PostAlmostAnything.com RSS Feed

cPanel: Complete Backups Prevented by Default FTP Limits

PostAlmostAnything.com — Sun, 29 Jan 2023 16:20:55 -08:00

Have you ever wondered if your cPanel backup is missing anything? We sure have and recently found out that we went many months without proper backups on another server of ours because the people at cPanel added default constraints to their software which prevents FTP programs from being able to see more than 10,000 files in any folder. This is by design from cPanel, they have been aware of this problem for years, and they continue to defend the practice. As a result, we had a folder with hundreds of thousands of images which we believed to have been backed up due to us regularly logging into FileZilla and directing it to download every file in the home directory. Turns out it only downloaded the first 10,000 files per folder. We have since fixed the problem and are writing this so that you don't suffer the same fate. UPDATE: We have learned that this article is only a temporary fix. It seems cPanel will likely restore the default setting eventually. We are in the process of trying to figure out why they restore the default and how to prevent it because otherwise we will have to repeat this process whenever we want to backup a website. Why use cPanel? Because despite their flaws they really are the only way to stand a chance running a Linux server if like us you've only used Windows in the past. Unfortunately, cPanel likes to impose a lot of default constraints on your system. They typically will defend the constraints as not being adverse to most users or in some cases benefitting most users. That is case here. The people at cPanel think it is better to limit the number of files that can be read in a folder to keep the server from being slowed down by having to read all files. They think that if they automatically allowed FTP programs to list every file that it would slow servers down too much and they would get complaints from clients of theirs that provide hosting services. A Google search of this problem typically results in a mixture of users angry about their inability to download all their files and hosting providers angry about having to limit recursion to speed up performance. In the event that you find out any of your folders have more than 10,000 files in them then you have to jump through hoops just to fix the problem. This problem can only be fixed using a command line interface (CLI) which is a huge hurdle for most people new to Linux who've never needed to use a command line interface before. The CLI would not be necessary if cPanel simply added a way to change the LimitRecursion setting to the FTP Server Configuration page in WHM, but they didn't so you have to use a CLI. To make matters worse, cPanel does not display accurate numbers in File Manager when it comes to folder size. We have a folder containing about 325,000 files totaling just over 20 GB but cPanel's File Manager claims the folder is just 11.4 MB in size. If you ask cPanel why, they would probably tell you that it takes time for the system to figure out how big the folder is and that they simply programmed it to run faster by not figuring that out. Most users would be better off if they did not do that. Now you have to jump through hoops just to know how big a folder is. In fact, the best advise we can give you when it comes to finding out the real size of a folder in cPanel is to download it to a Windows machine, right click on the folder, and select properties which will show you the file size. Surely the solution to this problem on the cPanel end if one exists likely requires some other CLI action which we would have to research and implement. Way too much work for something which should just show the real size of the folder where it is listed by default. What Should You Do? Set LimitRecursion to a high number far in excess of what you suspect the largest file count in any folder on your system to be. You can do that by logging into WHM, going to the Terminal, and typing "cd /etc/" without quotes. Then type "vi pure-ftpd.conf" to open the FTP configuration file. Find the line which begins with "LimitRecursion" change to insert mode by typing "i", change 10000 to something really high (in our case we changed it to 500000), hit esc to leave insert mode, and type ":w" to save your progress. Then reboot the server to make the change take effect. What Should cPanel Do? cPanel should disable the recursion limit by default and add an option to the FTP Server Configuration page in WHM so that users can enable it if they want to. It could just be a simple binary checkbox to enable limiting combined with a text input to set the limit. Requiring hosting services to take extra steps to limit their users makes more sense than limiting all users by default just in case they're a hosting provider or someone so speed sensitive that they're willing to risk losing work just so the rest can load faster. Then nobody will get blindsided by incomplete backups limited only by settings no reasonable person would think to look for. Conclusion While most default constraints imposed by cPanel are harmless, this one is extremely dangerous. People should at least receive a notice that they won't be able to download more than 10,000 files in a folder unless they do something but they get no feedback until they go looking for files that should be backed up but were not. It is only a matter of time until someone loses a lot of files due to incomplete backups courtesy of default constraints from cPanel.
Learn more: cPanel: Complete Backups Prevented by Default FTP Limits

