Why the silence?

[motorhaven]

Originally Posted by ForceHSS

I am talking about vbulletin offical site when did I ever start talking about MacRumors as you started to say this on your first post that vbulletin.com and vbulletin.org have been hacked

You aren't paying attention to what I said. The password to Macrumors to was obtained BECAUSE VB.com was hacked. Once someone obtains access to a vb database it doesn't take much computational power to crack the passwords. MD5 password protection is weak. It's been a known weak hash method since 1996, and more weaknesses found in 2004.

[Max Taxable]

This is so laughable... If they soooo want us to believe any of this they should have been able to deface the sites in question without too much trouble.

It didn't happen.

[motorhaven]

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

This is so laughable... If they soooo want us to believe any of this they should have been able to deface the sites in question without too much trouble.

It didn't happen.

So when Macrumors announced they were hacked they were lying? Yes? No?

[Max Taxable]

Originally Posted by motorhaven

So when Macrumors announced they were hacked they were lying? Yes? No?

I am talking about vB dot org. I don't give a red rat's ass about MacRumors, or any of the rumors about it.

And by the way, it is NOT a unusual event for a site to LIE about being "hacked."

[Amaury]

Originally Posted by motorhaven

You aren't paying attention to what I said. The password to Macrumors to was obtained BECAUSE VB.com was hacked. Once someone obtains access to a vb database it doesn't take much computational power to crack the passwords. MD5 password protection is weak. It's been a known weak hash method since 1996, and more weaknesses found in 2004.

Originally Posted by motorhaven

So when Macrumors announced they were hacked they were lying? Yes? No?

See below:

Originally Posted by Paul M

You are making stuff up here.

[motorhaven]

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

I am talking about vB dot org. I don't give a red rat's ass about MacRumors, or any of the rumors about it.
And by the way, it is NOT a unusual event for a site to LIE about being "hacked."

Weren't you the one who just a few days ago lamented about how poor VB's security record has been?

[Max Taxable]

Originally Posted by motorhaven

Weren't you the one who just a few days ago lamented about how poor VB's security record has been?

That's vB 4. Not vBulletin in general.

But at least in those instances there was a shred of proof, not just dummied up screenshots from illiterate script kiddies, posted on facebook.

[motorhaven]

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

That's vB 4. Not vBulletin in general.

You're not serious, are you? Here are 50 vulnerabilities in 3.x versions, and that's just through 2007!
http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerabil...Vbulletin.html

But at least in those instances there was a shred of proof, not just dummied up screenshots from illiterate script kiddies, posted on facebook.

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/11/12/...security-leak/

[Max Taxable]

Originally Posted by motorhaven

You're not serious, are you?

Since you believe this so strongly, almost religiously and without a shred of actual proof - I am sure you bought the illiterate script kiddie's "patch" and installed it, right?

Did it occur to you the "patch" when installed, is actually the exploit? It's called "social engineering" and it's a tried and true form of "hacking."

Interesting you believe the MacRumors claim, but dismiss Paul's claim. One of them fits your paranoid rant, the other doesn't.

[Zachery]

Originally Posted by motorhaven

You're not serious, are you? Here are 50 vulnerabilities 3.x versions, and that's just through 2007!
http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerabil...Vbulletin.html

A fair few of those that I see require some level of administrator privilege... administrators are gods.