luxury yacht!

http://www.uncoached.com/2010/04/06/luxury-yacht/

Fancy a cruise? ;-)

[~BD~]

~BD~ wrote:

> *Now* you may enjoy the photographs of the luxury yacht!
>
> http://www.uncoached.com/2010/04/06/luxury-yacht/
>
> Fancy a cruise? ;-)

Moving on ..........

At that link, there is an advertisement for working at home which I
followed. I then elected to proceed to
http://myincomeconnection.com/landing-bcv195/ and completed false detail
so that I could watch the video presentation.

I was then asked to complete detailed information on this 'secure' site:-

https://myincomeconnection.com/promo...ntractor_id=1&

OR

http://preview.************/2us8mbl

I've always been led to believe that 'https' (padlocked) sites are safe
to use, but on this occasion I received yet another warning (from the
Browser, I think - Sea Monkey) which said ........

http://i37.tinypic.com/1z2zof5.jpg

I'm simply wondering if there's something not quite bonio fido about
what's going on here.

Thoughts welcomed from the gurus (and others!)

--
Dave - *I* have elected to share this with my pals on scorched-earth!

[Ant]

"~BD~" wrote:

> At that link, there is an advertisement for working at home which I
> followed. I then elected to proceed to
> http://myincomeconnection.com/landing-bcv195/ and completed false detail
> so that I could watch the video presentation.

Why? Don't you know that "work at home" schemes are ripoffs/scams?

> I was then asked to complete detailed information on this 'secure' site:-
>
> https://myincomeconnection.com/promobcv195/?[...]
> OR
> http://preview.************/2us8mbl
>
> I've always been led to believe that 'https' (padlocked) sites are safe
> to use,

It just means that traffic between you and the site is encrypted but
says nothing about the goodness or badness of the site.

> but on this occasion I received yet another warning (from the
> Browser, I think - Sea Monkey) which said ........

"You have requested an encrypted page that contains some unencrypted
info...".

That's true because the video link there is hosted on screencast.com
which is fetched by http rather than https.

[~BD~]

Ant wrote:
> "~BD~" wrote:
>
>> At that link, there is an advertisement for working at home which I
>> followed. I then elected to proceed to
>> http://myincomeconnection.com/landing-bcv195/ and completed false detail
>> so that I could watch the video presentation.
>
> Why? Don't you know that "work at home" schemes are ripoffs/scams?

It was just for general interest because I *had* heard that such schemes
are ripoffs/scams! I wanted to see for myself.

>> I was then asked to complete detailed information on this 'secure' site:-
>>
>> https://myincomeconnection.com/promobcv195/?[...]
>> OR
>> http://preview.************/2us8mbl
>>
>> I've always been led to believe that 'https' (padlocked) sites are safe
>> to use,
>
> It just means that traffic between you and the site is encrypted but
> says nothing about the goodness or badness of the site.

That I /do/ understand! I'm also aware that a key-logger can detect and
store what is being typed on a keyboard *before* such encryption takes
place. That little voice inside my head suggests that if there is a
padlock, the actual site will have been checked more thoroughly - social
engineering, eh?!!!

>> but on this occasion I received yet another warning (from the
>> Browser, I think - Sea Monkey) which said ........
>
> "You have requested an encrypted page that contains some unencrypted
> info...".
>
> That's true because the video link there is hosted on screencast.com
> which is fetched by http rather than https.

Thank you for explaining that. My real concern was that, perhaps,
personal details, including credit card number, might be accessible by
third parties.

Btw, if you had physical access to a Windows machine, is there a simple
check you could carry out to quickly determine if the machine had,
indeed, been compromised? (other than scanning with anti-malware
programmes).

--
Dave - I've learned so much, yet know so little! ;-)

[Peter Foldes]

Don't feed the Trolls especially this Troll

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Ant" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:h9qdnS-erdygevzRnZ2dnUVZ8nmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "~BD~" wrote:

[Caravaggio]

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:04:18 +0100, ~BD~
<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>I was using Safari and got a warning when I visited a URL.
>
>I tried with Chrome and got a similar warning, viz:-
>
>http://i36.tinypic.com/347wjld.jpg
>
>Just wondering if anyone else has experienced anything untoward at
>xxx.uncoached.com ?
>
>Here is some extra info provided by Google:
>
>http://google.com/safebrowsing/diagn...d.com&hl=en-us


FYI:

www.facebook.com/uncoached
" Uncoached: We just want to let you guys know the site is down and
being transferred to a new server. Sorry for the inconvenience. We
should be up Mon or Tues of next week. "
" Friday [06 August] at 5:18pm "

The "temporary" page is the only page presently at two uncoached
sites. A "cleanup" by choopa apparently involves replacing its
customer's servers.

http://uncoached.com/

http://unrealitymag.com/
[Identical "site down" page as appears at uncoached.com]

http://unathleticmag.com/
[apparently already installed on new server and back in service]

http://unathleticmag.com/
<div id="lijit_region_56827"></div>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.lijit.com/delivery/fp?u=uncoached&z=56827&n=1"></script>
"This web site does not supply ownership information." but the web
page supplies "research" information to "uncoached".

lijit advises:
[ http://www.lijit.com/ Lijit does site search, only better. ]
[Lijit is 11,877 publishers in 25 topical networks generating
7,858,644,427 page views since Jan 1, 2008 and we're not stopping
there.]

<script src="http://network.yardbarker.com/network/ybn_pixel/7831"
type="text/javascript"></script> <noscript></noscript>
[yardbarker.com advises they are affiliated with foxsports.com on msn]


Reported Attack Paqe!
This web page at uncoached.com has been reported as an attack page and
has been blocked based on your security preferences.
Attack pages try to install programs that steal private information,
use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.
Some attack pages intentionally distribute harmful software, but many
are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.

"This site may harm your computer.4 Jan 2010", and it took them seven
months to discover they had a problem?
Note: "maintenance" mispelling, lacking period at end.
The site is currently down for maitenance. It will be back up shortly.
Thank you for your patience


66.55.128.34 tge2-4-cr2. ewr 2. choopa.net
66.55.138.35 66 55 138 35 choopa.net

Domain Name: UNCOACHED.COM
Name Server: NS1.CHOOPA.COM
Name Server: NS2.CHOOPA.COM

213.248.94.162 choopa-ic-137616-nyk-b6 c telia.net
Name Server: DNS1.TELIA.COM
Name Server: DNS2.TELIA.COM
Name Server: NS04.SAVVIS.NET

Telia is the world's largest IP, i.e., Internet Provider.
IP's sell to the ISP's who re-sell to the consumers.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uncoached.com
Alexa's web page contains a clear click to
"http: //yads.zedo.com/ads3/a ?"

Alexa, OMG, advises:
Uncoached.com is ranked #11,962 in the world according to the
three-month Alexa traffic rankings. The fraction of visits to it
referred by search engines is roughly 17%, and visitors to the site
view an average of 2.5 unique pages per day. Uncoached.com has a
bounce rate of approximately 61% (i.e., 61% of visits consist of only
one pageview). It has attained a traffic rank of 4,220 among users in
the US, where approximately 49% of its audience is located.


HTH

Caravaggio




www.uncoached.com is powered by nginx and has 2 DNS entries.

Whois for www.uncoached.com available at
https://dns.l4x.org/www.uncoached.com