Talk:XRumer

Link to the XRumer web site

Should this page link to the XRumer web site? The application itself is certainly obnoxious, and it's use is potentially illegal, so I'm concerned that we're funnelling unsuspecting users to them. Hacknsplat 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that linking to the software's website is allowed according to our external links policy, because the website is the main home page of the software discussed in the article. Flyingtoaster1337 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the author of the software has extensively link spammed web forums with postings promoting XRumer that are structurally similar to this wikipedia article and I wouldn't want to see him getting similar benefit from Wikipedia. The software is purely for bulk posting - it has no innocent purpose. That said, I agree with you that the article doesn't violate the external links policy (although I see the situation as somewhat similar to the policy wrt to linking to copyright-violating material).--Hacknsplat 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It somewhat helps that Wikipedia has the nofollow attribute activated for external links in articles so we will not bee boosting their page rank. When I made the article I was fully aware of the spam generated by the software, some of which has reached even this site. But I saw that this software had a mention in the Washington Post so it could be made into a referenced stub. And that's now what we have here. Flyingtoaster1337 16:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay - using nofollow sets my mind at rest somewhat and I agree that the article is worthwhile.--Hacknsplat 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Is it really necessary to introduce about such software that irritates webmasters? Lot of spam IDs were created in my website stalinism.org Deleting all those spam IDs was really tedious for me. Please delete this topic. Promoting such spam generator softwares is insulting webmasters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.185.192 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This software itself is an abusive software that effects many websites by filling database with spam IDs and postings. I wonder how did wikipedia allow article promoting such software! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.69.24 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

XRumer is even used for link spamming websites that promote drugs. Links of drugs promoting websites were even spammed in my forum. This article must be deleted. XRumer is big headache for forum webmasters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.67.132 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy for the users asking for the page to be deleted, I think it serves a real purpose: when I forum I admin for was spammed by the XRumer author, I went googling and, at the time, all I found was the author's web site - I would much rather have had an impartial wikipedia page that gave me a clue what I was dealing with. I think the bottom line is "does the page do more harm than good" - in other words, is it creating new XRumer purchasers? Hard to know, but I think not. --Hacknsplat 03:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

that won't ever happen since so many people get duped by it's announcements, that wikipedia could never rank above the official website: [1] Family Guy Guy 04:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Wikipedia does rank above the official website. You merely did the wrong search for "about xrumer" instead of "xrumer" by itself which is the first hit on a Google search and how I found this article. Granted some time has passed, perhaps it ranked differently years ago. Regardless I do not believe the article promotes the software nor make it more likely someone in search of such software wouldn't find it anyway regardless of the Wiki article. As such, it is beneficial for information purposes esp. to admins and webmaster. 9dave9 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That may be true. I can only speak for myself, but I usually choose the wikipedia article over some random web link in this context. Gawd only knows what mischief the author's site might do, and even if it's innocent, visiting only confirms to him that his "marketing" has worked. --Hacknsplat 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Xrumer is not being introduced to any spammer on wikipedia, as wikipedia is the last place that spammers come to find a link spam engine. It serves as a helpful reference to those dealing with the problem. Nodekeeper 07:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article was helpful to me as a forum manager. I didn't realize until I saw it that image based CAPTCHA has been cracked. Now I've switched to a different system (that asks users custom questions) which should stop all bots, including XRumer. Python (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rjcain (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC) :: This article should be retained. All such information should be public - it is the only way to inform development of effective countermeasures. Big thank you to the original authors and all contributors; without this article i would be totally in the dark regarding the state of the art of these apps; underlying as they do the emormous volume & high sophistication of attacks we see against our sites. i had pretty much deduced as much must be occuring from analysing server logs, but having it confirmed is invaluable. fight the good fight; unfortunately, this is a war without end.

xgmx

I do not believe this page should be deleted. It clearly states on the Xrumer website that it will not be used in anyway that is illegal. It also has a thing for reporting members who misuse it. Xgmx 01:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Odds are, they're saying that just to cover themselves... basically a boldfaced lie. Posting robot linkspam to sites which explicitly disallow robots or linkspam is theft of computer time and theft of telecommunication services. We should not be linking to this site; the rest of the page, however, should be kept much as we keep pages about other notorious outlaws. --carlb (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page should not be deleted. I despise the software in question, and am not going to discuss what I'd like to do to its authors, but it is useful information. I do not agree with including links to the software's homepage, and have removed them. In this case, a description of the malware is sufficient, but linking to its homepage is effectively free advertising for a spammer. Ugh! Just wanted to add that, given the obvious lack of ethics on the part of the malware author, linking to his homepage may well expose readers to attempted browser vulnerability attacks, etc. Please do not restore the links. 75.142.5.126 (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia hosting spam