InternetRemovals.com - Names of Clients Exposed in Google Takedowns

FilthFinder — Fri, 15 Jul 2022 17:05:44 -07:00

We recently discovered that a company by the name of Internet Removals Pty. Ltd. has been submitting removal requests to Google under Australia's outrageous censorship laws and the names of their clients are not redacted. As a result, all any webmaster must do to find out which names have triggered removals from Google is go to the Lumen Database, search for their domain, and request full access to the content. Usually companies like Internet Removals have the presence of mind to make sure that Lumen redacts the names from the complaint. Why that does not seem to be the case with InternetRemovals.com is unclear. During our first ever Lumen Database audit, we noticed a lot of content from Canada, Australia, and the U.K. some of which is useless because too much has been redacted. However, there is plenty of content which is not redacted or only redacted somewhat and therefore useful. In this case, we learned that a company by the name of Heir Hunters has been using Internet Removals to remove Google search results linking to several websites because the name of the company and its owner Deanna Mannix are featured prominently in the complaint. The body of the complaint is clearly visible on the Lumen website and could potentially be indexed by search engines. Our discovery comes not long after Google was fined 10 million Euros by Spain for frustrating citizens' so called "right to be forgotten" by failing to redact their names from takedown requests before submitting them to Lumen for publication. Likewise, Google may have similarly violated Deanna Mannix's rights under Australian law, but we would have to do some homework to be sure. Australia is well known for being harder on speech than the EU, so it wouldn't surprise us of Mannix might have a valid claim against Google under Australian law as a result of this. Unlike us, Google has physical assets in Australia that can be seized in the event that fines or judgments are not paid. We simply have no assets that the Australian government could seize, so we don't care that most of our sites would not be legal there. It wouldn't surprise us if we're doing Mannix a favor publishing her name like this. Surely this article will give her the idea of looking into suing Google. We are frequently on the lookout for businesses trying to make it their business to make our business less valuable. When we catch such a business screwing up this badly, we do not hesitate to call them on it. If someone doesn't want us pointing out problems with their business they can choose to stop motivating us just as easily as they can choose to be less obvious with their faults. We are not in the habit of systematically smearing anyone that gets in our way, but if you do get in the way do yourself a favor and make sure you have your stuff squared away first. Finally, we will claim Fair Use in the event that Internet Removals uses any of that copyright nonsense in their complaint as part of a DMCA complaint. We have the right to present this work in full for the purpose of criticizing it.
Learn more: InternetRemovals.com - Names of Clients Exposed in Google Takedowns

