Ibanez JEM Forum banner

IBANEZ 2013 (who has the inside scoop)

174K views 990 replies 118 participants last post by  MatiasTolkki 
#1 ·
IBANEZ 2013 (who has the inside scoop)! What will be new,,what to be expected for us ibanez fans who just cant wait. :p anyone know post here :D
 
#39 ·
You can give all the examples you want and try to claim it normal internet behavior, and somehow that makes it right, and no matter how much you try it will Never be right. It's wrong, period. Just the fact you're not in an open folder and have to experiment changing file names makes it hacking. You don't have permission to be in the folder or you'd be in an open folder, like this

http://www.ibanezrules.com/images/used_index/

If you have to change file names to find something you're in a folder like this

http://www.ibanezrules.com/images/new/

And evidently you just refuse to understand there's a difference, and claim it's normal internet behavior to not only find the file, but then make it PUBLIC!! :roll:

And for the record they never changed the file name of RG2, they wrote to Glen and had it pulled from the site, because NObody had permission to post it.
 
#41 · (Edited)
No problem, we can use your own website as an example.

Following your used_index folder, I find this pic:

http://www.ibanezrules.com/images/used_index/dna44/IMG_3667.JPG

I see that and think to myself "wow, that's a cool case! I wonder if he has any more pictures of it."

So I change the 3667 to a 3668, and lo and behold:

http://www.ibanezrules.com/images/used_index/dna44/IMG_3668.JPG

Another pic of that case!

No hacking involved.

Now, your "New" directory:

http://www.ibanezrules.com/images/new/

You're right, there's no public access to that one.

If I google it I can find folders in that directory, such as this one:

http://www.ibanezrules.com/images/new/rg3620z/rg3620zabb/

Within that folder (public), I see this beautiful blue guitar:

http://www.ibanezrules.com/images/new/rg3620z/rg3620zabb/IMG_4558.JPG

I wonder if you have any more?

I change the 4558 to a 4559.

http://www.ibanezrules.com/images/new/rg3620z/rg3620zabb/IMG_4559.JPG

Another pic!

No hacking required. No password cracking, no username stealing, no changing permissions, no doing anything except what I described before, which is finding a public picture and incrementing the file names eg. not hacking.

If you didn't want people seeing those pics you would a) make those folders private or b) not host them online.

Ibanez's website for the RG1XXV is http://www.ibanez.com/ElectricGuitars/model-RG1XXV

If someone changes that to http://www.ibanez.com/ElectricGuitars/model-RG2XXV and finds something there, that's not hacking. That's using logic to try and find more information about something based on conventional URL naming protocols. This is first year high school website design class stuff. I mean, where else would you look? Maybe you've heard about the RG2XXV but don't know anything about it and want to see if Ibanez has anything about it on their site. Oh look, they do! How is a random user supposed to know that Ibanez doesn't want them going to that publicly available webpage prior to a certain date?
 
#42 ·
It's an open folder, you could just open the whole sub-folder :roll:

Evidently you don't understand there's a broad definition of HACKIMG

■intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--

And by that definition if you're poking around in a folder without permission [otherwise it would be a OPEN folder], changing file name to find what is still PRIVATE, you are hacking.

And let's not forget the RG3 you had to "discover" the different color codes by trial and error to find those pictures. Don't even try and convince me there was anything right about that, but then again, you want to screw around in privacy and hack, that's one thing, but when you make it PUBLIC there is nothing more wrong. If it was in Microsoft.com you'd probably find yourself facing criminal charges.
 
#43 ·
Well dude I didn't uncover the pics. In fact, they had already been removed from the other forum when I first heard about the whole thing.

■intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
Poking around in a public folder is perfectly legal. Public folders are by definition authorizing the entire world to view them.

I didn't "screw around in privacy" and I didn't "hack."

Sorry to rustle your jimmies with this whole thing.
 
#44 ·
#45 ·
omg dude, if it's private, you wouldn't be able to view it even if you guessed the filename correctly.

Porn sites do this ALL THE TIME. You need the right credentials to view the images, otherwise you get an error message. All the "experimenting" and guessing filenames in the world won't get you access.
 
#47 ·
Why are you changing the subject?

I, like every other guy in the world with internet access, have looked at porn sites.

SHOCKING.

Besides, it's just basic permission stuff. Porn sites were the simplest example.

If Ibanez didn't want people to see images, they shouldn't have put them in public folders, or they should have used scrambled names like "lsjelkj5lskj5lskej5lksje5lkjse5lksje5lk.jpg" (although that's not really search engine friendly, but they could've changed them when the products were released) and then blocked search engine access with robots.txt, or, *gasp*, they could've not uploaded them until they were ready for them to be seen. Or just left them on a test server and copied them over when they were ready.

I wasn't part of the whole thing and I don't care, but from what I've heard, Ibanez wasn't doing anything to keep them private, so it's hard to blame anyone for changing a 1 to a 2 and looking for files that exist in a public folder.

(unless there was some actual hacking that occurred that I don't know about, but from what I heard, it doesn't sound like there was)

Once again, guessing filenames in a public folder is not hacking. Nor is it illegal. Nor is it even ethically unsound.

Ibanez, a multimillion dollar company, should be able to hire a web guy who can keep stuff from being seen before they want it to.
 
#48 ·
So of course if they don't follow the "best" porocedures and pics get found, it's OK for anybody to make them public?

Very questionable moral character.

I know zip about "best" web security, and maybe, just maybe they do things the way they do because that's the way they do it. However they conduct their website, it gives nobody the right to make anything they might find public, ever.

I wasn't changing the subject, I'm fed up with the argument.
 
#49 ·
Was it morally questionable to share the pics on a public forum? Possibly.

