barca72

Yes, a good piece. I have lost track, did we ever find out if O'Brien is to be investigated by the police or by the Catholic church in-house? I wonder if the Scottish Catholic Church, whilst it is highlightening the hate crime statistics could be so good as to tell us about the sexual predator statistics? I'm sure these would be interesting to the supports at both Ibrox and Parkhead.

Thank you Steve1872, that was almost as exciting as a big team win !!!!

How big is the crowd?

Presumably his negotiated separation package includes a non-disclosure clause, so we might never find out exactly what was involved.

That's reasonable, so that we don't fall into another SDM mess.

I thought all three did well today. I thought Gasparotto really calmed down any aerial threats when he came in. I would like to see a back line of Mitchell/Hegarty Bocanegra Gasporotto and Wallace. Stoney might need more time to develop once the tackles start pouring in.

Here's a copy of a guys blog who just happens to cover both subjects on this thread. It's a point of view I guess ... http://thedailyranger.wordpress.com/ New post on The Daily Ranger The Club’s Best Interests? by thedailyranger I always get suspicious when someone tells me they have my best interests at heart. It usually means they are doing something that I wont like. However well-meaning the individual no one should ever be allowed free rein to act however they choose "in your best interests" without being questioned. Ally McCoist & Walter Smith In a recent press conference when asked about allegations regarding Imran Ahmed's alleged comments on the Rangers Media forum Ally McCoist unequivocally denied what was written and stressed that he and Walter Smith have been acting in the best interests of the club. Manager McCoist and his predecessor Smith, now a non-executive director, were also accused of running Rangers into the ground by failing to cut back on expenditure. But, speaking at his regular Friday conference at Murray Park, McCoist said he and Smith had always acted in what they believed were the club’s best interests, and that he was unperturbed by any of the allegations. “It didn’t upset me at all, because the vast majority of people will know that they are not true,” he said. “Anything that Walter and I would do is certainly, in our opinions, for the best of the football club. We have in no way, shape or form attempted to take over the football club. I can speak for Walter because I know the man – everything we are doing is to benefit the football. But we are not trying to take it over – that’s absolute nonsense. What we are trying to do is our own wee bit to take us forward.” Asked if the club’s supporters should take comfort from the fact that there are still men with Rangers’ interests at heart in positions of some influence at the club, McCoist continued: “I would hope so. I’m a lot happier having Walter on the board. This time last year it was all very new to us, but I think it’s fair to say that the supporters have the utmost faith and trust in Walter. “We will obviously make mistakes, like anybody else would, but any that Walter and I make will be in trying to do the best for this football club. I think that message has to get out to the supporters. To reassure them. Opinion on Ally's ability to manage the team is deeply divided between those like myself who feel he's out of his depth and those who feel that as a loyal club servant he should be allowed to prove himself going forward. Walter Smith though has consistently backed Ally McCoist in his position as manager despite a season of poor football. Basic things like fitness, passing, tactics and organisation have all been missing this season but despite this Walter insists that Ally should instead be praised for his performance as manager. One has to ask is it indeed in the best interests of the club to keep a manager who's response to criticism is to bemoan a lack of resources despite having the highest wage bill in the league, full-time players and the best facilities in the country in which to train them? While I believe the sincerity of both Ally McCoist and Walter Smith I do not believe their idea of what is in the best interests of the club aligns with the actual best interests of the club. The Rangers Standard While on the subject of best interests of the club I can't fail to mention The Rangers Standard article mentioned above: Ibrox Leak? Now I am lead to believe that individuals from The Rangers Standard uncovered proof that Imran Ahmed had been posting delicate information regarding the club on the Rangers Media forum and passed that information on to the club who then conducted an internal investigation. As yet they have not explained what this proof is or how it was obtained but claim that Imran Ahmed's removal from his position at Ibrox today was a direct result of their investigation. The Rangers Standard was a site set up by Rangers supporters with some lofty aspirations as detailed in their mission statement. The question must be asked though was it in alignment with their mission statement that after obtaining proof of Imran Ahmed's indiscretions to then publish the story on their site? After this story was published on The Rangers Standard it was picked up on and regurgitated by The Daily Record and the Scotsman. Adding yet more fuel to fire surrounding turmoil at our club and further dragging it's name through the mud. If my information is correct could The Rangers Standard simply have passed this information on to the club and allowed them to deal with it internally? Was it in the best interests of the club for yet another negative story about to be splashed across the tabloids? It may well be that this story would have surfaced regardless but I can see only one party's interests being served by offering up this exclusive and that is The Rangers Standard who to date have received over 43,000 hits on that story alone. thedailyranger | April 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Categories:

I'm sorry guys. I tried twice to stay away from anything technical, but sometimes you just have to explain yourself.