People Trying to Bury Embarrassing Posts with Cam Model Protection

eXpletiveArchive — Tue, 03 May 2022 16:35:24 -07:00

These people thought it would be a good idea to hire a Dutch company called Cam Model Protection B.V. to suppress information about them from appearing in Google search results. The company seems to function by spamming Google with Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown complaints whenever they find images of their clients appearing on sites without their permission regardless of context. The context is key because it makes all the difference between fair use and copyright infringement. To their credit, it appears that most of the URLs they submit to Google are probably cases of legitimate copyright infringement claims, but the complaints sweep too broadly which is our gripe. We feel that this company is abusing the DMCA to get Google to remove pages that criticize their clients on the grounds that they include copyrighted images. As you can see by the carousel of screenshots on this page above from DMCA notices filed with Google by Cam Model Protection, most of the URLs they are complaining about appear to be adult websites hosting content originally created by their clients for commercial gain elsewhere without permission in violation of most applicable copyright laws we know of. However, you will also notice the domain name eXpletiveArchive.com among URLs listed even though eXpletive Archive is an archive of people saying specific things for which they are being criticized. For their clients to show up on eXA in the first place they typically must post something on social media containing an expletive, ethnic slur, homophobic remark, or an accusation of some kind. Any comment containing an expletive is ripe for criticism on such grounds as are comments containing ethnic slurs and homophobic remarks. The criticism being that people should post that stuff online. When a client of Cam Model Protection posts something on social media containing certain things, we have the right to criticize them for it. They cannot absolve themselves of criticism simply by pointing out that amongst the criticism is a copyrighted image they produced for their own commercial gain that we are using without their permission. They can't do that because we are clearly using it to identify the subjects of the criticism and not to profit off copyrighted works. If you appear in a newspaper and someone posts your picture from that paper for the purpose of criticizing you, the paper cannot then file a legitimate copyright complaint just because they own the rights to the image. Even if the DMCA complaints were legitimate, using Cam Model Protection would still be a bad idea because they submit the full names of their clients to Google with the DMCA complaints. The webmaster then receives a notification in webmaster tools that a page has been removed due to a DMCA complaint. That notification includes a link to the Lumen Database which includes a copy of the DMCA complaint complete with the full legal name of the client. Judging by the nature of their clients' work, we don't think having their full legal names publicly associated with their work to be something they would consider an improvement in their circumstances over seeing eXA on Google when people search for them. Cam models often operate behind a cloak of anonymity that allows them to feel comfortable performing in all kinds of ways without anyone knowing who they really are. To illustrate what we mean, check out the following examples of DMCA complaints we've received complete with the full names of the clients as provided to Google by Cam Model Protection: Name: Elaine H. McNamara Alias: CursedArachnid URL: https://expletivearchive.com/459882/spider-monarch-cursedarachnid-twitter-fuck-1/ Category: Expletives/Fuck DMCA Complaint: https://lumendatabase.org/notices/27375154 Date: April 30, 2022 Relevant Comment: "A mental mind fuck can be nice!" - @CursedArachnid on Twitter Name: Sabrina L. Olszewski Alias: Lexual__ elexus URL: https://expletivearchive.com/102705/lexual__-elexus-jionde-twitter-nigger-1/ Category: Ethnic Slurs/N-Word DMCA Complaint: https://lumendatabase.org/notices/27385238 Date: April 30, 2022 Relevant Comment: "The only thing I know about Jeffree Star is that he was screaming “niggers” at some girls in a video so I’m quite confused when I see him securing multi million dollar deals with makeup brands like Morphe. White people really get away with anything" - @Lexual__ elexus on Twitter Name: Evelyn Spillers Alias: boomshakhalaka URL: https://expletivearchive.com/197052/v-boomshakhalaka-twitter-tits-1/ Category: Expletives/Tits DMCA Complaint: https://lumendatabase.org/notices/27307368 Date: April 22, 2022 Relevant Comment: "I wonder what would happen if I told the story of how a UH professor grabbed my tits in class and got away with it after the University forced me to stay in his class for the remainder of the semester" - @boomshakhalaka on Twitter Those are just the three most recent. More will be coming soon, especially if Cam Model Protection files any more complaints. For a company that promotes privacy protection among the perks of its services they sure have a way of showing it.
Learn more: People Trying to Bury Embarrassing Posts with Cam Model Protection

Why Censoring Alleged Defamation is Bad for Google

PostAlmostAnything.com — Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:17:29 -07:00

Censoring alleged defamation will always be bad for Google because it runs contrary to the company's mission, increases costs, and drives customers to Bing. Google's mission "is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Google cannot accomplish that mission if it only organizes and makes available the world's information that cannot be called defamatory. Every effort that Google has made to censor itself unnecessarily in recent years has increased expenses and driven away customers in ways that should outrage shareholders. Why Serving Defamation Satisfies Google's Mission Objective It is impossible to accomplish a mission such as Google's while at the same time censoring anything accused of being defamatory. People often wonder why Google would continue to host defamatory information. Often such people assume that just because they know something to be defamatory and they have informed Google of that fact that Google knows the information to be defamatory. That simply is not true. All Google knows at that point is that their bot found something online and someone has accused that content of being defamatory. They do not know for a fact that it is. Until they know for sure that something is not true then their users are not best served by removing it. Quite the opposite in fact. When a user searches Google for information about a person or a business they want to see everything that could be true. They want to see things like negative business reviews (https://postalmostanything.com/rantrave/business), cheater reports (https://foulspeakers.com/cheating/), STD registries (https://stdcarriers.com), and police informant databases (https://copblaster.com/snitches/). They want to see if businesses have been accused of scamming people, they want to see if a potential sexual partner has been accused of having STDs or being unfaithful, and they want to see if a potential partner in crime has been accused of cooperating with law enforcement. Google cannot fulfill its goal of matching search engine results with the intent of the user if they refuse to serve anything that could be defamatory. There is an argument that Google does not best serve searchers by displaying information that is false, but that argument fails to account for the overall intent of the searcher. Searchers typically want to see information that is allegedly or even likely false. That is why the Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trust (EAT) algorithm often ranks negative information from unreliable sources much lower than quality content from reputable places. EAT determines that negative user generated content (UGC) lacks authoritativeness and trust, so even though the author might be an expert on their subject to the extent that an ex-wife thinks she knows her ex-husband, their work will never rank as well as positive information from more reputable sources. That is why our typical reputation management clients are provided with personalized guides to help them create their own positive results using more reputable sources. Sources capable of outranking negative results. Negative information will never be entirely irrelevant to a query because even lies indicate a truth. That truth being that the subject has conflict in their life. Google users want to see evidence of such things, but such things are typically less relevant than more reliable information. It is therefore in Google's best interest to include everything that can be accused of being defamatory despite how unreliable the source may be, but it is also in their best interest to rank that content lower. Why Shareholders Should be Outraged Despite it being in Google's best interest to index allegedly defamatory content, Google itself has been making some exceptions in recent years that have sure damaged their business. Some types of posts are being removed even though Google is under no legal obligation to remove them and they are the types of posts Google users want to see. This should outrage shareholders for two reasons: 1) Driving Users to Bing - If users are not confident that the results of their Google searches include what they are looking for they will turn to the next major search engine. People are already turning to Bing when researching individuals because they know that they are more likely to find more information on Bing. If Google were to further limit the content of their search results to only positive things they would soon see a large exodus of users dissatisfied with Google SERPs. 2) Expenses - Hiring more employees for the sole purpose of completing unnecessary tasks is always bad for business. Despite this Google has already wasted money conducting some types of unnecessary removals. Why this has not led to a backlash among shareholders is most likely due to it not leading to significant losses and the fact that Google stock is higher than it has ever been. That success is not due in part to removals, but thanks to other successes that make shareholders really happy to the point that they would never consider selling their stock just because it could be slightly more valuable. Still, Google can only afford to hire so many people to devalue their search engine until such policies would be reflected in the stock price and lead to a backlash. The only situation in which it is good for business to censor content is when it could suffer some type of penalty for not doing so. That penalty can be in the form of fines, lawsuits, and bad branding or boycotts. Google already must remove content that is illegal because the government would fine them otherwise. They must remove content that could get them successfully sued because in some jurisdictions they are liable. They could also face the potential of a decrease in sales due to bad branding or a consumer boycott. Those things could make censorship good for business, but are not likely to happen. The only governments that can impose fines for hosting defamatory content are in countries without the types of free speech protection that Americans enjoy and the same is true for countries in which you can successfully sue someone for accurately quoting someone else's defamatory statement. In order for bad branding to have an impact it would have to lead to a sufficient amount of people refusing to use Google products outright just because they want Google to be kind. Absent any of those things Google shareholders should be outraged to hear that the company is devaluing its services and increasing costs unnecessarily. Conclusion Google can only sabotage themselves so much without their stock dropping. If Google were to remove anything that could be defamatory they would drive users to Bing, increase their costs, and ultimately cost their shareholders dearly.
Learn more: Why Censoring Alleged Defamation is Bad for Google

LowDown.News Post Removal Ripoff

PostAlmostAnything.com — Fri, 09 Apr 2021 17:24:33 -07:00

We recently received an application for Post Almost Anything Reputation Improvement Services (PAARIS) from someone whose information was listed on our Foul Speakers search engine (https://foulspeakers.com) as well as a website we do not own. As part of the screening process we though the potential client might be better served via one of the third party reputation management companies that Foul Speakers works with from time to time. Such companies have arrangements with multiple sites including Foul Speakers and a lot of the sites that the Foul Speakers bot crawls. Since we have a special arrangement with reputation management companies in which customers seeking just removals from Foul Speakers should be able to get that done for less that a PAARIS Package we hoped that they might be able to remove both posts for less than the price of PAARIS. We offer those companies less because those removals do not include any additional services and such companies often provide services for creating positive articles about people, but we are not sure if their service charges are more. We thought the potential client might be able to save money if they used the third party service to remove posts from both sites. We were wrong because according to our reputation management partner they were quoted a price of $2,500 by the organization that runs LowDown.News. At that price we were forced to recommend that the potential client use PAARIS Silver (https://postalmostanything.com/paaris/silver) to remove the content on Foul Speakers. Our recommendation was based on the fact that at the time PAARIS Silver was on sale for just $249.99 and even if it were not on sale the full retail price of $499.99 is still far less than the outrageous amount charged by LowDown.News. If one must choose between removing content from Foul Speakers and removing it from LowDown.News they save $2,000 by choosing PAARIS Silver as a their Foul Speakers removal option. That price difference is enough that most people would not consider removing a post from LowDown.News at all. It also appears that Foul Speakers outranks LowDown.News on search engines most of the time, so it makes far more sense to get rid of the higher ranking result. LowDown.News also does not appear to offer any services in addition to removing the post like PAARIS does. All PAARIS Packages include the features of PAARIS Bronze (https://postalmostanything.com/paaris/bronze) with includes an in depth Damage Assessment and most importantly a Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan is an in depth guide catered to each customer in which we tell them what we would do to keep sites like LowDown.News from holding prominent search engine rankings for their names. We tell customers how to optimize their current online assets and how to acquire new assets so that negative results are pushed down. In time a PAARIS client should see their top results dominated by positive assets that they themselves control. Most PAARIS clients have few online assets which is why sites like LowDown.News are able to dominate their search results, but those clients also do not know what they need to do to dominate the results themselves. Their personalized Recovery Plan tells them how anyone with no web development skills whatsoever can create a fleet of online assets optimized to make themselves look good. When we first launched PAARIS we knew that we would need to set the price high to lower demand while we worked on other things. We also realized that we have marketable skills that a lot of people do not have when it comes to search engine optimization (SEO). We felt that if we were to charge the fees we do that we owed it to the customer to do some real work. Real work that anyone would benefit from whether or not what drove them to us was a negative article on a site of ours. That is what PAARIS Bronze is. It is a reputation management service for anyone regardless of where negative content about them is found. Unfortunately, a lot of potential PAARIS clients do not seem to take the time to notice that and probably think this Recovery Plan is nothing more than giving them a list of negative articles and telling them to get rid of them, but that is just the Damage Assessment. In many cases PAARIS clients no longer have any negative search results by the time they receive their Recovery Plan. At that point the plan is more of a prophylactic guide so that the next time a negative article pops up they will already hold the high ground on Google and can rebut the article from a position of strength.
Learn more: LowDown.News Post Removal Ripoff

Why do so many crazy people use Post Almost Anything?

CrazyUserReview — Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:11:54 -08:00

Why is it that the Post Almost Anything user base appears full of crazy people? Just one glance at the Rants and Raves section reveals the work of pissed off people that can't spell or just don't take the time to proof read their work. Their work is often full of wild accusations include poorly edited pictures of those that displease them. As an neutral third party I am often not in a position to judge the veracity of their statements, but I also know the signs of a disorganized crazy thinker when I see them. I will be browsing this site from time to time looking for the work of crazy users and calling it out.
Learn more: Why do so many crazy people use Post Almost Anything?

Why was towlie2110 lol Kicked Off of YouTube?

CopBlaster.com — Mon, 09 Nov 2020 22:04:04 -08:00

The YouTube channel responsible for the best analysis of the Kenosha Shooting has been shut down. We would like to know why? The channel was under the username towlie2110 lol. We known very little about Mr. towlie2110 lol except that he had about 26,000 followers and most of his work involved analyzing videos the way he did with the Kenosha Shooting. His analysis of the Kenosha shooting is highly offensive for many because it supports the position that Kyle Rittenhouse was defending himself. Is that why he was kicked off YouTube? We think it probably had something to do with it. We were subscribers to his channel and watched it sometimes. He seemed more right wing than left and that leads us to believe that he was probably targeted by a mob of left wing users spamming YouTube with abuse complaints.
Learn more: Why was towlie2110 lol Kicked Off of YouTube?

Thanks for the Spam STDCarriers.com

FundsBeneficiary — Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:30:47 -07:00

Thanks for spamming my inbox with scams claiming to be from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I am not a funds beneficiary so I don't want to see another message that says "Attention Funds Beneficiary" ever again. If anyone gets the same email beware that it is a scam. Don't respond or give them any of your info.
Learn more: Thanks for the Spam STDCarriers.com

hMailServer Users Be Careful to Check That Box

NoLimitList.com — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 21:25:44 -07:00

If you use hMailServer and are a novice be careful to check that box that says require smtp authentication for local to external messages. You can find this box in the ip ranges section of hMailServer Administrator. I learned this lesson the hard way when a spoofer sent tens of thousands of spam emails through my server. I never much even looked at that little box before. But if you do not check it an email can go to the server that looks like it is from you and it will send it out to whoever you address it to. It shocks me that it would even be an option not to have that enabled.
Learn more: hMailServer Users Be Careful to Check That Box

Ever Notice How Comments About Owner Don't Show Up

HowWasJail — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:26:13 -07:00

Have you ever noticed how posting comments about the owner of STDCarriers.com dont show up on the home page like all the others. look at this screen shot. i posted a comment asking how was jail? and even though it is the only comment anyone has posted besides him since he got out the most recent comment on the home page under latest comments says something he wrote about vernon maxwell. the owner is someone whose name is flagged as a dirty word by this supposedly censorship free website. i tried to post it with a link and even the link got replaced with "bad word" BULLSHITTTTT!!!!
Learn more: Ever Notice How Comments About Owner Don't Show Up

Linux VPS with Less Than 1GB of RAM Can't Use cPanel

NoLimitList.com — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:01:41 -07:00

If you plan on using cPanel watch out for any Linux VPS hosting packages that do not come with at least 1GB of RAM. I learned this lesson the hard way when I bought OpenVZ VPS Plan A from Koddos.Net and ordered cPanel for an additional $22. Not only did this not come with cPanel installed but when I tried to install it via control panel in the client area it did not work. After opening a support ticket I got this answer: "Hello, auto-install of cPanel did not work due to: 2019-09-08 18:37:04 622 19640 (ERROR): cPanel, L.L.C. requires a minimum of 768 MB of RAM for your operating system. 2019-09-08 18:37:04 623 19640 (FATAL): Increase the server's total amount of RAM, and then reinstall cPanel & WHM. Please check this page: https://documentation.cpanel.net/display/68Docs/Installation+Guide+-+System+Requirements" As a result I bought another 1GB of RAM for $18 a month and I was up to about $50 a month in fees. Had I just bought Plan B I would have gotten the RAM I needed with hosting for $17.99 and my total with cPanel would have been about $40. So, if you want to give them a shot you must purchase at least Plan B. This comes to my gripe that if cPanel needs more than Plan A offers then they should not offer to sell cPanel to people purchasing Plan A. The main reason I quit using Koddos was not due to this memory issue. It was poor support of cPanel, I will admit that my lack of experience in Linux environments also played a large role here. If I were more experienced I may have been able to install cPanel via SSH after adding the new RAM without reinstalling the OS. After four days I still could not use the VPS because despite purchasing new RAM and re-installing the operating system I could not install cPanel. I thought when I ordered it that it came with cPanel but Koddos says I just paid for a cPanel license. After the operating system was re-installed I could not login to the root using my old password or after changing the root password in the Koddos control panel. I also could not install cPanel using the Koddos control panel because even though it appears to have a one click install, that one click did not work. Out of time I cancelled and signed up with a new host. Only after I cancelled did they offer to set all this up themselves.
Learn more: Linux VPS with Less Than 1GB of RAM Can't Use cPanel

"Save Yourself" Under New Name as "Recorded You"

NoLimitList.com — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 20:05:26 -07:00

"Save Yourself" changed their name to "Recorded You" and sent me a ransom demand with an outdated password claiming to have used it to hack a webcam that I have never owned and to have used it to record me "satisfying" myself. The email came from IP address 154.127.249.141 and the ISP is TVCaboAngola. The "Save Yourself" emails I have also been getting come from China, but they are not fooling anyone. I posted the message with more details on the website that I am linking to with this report. Visit it to learn more.
Learn more: "Save Yourself" Under New Name as "Recorded You"