Re: Claim by 'Stevo' - "CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007"

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 22:28

rustyjames wrote:
Richard D. Hall wrote:Do we not need to see the source code of what is held on their server rather than a screen shot. To see what dynamic content is in the page?

Yes and that is what is stored in the w(arc) files as per my previous post a couple of minutes back, and they also contain lots of metadata such as timestamps and ip addresses etc. The problem is the index is the only view onto it.

So how do we get a view into it?

by Guest 21.06.15 22:29

Richard D. Hall wrote:Yes, can you send me a screeshot of the source code? cheers

I don't have it and I actually don't think you need it.

You need to play with WBM and see how it works.

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 22:31

Just help me out. What is the filename of the October page that we have a screen dump of? - I cannot read the text.

by Guest 21.06.15 22:31

macdonut wrote:This is a red herring I think guys. If you look at the full ceop page as allegedly archived on 30th April:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You'll see quite a number of news stories and links that are, in fact, dated in October 2007.

While I don't profess to understand how the web archive works, it clearly isn't accurate, at least on this occasion.

Richard,

This is from page 2 of this thread.

by Guest 21.06.15 22:34

Richard D. Hall wrote:Just help me out. What is the filename of the October page that we have a screen dump of? - I cannot read the text.

If you play with WBM you will see the file name is the same as the large date and month in the tool bar.

If you click a date and it redirects you get the redirected date in the toolbar and the same redirected date is in the folder name.

I've been around the circle you are currently going around.

by piforhire1 21.06.15 22:43

Can you explain further, I only see dates prior to the archive date. What links show October?

by HKP 21.06.15 22:45

@BB

[size=31]Do we at least agree that the Wayback creates or replays (as they call) it on retrieval? Can it be possible that because the 30/04 folder (at the exact time) has data from later dates that it has created something different? How do we know that there wasn't a part of the replayed file created on 30/04 and it was McCann.htm[/size]

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 22:45

OK, so just tell me the file name of one of the other files, that was stored with a 30 April archive date, which was actually as you say a file created later?

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 22:49

It's a pity WBM have not given a full definitive statement on why they changed their original stance. I appreciate all the analysis, but we need a full technical disclosure from them which as far as I am aware we have not had.

by rustyjames 21.06.15 23:07

A bit of an aside but this is interesting in terms of showing how it works....

The only CDX records for the madeleine_01.jpg image are below, (and can be found here):

Code:: uk,gov,ceop)/madeleine_01.jpg 20070606200249 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/madeleine_01.jpg image/jpeg 200 2P6MO765MAYC5Y6J6JYCOTASO2J5USWY 18296 uk,gov,ceop)/madeleine_01.jpg 20070606200249 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/madeleine_01.jpg image/jpeg 200 2P6MO765MAYC5Y6J6JYCOTASO2J5USWY 18296 uk,gov,ceop)/madeleine_01.jpg 20070703080810 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/madeleine_01.jpg image/jpeg 200 2P6MO765MAYC5Y6J6JYCOTASO2J5USWY 18299 uk,gov,ceop)/madeleine_01.jpg 20070703080810 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/madeleine_01.jpg image/jpeg 200 2P6MO765MAYC5Y6J6JYCOTASO2J5USWY 18299 uk,gov,ceop)/madeleine_01.jpg 20070708201654 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/madeleine_01.jpg image/jpeg 200 2P6MO765MAYC5Y6J6JYCOTASO2J5USWY 18299 uk,gov,ceop)/madeleine_01.jpg 20070708201654 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/madeleine_01.jpg image/jpeg 200 2P6MO765MAYC5Y6J6JYCOTASO2J5USWY 18299 uk,gov,ceop)/madeleine_01.jpg 20070809213612 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/madeleine_01.jpg image/jpeg 200 RIQCKVKUYFSV4BPLJG2RIPMQGGRBJRYX 18319 uk,gov,ceop)/madeleine_01.jpg 20110520141240 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/madeleine_01.jpg text/html 301 LKMVBZPE66B2OIJ6JAOWSIDE73IGL524 548 uk,gov,ceop)/madeleine_01.jpg 20110812142113 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/madeleine_01.jpg text/html 301 JR3HRCTNHTNZHKT4C3XFUUAW7DVKDJJS 551

If you retrieve the 12th May 2007 18:59:49 index.asp page, the rewritten url in the source is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and generates an HTTP 302 Temporary Moved error and redirects to the 6th June version above. You can see just by clicking that link and then looking at the URL you end up on, (or via F12 debug)

In other words it does look forward as well as back. Doing some experiments changing the date to different values seems to show it will take the nearest hit, whether that is forwards of backwards.

by Guest 21.06.15 23:07

Sorry, wrong thread; should be with the techno stuff elsewhere. See how clumsy I am!

