- Looking to Jeff Liebermann for insight - 6 Updates
- Help Silicon Rectifier - 2 Updates
- Briggs and Stratton 3.5 hp lawnmower engine problem - 2 Updates
| amdx <nojunk@knology.net>: May 30 01:00PM -0500 Ran across this on on sed, under, "OT: Weird search engine problem - fake goods hijacking" but thought you might see it here. Not my post but I find it interesting, thought you may also. Mikek I have encountered a weird search engine problem with Google, Bing and Yahoo all affected to some extent. Some search result URLs have been corrupted and hijacked to fake designer goods stores and I can't see how it has been done. I have tried from different platforms and it seems that the problem is with the indexing and content at the search engine. To see what I mean with a concrete example take a look at the top two hits for the following search terms on Google: Hermes fake cromorecastle On my system this forces two mangled websites to the top of the list. Their genuine URLs are below however Google doesn't link to them any more nor does it show the true content of their web pages. Any wizards able to explain what is going on and how to get things put right? http://www.cromorecastles.co.uk/ and http://www.shockcordstore.co.uk/ It looks like a contagion with an increasing number of sites gaining spurious fake designer brand title additions even if the URL for the moment remains unmolested. I first saw the problem on Bing this morning but careful investigation shows that it is much more widespread. The unqualified bare URL is typically the one that is hijacked but I have seen spurious titles appear in deep links too. I don't think it is my router or ISP's DNS gone haywire. I have ruled out PC malware as I see exactly the same problem from Android via another route. I have now got independent confirmation that the searches done through an entirely separate route give the same results. Thanks for any enlightenment. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: May 30 11:48AM -0700 Funny, I get none of the above. Just legitimate hits for how to spot fakes and other links containing those words. Exactly what I would expect. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: May 30 12:07PM -0700 On 2018/05/30 11:00 AM, amdx wrote: > I have now got independent confirmation that the searches done through > an entirely separate route give the same results. > Thanks for any enlightenment. Top responses for my search: -------------google response "hermes fake cromorecastle" ------------ (from the topmost down the page a ways...) Top Designer Replica Handbags UK, Cheap Fake Bags Sales For ... www.cromorecastles.co.uk/ HOW TO SPOT A FAKE HERMES BELT | Real vs Fake ... - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-qyp-jVC4I Images for Hermes fake cromorecastle More images for Hermes fake cromorecastle Multi-million-dollar counterfeit Birkin ring revealed to be run by ... www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Multi-million-dollar-counterfeit-Birkin-ring-revealed-run-He... Fake Hermès Bags: How to Spot a Real Birkin - 1stDibs How to spot a fake Hermes Birkin | Bag Bible ---------and more of the same-------- Try cleaning your browser CACHE every now and then or install an ad blocker like NoScript. Or search using the Private setting on your browser. John :-#)# |
| Terry Schwartz <tschw10117@aol.com>: May 30 12:38PM -0700 Patience.... The Oracle will respond in due time. |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: May 31 08:04AM -0700 On Wed, 30 May 2018 13:00:31 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote: Why me? >To see what I mean with a concrete example take a look at the top two >hits for the following search terms on Google: >Hermes fake cromorecastle Sorry. I was rather busy yesterday and missed the fun. It looks normal with no garbage mixed in. I also don't have time to do much digging on the topic today. So, I'll guess(tm) a little. >http://www.shockcordstore.co.uk/ >The unqualified bare URL is typically the one that is hijacked but I >have seen spurious titles appear in deep links too. Offhand, I would guess(tm) that someone hijacked the DNS record for thse sites and changed them to point to the Chinese site or sites. Google search just followed the change to the new site. The nslookup results look normal today. For example: C:\>nslookup Default Server: RT-N66U-63B8 Address: 192.168.1.1 > set type=any > cromorecastles.co.uk Server: RT-N66U-63B8 Address: 192.168.1.1 Non-authoritative answer: cromorecastles.co.uk MX preference = 20, mail exchanger = mx1.123 cromorecastles.co.uk MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = mx0.123 cromorecastles.co.uk primary name server = ns.hosteurope.com responsible mail addr = hostmaster.cromorecastles.co.uk serial = 2009042402 refresh = 86400 (1 day) retry = 3600 (1 hour) expire = 1209600 (14 days) default TTL = 14400 (4 hours) cromorecastles.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.103 cromorecastles.co.uk nameserver = ns.hosteurope.com cromorecastles.co.uk nameserver = ns2.hosteurope.com cromorecastles.co.uk nameserver = ns.hosteurope.com cromorecastles.co.uk nameserver = ns2.hosteurope.com - It looks odd as the 4 hr TTL (time to live) which - suggests that hosteurope.com is trying to flush the bogus - - Oops, something is wrong. When I point my nslookup to the - authoritative name server, I get a lookup failure: > server ns.hosteurope.com DNS request timed out. timeout was 2 seconds. DNS request timed out. timeout was 2 seconds. *** Can't find address for server ns.hosteurope.com: Timed out > server ns2.hosteurope.com DNS request timed out. timeout was 2 seconds. DNS request timed out. timeout was 2 seconds. *** Can't find address for server ns2.hosteurope.com: Timed out - They're using what seems to be a locally hosted backup - DNS server. It should be somewhere offsite. Checking... - OK, I'm wrong. The IP addresses pring returns for ns and - ns2 are quite different, and therefore probably at different - locations. Pinging ns.hosteurope.com [212.67.202.2] with 32 bytes of data Pinging ns2.hosteurope.com [62.138.132.22] with 32 bytes of data - I have no idea if the IP addresses are the correct ones. So, the servers are there, but they both don't respond to DNS requests. Well, not quite. They respond to lookup request for Google, CNN, my domain, and other sites, but not to cromorecastles.co.uk. Argh, I lied again. Looks like it's back to normal: > server ns.hosteurope.com > cromorecastles.co.uk Server: ns.hosteurope.com Address: 212.67.202.2 cromorecastles.co.uk nameserver = ns.hosteurope.com cromorecastles.co.uk nameserver = ns2.hosteurope.com cromorecastles.