Is it a fact that the IANA has set up a range of private addresses to be used inside of a private network? Is it a fact that a home router has a function called a NAT built in? Is it a fact that the router can automatically assign these addresses to each computer within the private network? Is it a fact that a router has a separate interface that connects it to the internet? Is it a fact that this address is assigned by the ISP and known as a Public IP address? Is it a fact that a private IP address is prohibited from talking directly on the internet because of packet instability? Is it a fact that any time a computer on the network side of the router wishes to speak to a computer on the internet side of the router it sends a connection message to the router ( it knows it has to send it to the router because its Default Gateway Parameter is set to the address of the router)? Is it a fact that the router takes that request ( 'SYN request' in TCP/IP) and changes the source address ( the 'reply-to' address ) from that of the private IP to that of the Public IP of the router, so that the response will be sent to the router? Is it a fact that the router remembers who initiated the message by an entry in a database, the NAT? Is it a fact that when the reply returns from the remote computer, a 'SYN-ACK', that the router looks in the NAT and sees that a connection to that host on that port was previously initiated by a private IP of the computer and forwards it within the network? Is it a fact that in this way packets can continue to transit back and forth between networks, with the router transparently changing addresses so that it works? Is it a fact that all routers have a faux-DMZ which allows you to type an IP address into your routers configuration and all incoming connections go there? Is it a fact that all network connections request a 'port' and that this port is just a number and its part of how a computer knows what the packet is? Is it a fact that IANA has specified that port 80 is to be used for HTTP? Is it a fact that an incoming packet that says port 80 must be a request for a web server? Is it a fact that port forwarding on your router allows you to enter a port number and an IP address and all incoming connections with a matching port number will be sent to the internal computer matching that address? Is it a fact that the RM server will talk to port 80 on the router and identify it with its public IP address and it cannot identify an internal computer because it has no idea of the NAT table entry? Ok, gentlemen I think the point has been made. If I am technically off by a mile and my argument is fuddled let me clear that up for you. I like you was attempting to present a 'contrived scenario' in a non-patronizing manner to any members of the forum who were reading at the time. I did take a bit of licence when I said that the trace could be taken back to Ahmad's work station, however that was for illustrative purposes only, we know that if he is inside a router that can't happen. However, I don't know for sure that Ahmad or anyone else was posting from his work station. All we had to work on was that TRS believed Ahmad to be the person posting the information. Forlanssister speculated that Ahmad had linked his @rangers account to an old email account. TRS posted the tweets coming from the @rangers address. How then could they be linked back to Ahmad? When I gave you the far fetched scenario of the Wi-Fi access by remote software I was thinking more along these lines. Suppose Ahmad has a computer at home that is paid for by Rangers. If he then has a router hard wired to his computer but also has a Wi-Fi network set up on that router then the far-fetched scenario grows legs. If he cliented the old email account and the @rangers address to the home computer there is no way anyone can trace anything to a remotely connected computer to his Wi-Fi network - remember the kernel software in the wikepedia explanation. I know this works because I have my desktop hardwired to my router and my wife's laptop and kindle accesses the internet via the Wi-Fi network which is locked. So it is then possible for Ahmad, or someone else I suppose since he's innocent until proven guilty, to connect from his work station remotely to his home computer and access port 80 on his router to talk to the RM server. All anyone would see is a non-VPN computer but with a public IP not owned by Rangers. Now can you tell me rather than speculate that this scenario wouldn't work? Now gentlemen feel as free as you like to be patronizing. Oh, and I should tell you that before I retired I was responsible for commissioning over a hundred Nortel DMS 250/300 3G Fibre Optic Long Distance network switches for the likes of A.T.&T, Sprint, PacBell and a host of other Telcos. The last one I did was the first 4G DMS 350 for A.T & T for their test labs in Burien, Washington. I believe that to be the network node most high-speed wireless devices are using today. Oh, and by the way MYWEEPALJOE, this information did not come from Wikepedia but from one of my old course notebooks. That was what took up the time in replying. Cheers.

I wonder if you could ask your infosec friends if they agree or disagree with the information in post #186. I would be interested to know if they disagree with this information.

Thank you for clarifying.