Hello, from someone who doesn't know IT from the sun on her head:

Can someone kindly explain how information from October 2007 could end up in a/o be hauled back to a folder (?) dated April 30/4 2007,

if that folder did not exist on April 30th 2007?

Or if such a folder with that date was not created by someone at some moment?

So is not the question: who created that folder?

And who has been fiddling with it once we got onto its trail?

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 23:13

I had not seen this link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Can rustyjames just explain exactly that this query is doing and what the data reveals that is returned.

I am quite happy to be shown there is a bug in their system, it one exists. I just need to be shown it.

thanks.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.06.15 23:23

'Resistor' in the other place has made this caustic observation:

++++++++++++++

QUOTE

So let's go with "crawls from October are time stamped as April" for the moment (I'm still not convinced but let's go with it for the moment).
That's the whole bottom fallen out of Wayback's reputation, right there

They will be able to tell all the owners of the other sites affected, won't they?
They will be able to provide other examples

They will have to issue a major bug fix and update, because they can't risk it happening again, can they?
And they will have to make details of that bug fix public on their site so people know it's been fixed

Let's just wait and see...

by rustyjames 21.06.15 23:25

Richard D. Hall wrote:I had not seen this link

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Can rustyjames just explain exactly that this query is doing and what the data reveals that is returned.

thanks.

My understanding is it is querying the index entries that exist for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for 30th April 2007. The existence in there of news articles dated in the future, which matches BlueBag's versions of the page is what seems odd, and seems to suggest there is a problem with that index. (Some longer descriptions a few pages back).

by Guest 21.06.15 23:26

Re: TB quoting Resistor:

If that's the case, what would be the American Bar of Attorneys take on this matter?

They would be beside themselves with glee, wouldn't they, especially the ones who saw their clients incarcerated based on WBM evidence!

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 23:33

OK I just ran a test.

One of the files listed in the results as a "later" file is

news_items/article_20070625_ceop.htm

I tried searching for this file, and the date in the source code is

FILE ARCHIVED ON 16:42:45 Jun 20, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 22:31:07 Jun 21, 2015.
JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE

Sorry this is my error it should read

FILE ARCHIVED ON 16:43:44 Jun 30, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 22:47:32 Jun 21, 2015.

So even though files listed in this query seem to have 30 April tag, they still return a later - correct - archive date.

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 23:40

Another news file from this list

news_items/article_20071116_ceop.htm

FILE ARCHIVED ON 18:20:49 Dec 30, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 22:38:43 Jun 21, 2015.

by rustyjames 21.06.15 23:41

I get:

Code::

which is correct ignoring the 30th April.

by rustyjames 21.06.15 23:45

My apologies but I've got a busy couple of days at work coming up, and am then away with little/no Internet from Wednesday to Monday, so as much as I don't want to, I'm going to have to stop following this thread until I return, especially with regard to posting.

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 23:48

Sorry my mistake, you are right,

news_items/article_20070625_ceop.htm

FILE ARCHIVED ON 16:43:44 Jun 30, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 22:47:32 Jun 21, 2015.

System looks like it is working fine. Even though some of these later pages appear with the 30 April index in rustyjames query, they still return the correct archive date.

by **Richard D. Hall** 21.06.15 23:56

Like I said I am happy to be shown there is a bug in the system, but I can't see one. Their system seems to return accurate archive dates. If somebody can give me the name of a file which can be shown to have been on CEOP server on a particular date (eg a date encoded news file) which then gives an OLDER archive date in the "FILE ARCHIVED" section of the returned WBM file, I will believe there is a bug in their system.

by **Richard D. Hall** 22.06.15 0:04

Here's another test

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

FILE ARCHIVED ON 0:53:43 Feb 6, 2008 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 23:02:07 Jun 21, 2015.
JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

by **Richard D. Hall** 22.06.15 0:15

Can somebody give me the name of the "October" file so I can try this out and see what archive date is returned?

Thanks

by whatsupdoc 22.06.15 0:23

I've had a look at the source code for the Latest News for Jan, Feb,April and Oct and a few more (June,July,Aug,Sept) not shown.There was no March crawler date. The May 20 is the new 30th April. I noticed that on the crawler date it mentions the previous and next crawler dates. I saved the full pages but edited the bits together.

It's not showing even though I put the Word doc through Notepad.

So on the 7th April it does mention the 30th April with the 11.58.03 time stamp.