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.103 cromorecastles.co.uk MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = mx0.123-reg.co.uk cromorecastles.co.uk MX preference = 20, mail exchanger = mx1.123-reg.co.uk cromorecastles.co.uk primary name server = ns.hosteurope.com responsible mail addr = hostmaster.cromorecastles.co.uk serial = 2009042402 refresh = 86400 (1 day) retry = 3600 (1 hour) expire = 1209600 (14 days) default TTL = 14400 (4 hours) ns.hosteurope.com internet address = 212.67.202.2 ns2.hosteurope.com internet address = 62.138.132.22 mx0.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.150 mx0.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.152 mx0.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.151 mx0.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.153 mx0.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.154 mx0.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.61 mx1.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.150 mx1.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.152 mx1.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.151 mx1.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.153 mx1.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.154 mx1.123-reg.co.uk internet address = 94.136.40.61 So, my 3rd guess(tm) is that hosteurope.com is trying to fix some kind of problem. Time for me to run away. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: May 31 08:14AM -0700 On Thu, 31 May 2018 08:04:41 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: >On Wed, 30 May 2018 13:00:31 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote: >Why me? Argh. Looks like Skype just went down. Status shows normal: <https://support.skype.com/en/status/> but DownDetector shows growing number complaints: <http://downdetector.com/status/skype> Another typical day on the National Data Information SuperHighway and Battleground. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| bruce2bowser@gmail.com: May 31 02:38AM -0700 On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-4, John-Del wrote: > > Good Lord, what fucking rock have you been asleep under for the past > > fifty year? > Are you saying the advice to use selenium rectifiers "stinks"? Well then, are you insinuating that the advice to use silicon rectifiers "stinks"? |
| John-Del <ohger1s@gmail.com>: May 31 04:32AM -0700 > > > fifty year? > > Are you saying the advice to use selenium rectifiers "stinks"? > Well then, are you insinuating that the advice to use silicon rectifiers "stinks"? Perhaps I was just asking him to confirm or otherwise expand on his statement against using selenium in this application, or (more likely) was that I was tweaking the old guys in this forum who remember exactly what odoriferous emanations a selenium rectifier provides as evidence of it's failure.. |
| captainvideo462009@gmail.com: May 30 11:23AM -0700 > I apologize if part of this seems off topic but I thought that the electronic component of it might be on. I have this 3.5 horse engine on my old push mower. The engine is about 38 years old now but the mower is used very infrequently so the hours are not that bad. About 5 or 6 years ago I replaced the old OEM coil that used points, with a used newer electronic type that eliminates the points. The mower is on it's third carburetor, gas tank and second deck but it has always started ok. I tried to start the mower this morning and as sure as my wife said, (I hate it when she's right), "You'll never start that old thing", it wouldn't start. Long story short there is no HV spark to the plug. It seems as though the coil is bad again. I was going to hit up a few used lawnmower places to try to get a replacement coil because I have no engine numbers on my machine to look up the part but I was wondering if anyone knows if it's possible to bench test these things. Thanks for any help Lenny nope haven't gotten it working yet. Need to find a lawnmower graveyard for a coil.Lenny |
| captainvideo462009@gmail.com: May 30 12:06PM -0700 > I apologize if part of this seems off topic but I thought that the electronic component of it might be on. I have this 3.5 horse engine on my old push mower. The engine is about 38 years old now but the mower is used very infrequently so the hours are not that bad. About 5 or 6 years ago I replaced the old OEM coil that used points, with a used newer electronic type that eliminates the points. The mower is on it's third carburetor, gas tank and second deck but it has always started ok. I tried to start the mower this morning and as sure as my wife said, (I hate it when she's right), "You'll never start that old thing", it wouldn't start. Long story short there is no HV spark to the plug. It seems as though the coil is bad again. I was going to hit up a few used lawnmower places to try to get a replacement coil because I have no engine numbers on my machine to look up the part but I was wondering if anyone knows if it's possible to bench test these things. Thanks for any help Lenny nope haven't gotten it working yet. Need to find a lawnmower graveyard for a coil.Lenny |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 10 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment