I’ve just come across an interesting technique for spamming, although I’m not sure if it’s new as I recall seeing something similar back in the late nineties.

Firstly for anyone who doesn’t know what “whois” is; It is a tool/protocol which allows you to find out information about for example domain names or IP addresses including who they belong to. There are multiple layers in WHOIS and the server and the one operated by Verisign’s registry service is callers ‘whois.crsnic.net’. If you have a .com or .net domain it will have such an entry which points to whichever registrar you used to register the name which in turn provides details of the domain registrant and other contacts.

The registry also stores ‘host records’ which are a specific kind of record used for nameservers. Because of how the domain name system works, if you have a domain (e.g. seb.me.uk), you need to point that domain to some nameservers that know where to direct you to if someone types www.seb.me.uk or sends an e-mail to something ending in seb.me.uk. However, you first need to find the nameserver–If this is within the same domain (e.g. ns0.seb.me.uk) then it needs a ‘host entry’ (sometimes referred to as a ‘hint’) to find the nameserver, which then will give more information about the domain.

These host records are registered at the registry by the registrars and inserted into the DNS zone files. What seems to be happening, is some companies insert host records for server names with for example “someoneelse.com.www.theircompany.com” which then comes up when you search for someoneelse.com even though this is just a host within the theircompany.com domain.

I spotted this today for bulkregister.com, promoting dndialog.com:

Server Name: BULKREGISTER.COM.RESPECTED.BY.WWW.DNDIALOG.COM
IP Address: 81.177.3.240
Registrar: MONIKER ONLINE SERVICES, INC.
Whois Server: whois.moniker.com
Referral URL: http://www.moniker.com/whois/whois.jsp

The legitimate record which is also returned, is:

Domain Name: BULKREGISTER.COM
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.enom.com
Referral URL: http://www.enom.com
Name Server: DNS1.NAME-SERVICES.COM
Name Server: DNS2.NAME-SERVICES.COM
Name Server: DNS3.NAME-SERVICES.COM
Name Server: DNS4.NAME-SERVICES.COM
Name Server: DNS5.NAME-SERVICES.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 16-feb-2007
Creation Date: 08-sep-1999
Expiration Date: 08-sep-2012

I guess preventing host parts with “com” in the middle might help (along with other TLDs although “ns” is a common suffix I suspect.

I’ve written before about security problems in online banking systems, being quite disappointed that financial institutions have been slow to step up security using even the simplest of tools, especially for personal and small business customers.

A couple of months ago, PayPal introduced security tokens in the form of RSA SecurID key fobs, quite an interesting move I expected one of the high street banks to be implementing first. I was however pleased to now see Barclays introducing a pin pad device which will generate a similar code, although this one in conjunction with a chip-and-pin card. This has the potential of being very useful if it can be shared across all cards, although personally I would much prefer a key fob, although as I have stated before, this does suffer from the problem of carrying around many of them, but to be honest I wouldn’t be carrying around a pocket calculator either.

It would be great if banks allowed customers to define their own security levels within a certain framework. For example, I would be quite happy with slightly less security for smaller transactions, and those to payees who I have paid before, and require specific chin-and-pin + pin pad authenticated transaction when making a payment which is quite large or to a new payee. However, banks usually only do something new when they are forced, rather than to try and improve their service, so I guess I’ll be waiting for several years more for this and some XML interfaces.

It’s eight months since I started SLR photography again, this time with a DSLR, a passion I’ve had since childhood. I spent quite a considerable amount of time and money on buying nice kit and I thought I’d do a round-up on my experience of the kit I’ve been using.

Canon EOS 350D Body

This is the cheapest low-end Canon SLR body which I purchased with a bundle including the BG-E3 battery grip, EF-S18-55 f3.5-5.6 II kit lens and EF55-200 f/4.5-5.6 II USM lens. I’m relatively happy with the camera after 6,000 shots which is about a 24-roll of film equivalent each day, something I clearly couldn’t afford with a conventional (non-digital) camera.

The kit lenses went out pretty much straight away. Their crafting quality was so bad I almost thought about going back to the Sony F828 point-and-shoot which is an excellent camera with 28-200mm equivalent zoom range in the built-in lens.

EF70-200 f/2.8L IS

This was the first separate lens I bought, a huge investment but definitely a worthwhile one. It’s a good telephoto lens (but you don’t need me to tell you that) and having a fast f/2.8 aperture with IS is just a killer combination for walkabouts. I’m quite comfortable walking around with just this lens in the countryside.. Here’s some recent results with it in Oxfordshire:

Photos taken on EF70-200 f/2.8L IS Lens
(click on the photos for larger view)

EF17-40 f/4L

This was the second lens I bought trying to balance the need for wide angle against my newly acquired 70-200 piece of glass. I know a lot of people praise this lens, but I am personally disappointed. Don’t get me wrong–The lens is fine, but I regret buying it because if I had the choice now, I’d buy the EF16-25 f/2.8 instead.. It was half the price which was the key reason, but it lacks the speed I need to work in darker conditions. This is the lens I use most infrequently. I will stress my photography is not that much about landscapes so the use for a wide angle is a bit more limited in portrait etc, which I prefer the 50mm prime for.

EF24-105 f/4L IS

This is the second lens I have some second thoughts on. I decided to go with this rather than the more popular EF24-70 f/2.8L for three reasons: It had a longer focal range; It was cheaper; Most importantly however, it had IS. I worked out that with IS, assuming non-moving subjects, this lens would beat the 24-70 f/2.8 in speed terms. I’m unsure as to whether I’d prefer the 24-70 but it would be nice to have some more control over depth of field at the narrow end. I can’t say however that I am disappointed with it, as it is an excellent carry-around lens.

Photos taken on EF24-105 f/4L IS Lens
(click on the photo for larger view)

EF50 f/1.4 USM

This is my first prime lens with a very fast f/1.4 aperture giving very advantageous shooting conditions in darker situations. It’s a brilliant indoor lens and very sharp. This is probably the one I most keep on my camera. It’s certainly made me a prime fan so I’ll looking at 35mm, 85mm, 135mm and maybe even long telephotos (although price becomes prohibitive on very long lenses).

Photo taken on EF50 f/1.4 Lens
(click on the photo for larger view)

Accessories

I have also purchased an EF12 extension tube which allows me to bring the focus a bit closer for macro-like photography. This is useful but no replacement to a macro lens. I also have an EF2x II extender which attached to the 70-200 lens to double the focal length. This is nice, but it has resulted in softer photos. I’m not sure if this is simply due to the time of day I’ve used it (lacking some light), the fact I’ve hand-held those shots (even with IS) or design but it’s not ideal. I think the EF1.4x extender will be on my list soon as it faster performance for the lens but gets that little bit closer. I also have the Speedlite 580EX flash.

Looking forward

I have been resisting the urge to buy more photography equipment although a new high quality tripod will no doubt be on my list relatively soon along with a second Speedlite or a transmitter which allows me to take mine off the camera and try some interesting effects.

In the long run, I look forward to higher resolutions like that offered by the Canon EOS 1Ds MkII at 16.7 megapixels, however that camera is way overpriced (at least for my hobby) and doesn’t have enough other improvements which would make me consider it. However another camera, the EOS 1D MkIII has just been released in the UK which does 10 frames per second (as opposed to 4 fps for 1Ds MkII) and costs about £3,000 (or $4,500 which is about £2,400) with new dual DIGIC III processors with images of 10.1 MP. It also has a crop factor of 1.3x which is probably a bonus for someone like me who prefers telephoto (EOS 400D with 1.6x is better from this isolated point of view of course). It’s unlikely I will go near this camera with a £3,000 price tag however for quite some time. Some friends have switched from the 350D to the 400D but aside from some aesthetic changes around the screen, it’s only slightly better at 10 MP which isn’t enough for me to justify a new one. Similarly, I feel the benefits of a 20-30D aren’t great enough.. and whilst the 5D boasts full frame 12.8 MP it’s too close to the price tag of the 1D MkIII so that’s out.

My next lens will probably be a 135mm f/2.0 prime which may even work with my extenders so could prove very useful. Longer telephotos interest me but it will probably be some years before I could consider the expenditure they would require.

A CYNICAL VIEW–The Internet is a very powerful enabler of communication and social interaction between existing and new groups of individuals. It affords niche specialities and interest groups the opportunity to interact and collaborate toward their common goals.

The “Web 2.0″ effect is all about users taking control and participating on the web, rather than just being passive readers. This is a truly empowering aspect of the Internet and should not be dismissed. However this is sometimes mistaken for democracy.

The opinion of Internet users isn’t democratic, for the users of the Internet, and more specifically any specific site, is self-selecting. On a simple level, there are accessibility issues both for those who can’t afford it, can’t have the same access to high speed services and always-on browsing, or for example those who can’t access parts of it because of a disability. Also, some people are too busy to take part in extensive web discussions and debates and as such some key stakeholders are excluded from many web interactions.

The motives of users on the internet is hard to determine. Although this isn’t exclusively an online problem, the network of trust is still developing online and it’s therefore difficult to know which reviews, opinions or ratings are more ‘useful’ than others.

Some have argued that the introduction of citizen journalism is lowering standard of reporting and thus making accurate news reporting with professional standard harder. Just because many people believe an article is good, doesn’t make it an accurate reflection of the facts. It may be possible to get a high rating for an article simply because it appeals to the populist expectations of the participating audience.

I am not in any way suggesting that the web 2.0 revolution is a backward step. It is a positive next evolution in the future of the Internet. Over time, it will improve the quality of participation and overcome many of these issues and it will be the next era of the Internet as active participation is no longer reserved to the technical elite.