I found Wikipedia's screenshot being used in spam promoting this software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.200.181 (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I also just received a forum spam with the following content:

 xrumer is the BEST! <img>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/XRumer_screenshot.gif/200px-XRumer_screenshot.gif</img> ;)

The post originated from 85.140.23.229. I recommend that Wikipedia remove it rather than use themselves as free hosting for a spammer. --130.207.87.166 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the image is replaced with a PNG version. It will be smaller and will break existing links (yes, it's a cat and mouse game, but at least thousands of Xrumer ads will break).

This has been dealt with at the global spam blacklist. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed link to website

I'm aware that no consensus has been reached about whether to keep the link to the website or not, and that wikipedia policy isn't particularly strict on the matter, but I've removed it anyway because:

1. It links to a website that promotes a malicious program. This means that the owner of said website could at any time turn it into a malicious site itself. Linking to such a site from wikipedia is, quite frankly, not very clever. Innocent users will be angry at wikipedia and they will be right. 2. The last few edits have been IP addresses with one edits involving *only* the link changing it back and forth. False positive? Probably not.

So there. 70.189.182.16 (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no citation that points out which website is the official website. Until there is citation to support an "official website" AND it qualifies as WP:EL, it shouldn't be added. --Hm2k (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A site which exists to promote software intended to promote vandalism on sites such as Wikipedia should not be given the benefit of free advertising by linkspam on Wikipedia articles. Many sites currently on meta:spam blacklist are listed there for far less. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

removed link again..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.228.190 (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Countermeasures?

Perhaps there should be "see also" and "external links" pointing to countermeasures, such as honeypot (computing) or MediaWiki.org's manual page on combating spam? For instance, one open-source Spambot Search Tool looks up an editor's IP in nearly a dozen online blacklists, if it's known to have been used in previous spam of this nature, any attempt to modify the wiki gets bit-bucketed. I'm certain that similar interfaces to various lists like rbls.org, stopforumspam.com and projecthoneypot.org for blogs and forums pre-date the wiki-compatible extension if that's where this originated. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Official site

[2] How come there are two official sites, neither of which mentions the other site? The first one is not Russian only, btw, it has a link to an English version. I think until it clears neither of them should be mentioned in the article. -- X7q (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know XRumer operates from the following domain names: botmasternet.com, botmaster.ru, xrumer.co, botmasterlabs.net and none of these websites seem to interlink. Berfasmur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

What do you mean by "operates"? Resellers? Such sites can't be called official. -- X7q (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge they are XRumer's authors official websites, aside from "xrumer7.com" which has been reverted already. Berfasmur (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that? And who exactly are XRumer's authors and how do you know that, too? One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. So, please, back your knowledge with reliable sources. -- X7q (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Whois of xrumer.co, botmasterlabs.net is obviously fake and these domains are only recently registered (2010). If the authors didn't hesitate to disclose their name and phone in whois of botmasternet.com and botmaster.ru, why would they hide in the whois of xrumer.co, botmasterlabs.net? One more reason to suspect that something is not right with them. -- X7q (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

www.botmasterlabs.net has address 95.169.190.220 botmaster.ru has address 95.169.191.220 xrumer.co has address 95.169.191.220 Berfasmur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

This is an IP range of a hosting provider keyweb.ru. botmasterlabs.net could have simply looked up which hosting provider is used by botmaster.ru and buy the same hoster's services. So, this is not a proof. -- X7q (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Barring a strange coincidence (e.g. a shared hosting environment, same ISP) the webserver of the official site would not serve a non-affiliated website. It's theoretically possible to replicate their hosting setup, but I find it unlikely. Also doing some research on botmasterlabs.net, it appears botmasternet.com was recently suspended and botmasterlabs.net is a 'replacement domain'. While google isn't a reliable source, combined with the matching IP addresses I believe the websites are bonafide (in the sense that they're the official web addresses). Berfasmur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Ah, yes, now I see - it was botmasterlabs.net site that is linked from the front page of botmaster.ru. So, OK, these two seem to be run by the same party then. But I think only one should be linked in the article, not both. Since this is an English wikipedia, an English version is preferable. -What about xrumer.co? -- X7q (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume it is bonafide as well, based on the aformentioned. I'll conduct a bit of research to ascertain its authenticity and report back here. Berfasmur (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion should probably be wether or not to reference these sites at all. Berfasmur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

WP:EL policy says official site should be linked. But we don't know for sure which one is the official site, so I say link to noone. -- X7q (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to Russian site should be removed per WP:NONENGEL. -- X7q (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed --Hm2k (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The site xrumer.co is not the official site for xrumer. I would know as I'm an owner of the software. To ensure that I was correct I contacted the support team for xrumer via skype and this was their response http://i53.tinypic.com/2mf0j1c.jpg This is a screenshot of the (members only area) post that they mentioned in the skype conversation. http://i51.tinypic.com/t98gmb.jpg - I suggest that we remove xrumer.co and replace it with the correct site botmasterlabs.net Mpcmpc (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Spam attacks

Please keep an eye out for attempts at vandalism/link plugging. Just noticed yet another revision of 76.245.251.82 which attempted to list xrumer7.com in EL. Said spammer undid his last revision in an attempt to disguise a link edit in the main article body. Interestingly, IP is already in SPAM databases: http://www.stopforumspam.com/ipcheck/76.245.251.82 - Perhaps this page should have semi protection. Berfasmur (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Phishing site

www.xrumer.co/ is Phishing site, officail site: www.botmasterlabs.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.84.35 (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do proper research before going on an edit rampage. The webpage is not a phishing site. It's IP address equals that of the Russian website. Furthermore, when you edited the article for "phishing" you inserted a malicious website 'xrumer7.pl' in place of the official websites. Berfasmur (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

www.xrumer.co/ is phishing ==

1st of all Berfasmur you are a scamer, and there is only one official site as you all can see on this screen from official forum: http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9290/bbbcl.jpg

2nd xrumer7.pl is a good content blog, and was added as a blog. All can see it in history of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.170.217 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a contributer to Wikipedia. Please substantiate claims that said site is a phishing site. xrumer.co has address 95.169.191.220 botmasterlabs.net has address 95.169.190.220, which you could've seen in the discussion where we investigated both botmasterlabs.net, botmaster.ru and xrumer.co. Instead of blantantly editing the article based on your personal assumptions, try to reach consensus here prior to committing any edits to the EL section. Also note that a phishing site typically tries to trick a user into logging in with their account credentials. The xrumer.co website appears to have no such login form thus I fail to see how it could be a phishing site. All I can find is a sign-up form. Last but not least, arbitirarily adding your blog to a wikipedia article is considered link spam. Please take a look at the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. Berfasmur (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Screen from Botmasters Official forum says everything and you are a SCAMER http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9290/bbbcl.jpg

There is a huge difference berween this IPs 95.169.191.220 not equals 95.169.190.220 !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.114.162 (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The difference is exactly 1 digit. However, I'll endulge you in your stupidity: botmaster.ru [95.169.191.220]. Berfasmur (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All this discussion is useless, have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.118.66 (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mpcmpc, 14 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The site xrumer.co is not the official site for xrumer. I would know as I'm an owner of the software. To ensure that I was correct I contacted the support team for xrumer via skype and this was their response http://i53.tinypic.com/2mf0j1c.jpg This is a screenshot of the (members only area) post that they mentioned in the skype conversation. http://i51.tinypic.com/t98gmb.jpg - I suggest that we remove xrumer.co and replace it with the correct site botmasterlabs.net

Mpcmpc (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The requested change was made but user Berfasmur undid it as he's convinced the xrumer.co site is the official site. Xrumer.co is very obviously a pishing site. Try signing up for an account there, the "signup" form doesn't even work. If you register with botmasterlabs.net you can see it is the legit site as you can actually login download a demo version of the software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpcmpc (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I just tried signing up at xrumer.co, and it forwards me to the botmasterlabs website where I can log in with the username & password I specified. I see nothing wrong with it. Berfasmur (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, then it appears that botmasterlabs is considered to be "more official" than xrumer.co by sites' creators. So why not link to it instead? -- X7q (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur the "most" official site should be linked, though we should be careful to accept an arbitirary site as "official" based on IP edits and the testimony of one user. Any rogue site posing as official has a monetary interest to do so. Perhaps we should remove any and all external links until there's conclusive evidence either way. Berfasmur (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You can go to russian article about XRumer http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRumer And to see correct link to RUSSIAN site, then go to that site and to see in top Right corner Link to English site and it will be www.botmasterlabs.net ALXuMuK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC).

The link on this page was botmaster.ru, which apperantly is no longer working. How can we ascertain that the botmasterru.com domain is indeed authoritive ? I'm sorry for being so paranoid, but there've been many malicious edits in the past. For now I propose that we remove the external links as it is unclear either way which website is considered to be "official". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfasmur (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that it would be better to remove the link than to link to the wrong site. I took a screenshot of the latest version of the Xrumer software that may help clear this up - don't blame you for being paranoid about this edit though. http://i52.tinypic.com/5l2t84.jpg Mpcmpc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC).

I've removed the EL from the section. Please don't readd it without broad concensus on this Talk page. 21:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berfasmur (talk • contribs)

im an owner of xrumer since 5 months and i buy it by xrumer.co an the login is in botmaster... no have any problem... one is sale page other is for manage account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnydrop (talk • contribs) 03:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of XRumer's developers, and official site is www.botmasterLabs.net! All other are site of scammers and you here on wikipedia are helping those scammers to steal money by adding their sites as oficlia ones! Shame on you! Moderators!!! SHAME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BotmasterLabs (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV - June 2011

This article reads like a product sales brochure for the company. It contains a lot of overly positive statements and has only one source listed. W4chris (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just Delete all links from this article and close it for Editing! this will be the best solution in this case! But don't add back links of those scammers! BotmasterLabs (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the article reads like the homepage of this site: xrumerlabs.com, sounding alot like a generic sales pitch, and the other one looks unprofessional, like a phishing site. Just leave them both out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.230.220.199 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I just added the link based on SERP search results. I agree with y'all, don't add any of the links. I'm content the remainder of my edits were a useful contribution though :) Bl00dsh0t6 (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Link should be added based on oficial info and not on Serps, and in any xrumer version u can see the link to BotmasterLabs.net BotmasterLabs (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

With a product as dodgy as xrumer there is very little official, no offense intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bl00dsh0t6 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

@W4chris, your ninja edit was too late, hehe. The comment was ommitted by BotmasterLabs, not myself. I reincluded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bl00dsh0t6 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct and I apologize. W4chris (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

can XRumer run javascript? flash? java?

can XRumer run javascript? if not, to defeat XRumer, i could make php generate some unique javascript that generated some value to compare with the server for successfull registration... (downside is that people with no javascript support would be unable to register). same with flash, only would require flash to register. same with java...

any info on this?88.88.23.128 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Defense

I added "The easiest method to defeat Xrumer is to simply require the first post of any new forum member or blog poster to be approve before it can appear." We have used this at MozillaZine for the past year and I use it at both of my not overly popular blogs. 67.161.123.120 (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Easiest for you perhaps, but personally being an Admin for a high traffic site, it would be as much or more work to approve each new member post as it is to further efforts against xrumer content. Perhaps even more as letting an xrumer post through gives me only a few to remove then an IP range to block while if I review every first post I would end up reviewing post after post from new accounts xrumer made using the same IP range. I won't however, publicly post what seems easiest to me, nor would that work out well as what works most effectively is for everyone to not use the same measure so xrumer can't just be patched to circumvent that too. 9dave9 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added a correction for this, as there's a limit to the volume of spam webmasters can handle -- high traffic sites get it the worst. Wpspamhammer (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Prod

I have restored and remove a prod on this. Second prods are not permitted, and if people want this deleted they should use AFD. Personally I hink the topic is notable, and that Wikipedia should keep an article on it. From the tagging that was on the article, it is clear that someone does not like it, but I have scaled this back. So the remaining issues overall are that there are insufficient independent references, and it has a clear anti-XRumer POV (which is deserved). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on XRumer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120112103323/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/scary_blogspam_automation_tool_1.html?nav=rss_blog to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/scary_blogspam_automation_tool_1.html?nav=rss_blog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I very badly wanted to go though an mark everything but I didn't want to be rude. Add more sources. Endercase (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)