I am not aware of the Act's contents. However, here in Canada we have similar legislation so I can appreciate the consequences of contravening the Act. I think I understand how highly you and others esteem TRS & CRO etc., and hence wish to protect their stance. Either I have not been clear enough in trying to make my point or you just basically disagree with it, but I have been trying to say that unsubstantiated reporting leads to a heightened anxiety for our support and it is unnecessary. I think we have watched our club having been ripped asunder by allegations and innuendo - specifically the Big Tax Case. It is my hope that no matter from which source a report comes that it is backed up with facts. This was not meant to be an attack aimed specifically at TRS, but on this occasion I thought consistency was called for. I don't care if Ahmad stays or goes, unless of course he has committed a wrong.

Perhaps that should read could. I do not want to open a new can of worms, however, here is a description of the situation I was envisaging. Just substitute RM for Party Poker. Hence anyone doing a traceback ping from RM would see Ahmrad's IP address. The handshaking will take place from Amrad's computer and the RM server. Can a Remote Desktop be Traced to Original Computer? Basically, here is my situation: I live in England but will be spending a lot of time in the US for the next year. I play online poker on Party Poker and they will not allow Americans or anyone in America to play. I am not American, but in the US often and I want to be able to play while I am there. If they see you are from a US IP address you can't even log in. If they do NOT see because you are using some kind of remote connection or VPN ( Substitute Rangers network here ) but then it somehow falters and they see that you are in the USA, you can have your account permanently closed. So I need a way to log on to Party Poker from the USA in a way that has no risk of them seeing I am in the USA and also in a way that keeps the connection fast enough to play. It certainly isn't overly resource intensive or anything but just requires moderate speeds to work properly. What are your thoughts? Share this post on Del.icio.usTwitterShare on FacebookReddit!Google+StumbleUpon . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23rd May 2011, 10:10 PM #12 Shyster1 Lazy as the Day is Long -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join Date:Jul 2006Location:The SSR of NYCPosts:8,179Rep Power:55 Re: Can a Remote Desktop be Traced to Original Computer? Details are always helpful; thanks! The article on remote desktop software contains a short How it Works section that captures the essence of the basic functionality: When it works the controlling computer displays a copy of the image received from the controlled computer's display screen. The copy is updated on a timed interval, or when a change on screen is noticed by the remote control software. The software on the controlling computer transmits its own keyboard and mouse activity to the controlled computer, where the remote control software implements these actions. The controlled computer then behaves as if the actions were performed directly at that computer. In many cases the local display and input devices can be disabled so that the remote session cannot be viewed or interfered with. The quality, speed and functions of any remote desktop protocol are based on the system layer where the graphical desktop is redirected. Software such as PC Anywhere, VNC and others use the top software layer to extract and compress the graphic interface images for transmission. Other products such as Microsoft RDP, Graphon GO-Global and others use a kernel driver level to construct the remote desktop for transmission. Basically, the traffic from your US computer ( THE LAPTOP IN THE MADE UP SCENARIO ) to your home computer ( AHMAD'S COMPUTER) would consist of keyboard and mouse traffic from the US to home and screen images back to the US from the home computer. The traffic from your home computer to the Party Poker servers ( this would be RM SERVERS ) would literally be traffic to and from your home computer, more or less the same as if you were sitting at that computer typing on the keyboard attached to it and clicking on the mouse attached to it. If you set up that arrangement and then fire up a web browser on your home computer, then all of the traffic will be between that browser and the Party Poker ( RM ) servers. Since that browser instance will generally not be privy to the goings-on at the kernel level, it is unlikely that the browser would ever pick up any information that you've logged on remotely. To make things a little more secure, I would suggest that you create a brand-new user account on your home computer with very limited privileges/permissions - basically just enough to get onto the Party Poker servers. That should further limit the chances that some indication that you've logged in remotely might get out. You could also try some of the other remote login/admin software out there, such as logmein. I would also suggest that you avoid any unnecessary bells and whistles, such as letting the remote session have access to any local resources on your US computer, such as removable drives, the CD/DVD drive, printers, etc - just make it a stripped down remote client that does the bare minimum needed to make your home computer work remotely. I hope this reply will satisfy you and Gunslinger.

Thank you. Your opinion has been noted.

I see you posted this right after one of my posts. It is an expression that I am unfamiliar with. Could you explain it's meaning to me? Thanks.

I disagree with you that anyone who posts an opinion on these blogs is not asking me to believe them - see the bolded part in Zappa's reply. They may not have come right out and said "I want you to believe me" but the request is implied by the very fact they are posting on well respected web sites. Look at the quote from Shane on CRO's web site today "by Shane Nicholson | Executive Editor First off, the people asking for clarification on "sources" or whatever else you want in relation to The Rangers Standard's and our own reporting on Imran the other day, I don't know what to tell you beside take it at face value and move on. If you don't believe it now then you never will." Right there he is making the case for us to take his statements as truth, because as I read it between the lines, his hands are tied as to whether he can tell us more. Even you yourself, and me also I suppose, by the fact we are posting on this forum are asking ( silently ) readers to believe what we post. How else can a man expect to gain respect by his written words if the silent implication to believe what he writes is not extended to his reader? I have enjoyed the discussion, but I think we have reached the point where we should agree to disagree and move on. I shall leave you with a favourite quote - “Nobody will know you for your secret thoughts. Ask the Lord for wisdom to express them” - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

I suppose that would mean we would need to know the truthful facts right from the beginning. I only contrived this story because technically it is feasible, but without facts who can disprove it to be the nonsense it is?

The point is the IP address that is posting the information is seen to be Ahmad's work station on a trace, not the WiFi connected device. You don't have to be in the building to gain remote access. You could even be in a car. You need imagination to create a conspiracy theory.

Hold on to your blood pressure Frankie, I'm not going to ask for anything today. I've listed these replies just from page 15. It shows how things can get skewed. Zappa gently chastises Shane about 'hinting at wrongdoing without specifics', Shane replies 'his hands are tied ( paraphrasing )', Gunslinger using Forlanssister's reasoning from yesterday that Ahmad was able to post on Rm by 'linking through the email account'. However, Anchorman may have cracked the story by introducing the real culprit, ' the PA '. Frankie you want a conspiracy theory, how about this for a scenario? Let's assume a given, that Ahmad's work station is connected to the Rangers IT network, and has been before Oct 2011, when this RM account first started posting. Now the assumption is that the information came from Ahmad because it is his work station that originates the information. Okay question, is Ahmad's work station linked through a Wi-Fi router? If a person has the proper software installed they can access their workstation using a laptop or other WiFi device to enter the workstation and remotely control it as if you were sitting at the keyboard. The only thing required would be a password to enter a locked WiFi network. Now PAs you would presume, might be privy to such information as passwords. This PA would have to have been at Ibrox as far back as Oct 2011. Now suppose that PA inadvertantly let slip the password to the router and someone gained access to the information about the inner workings of the regimes at Ibrox stored on the hard drive of Ahmad's work station. What would that mean? Could we blame the PA? Could we blame Ahmad? Is it someone else we don't know that has it? Now, Frankie, it is a contrived conspiracy, but in the absence of hard facts is it any better or any worse that the hundreds of theories flying around out there? I should also say that this post does not ease the anxieties of some Rangers fans who are worried about the state of things at the club.

I would be perfectly willing to believe example 1. However, it is my contention that if there are legal reasons not to publish the source then they should not publish the story. If the board are aware of a situation developing then I think they should deal with it in-house then tell us, the fans, the result of the shit-storm later. I did not intend to dig in my heels when the discussion started but I do feel strongly that as a support we have had enough of being led up the garden path, so to speak, long enough. Every day it seems we awake to another crisis and this does not need to be so. Each one has been bebunked in turn, the BTC, the side letters, Whyte is a crook, Charlie tells porkies, etc. etc. Anyway, time to fire up the Barby. Will return later and answer any oustanding loose ends.

Amms, are you saying that you are willing to besmirch a man's character purely on someone else's word? Honestly? Are you also saying that the present board is unfit for purpose, including Walter?

Can't or won't?

I think you may have dodged the question. I am trying to fathom that if Jackson or Speirs wrote a story without naming their source(s), would you believe it as fact or would you berate them for publishing an article full of supposition and innuendo?

With respect Frankie, that's pretty weak. You know the point I am trying to make and that is dancing around the central point. If there was any evidence being shown that this was indeed Ahmad then we could weigh it in the context you are implying. Without any kind of proof we have nothing more than an unsubstantive rumour. I mean, it's like you walking in to your local bank and asking for a loan and saying to the guy 'you know me, you know I'm good for it'. I feel that there is something behind these rumours but I am trying hard not to pre-judge the outcome. Without proof that is very hard. You know this.

Then why put it in the public domain if their hands are tied. We have suffered enough rumour and innuendo, don't you think?