Did Ibanez have anything publicly that said "these pics are private" or "don't share these" or anything like that?

If I find something in a public folder, I would assume it's ok to share because it's in a public folder.

So if someone hacked into a restricted folder with hacked credentials and got the pics, then yes, I agree with you that a) it was hacking and b) it was wrong.

If someone found them in a public folder by changing file names through likely possibilities, then not only is that not hacking, but it's also not wrong, because it was a public folder.
 
#50 ·
There is no "possibly", and it was CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD they were not releasing the other models until they decided to, so it wasn't a question of if they wanted them released, you know they didn't, everybody knew they didn't. This goes for anything past, present or future. If it's not IN the public because it's shown on one of their websites, then obviously they don't want it to be shown anywhere else. It's the simplest of principles, too bad it just seems so complex nobody can understand it.........

I'll stick with my definition of hacking, because I really don't care what yours is.

And I still assert if that was a microsoft program you'd find yourself with a new pair of bracelets and bright orange jumpsuit. Although there is no doubt it would have been secured much better, the end result is no different, it was private for a reason.
 
#51 ·
just my 2 cents: people who shared the big "discovery" last year were wrong...AND ibanez, who did not place those images where they should have been, was wrong too. Sorry rich, i'm an IT guy, and dunno why (since last year, when rgxxs leaked) you're still making such a fuss over this matter...e.g: you leave your shop's door open while out and come back with some of your goods stolen: you should blame both you and the thieves, and, since you have no control over rotten people, the biggest fault is yours.

i apologize 4 my cryptic eng (im ita), hope you got my point.
 
#52 ·
I get your point, I get it it's not the safest way to control their web material, I get the point it's "normal internet behavior" to go snooping where you don't belong. And at least YOU get there's nothing "right" about making something "private", public. But when a statement like

If anything, it was Ibanez's fault for putting things online before they were to be released.

makes Ibanez the bad guy for not protecting something as good as they could, and when the bottom line is an easy call of right or wrong and "it's typical internet behavior, it doesn't matter if it's wrong" is the main argument, don't wonder why I'm still arguing.

I don't know crap about IT, and most probably the guys running the IT department at Ibanez are thinking far more about how they can make everything work so that 52 distributors, all speaking different languages , and all their representatives have easy access to the information they need, than thinking about how somebody else is not only going to look for it, but screw up your whole plans when they find it. That must be the most criminal of behaviour in this whole thing, not the ones snooping and making public, it must be Ibanez because it was possible to find it. Sorry, they definitely share some responsibility in it getting out, but the questionable morality is the real problem.
 
#55 ·
And if the thing taken was in a public folder, then you had permission to view it by definition of public folder.

If someone walks into your shop and steals something cuz you left the door open, that's theft.

If someone views an image in a public folder, that's called using the internet and not breaking any laws or rules.

The only thing that was morally ambiguous was sharing the files with others *if* the offenders knew Ibanez didn't want them shared, although those files, if in a public folder, were already shared with everyone anyway by definition of public folder.

Putting files in a public folder is like making books available for check out from a library. You can't complain if someone looks at them.
 
#57 ·
If somebvody steals a lawn ornament out of your front yard it's stealing. It doesn't matter if it's protected, behind a locked door, in a shop or not. Stealing is stealing, period!! It doesn't matter what arguments you make trying to defend the thieves.
 
#61 ·
Then perhaps you should rewrite the definitions of file storage permissions.

I would be completely agreeing with you if there was hacking going on, but as long as they're in a public folder, Ibanez may as well have printed them out in a catalog and told people "here's our catalog, just don't turn to page 30 until July."
 
#62 ·
Sorry, you will never be right, I could care less what stupid analogies you come up with.

A companies website is private property, it doesn't matter what any permission is set to, it's PRIVATE if it's not shown online somewhere.

If you have to change file names and experiment to try and find a file, yea, just like Ibanez released it in a catalog....... :roll:

And then share it with the world knowing full well they had no intention of making it public yet!

I'm done arguing with your warped logic.
 
#63 ·
Its no different than peeking inside a package before christmas. Kinda sucks the fun out of getting up early that morning too if you already know whats under the paper. Hell it would actually irritate me more because I know what it is but can't touch it yet.

Same applies with something like an announced guitar or other product. I hate when companies create "vaporware" and hype something far from being a completed product. Also thats how rumors get started etc... Perhaps a last minute Q/C of the initial production run reveals an issue that requires drastic change or a project to be halted or scrapped etc....

There are a multitude of reasons why they can have promotional information ready to go at a moments notice and are just simply waiting on the greenlight to reveal it. I'd rather wait myself to know that when Ibanez is ready to divulge it to us its been greenlighted and an actual product will wind up on dealers racks. Not just some internet vaporware hype.

My 2 cents on the matter.
 
#66 ·
Some of you are missing the point with your analogies.

It is not illegal to view files in a public folder. It doesn't matter if they're "not linked" anywhere. That's the purpose of a public folder.

This whole thing sounds more like an after the fact "oops" by Ibanez. "Oops, we didn't mean to post those pictures in a public folder, so now we're mad at you guys for finding them in our public folders with obvious file names."

And again, if there actually was hacking involved, eg. if someone gained unauthorized access to a private folder or anything along those lines, then I would say it was bad/immoral/illegal. And if that happened, I'm sure Ibanez has the IP address of whoever gained access, so it wouldn't be that hard to find the offender.

But to the best of my knowledge, it was all public stuff. Testing possible filenames in a public folder is not illegal, it's not stealing, and it's not hacking. It doesn't matter how mad it makes you, it's still not illegal, it's still not stealing, and it's still not hacking.

Jimmies are very rustled in this thread.

 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top