The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
by Nomad Thu Jun 21st, 2012 at 12:02:16 PM EST
or have I been drinking enough to skip a day? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
So far it's been thursday, unless it's just another manic Monday Wednesday keep to the Fen Causeway
Mikko Hypponen of F-Secure attempts to explain why anti-virus companies didn't catch Stuxnet, DuQu, and Flame: [....] I don't buy this. It isn't just the military that tests their malware against commercial defense products; criminals do it, too. Virus and worm writers do it. Spam writers do it. This is the never-ending arms race between attacker and defender, and it's been going on for decades. Probably the people who wrote Flame had a larger budget than a large-scale criminal organization, but their evasive techniques weren't magically better. Note that F-Secure and others had samples of Flame; they just didn't do anything about them. I think the difference has more to do with the ways in which these military malware programs spread. That is, slowly and stealthily. It was never a priority to understand -- and then write signatures to detect -- the Flame samples because they were never considered a problem. Maybe they were classified as a one-off. Or as an anomaly. I don't know, but it seems clear that conventional non-military malware writers that want to evade detection should adopt the propagation techniques of Flame, Stuxnet, and DuQu.
I think the difference has more to do with the ways in which these military malware programs spread. That is, slowly and stealthily. It was never a priority to understand -- and then write signatures to detect -- the Flame samples because they were never considered a problem. Maybe they were classified as a one-off. Or as an anomaly. I don't know, but it seems clear that conventional non-military malware writers that want to evade detection should adopt the propagation techniques of Flame, Stuxnet, and DuQu.
Fact: computer operating systems are not a secure environment.
Until these facts are acknowledged and action taken from the basis of these two facts computers will be insecure. Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere
It is possible to change the situation, thus alter the facts, by changing the Internet and the computer environment. To do that the IT industry has to stop making a living on the banks of Denial.
A necessary, but not sufficient, change is for the IT industry to forbid downloading to program memory space. They don't want to do that because it will dramatically and negatively affect their bottom line.
Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere
NB: This work stuff is really interfering with my Quality Blogging Time.
;-) Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere
Eliminate all communication channels except those that go through government-controlled infrastructure?
Ultima ratio regnum and all that.
Bypass the entire legal structure you've built up over 150 years of experience with telegraph and telephone access management?
Expose all industrial and personal bank accounts to every third-world hacker?
Connect tactical military computers to a wire leading directly to computers of the guys you're fighting?
But from the perspective of the imperial hegemon, we haven't had a real war in two generations. (Some of the colonies might disagree, of course...)
Construct an entire national or regional communications infrastructure that relies on a single undersea cable that can easily be cut--by accident or on purpose?
Bye-bye Internet, hello USNet and Euronet.
Move all financial transactions to a system where transaction privacy is eliminated?
What, you think your bank observes transaction privacy? Really?
Then I have some vintage 2005 issue AIG stock you may be interested in.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Eliminate all communication channels except those that go through government-controlled infrastructure? That is the case for all communications, except the man-with-suitcase variety.
That is the case for all communications, except the man-with-suitcase variety.
Move all financial transactions to a system where transaction privacy is eliminated? That happened with the invention of the checking account. At the very latest with the ATM.
That happened with the invention of the checking account. At the very latest with the ATM.
I was thinking of things like the BBC, mimeographed local newsletters, flyers nailed to telephone poles...
'Sides, flyers nailed to telephone poles are much easier when you can print them on a commonplace inkjet printer.
Sure, but compare cash to any of those. Twenty years ago you would not buy groceries with a credit card, now you buy a single cup of coffee with one.
You have no idea (or rather, you do and disapprove ;-P) of how much economic data you can get from just ordinary mining of data collected in the routine conduct of ordinary business.
Re cash transactions, the point is that if I want to give $20 to my local alternative political party, a bill is untraceable. If I use my credit card, Acxiom knows about it and therefore the government knows about it. Anonymity of transactions is lost. The only people who will be retaining it are drug dealers who use $100 bills for everything.
Recently, there have been several articles about the new market in zero-day exploits: new and unpatched computer vulnerabilities. It's not just software companies, who sometimes pay bounties to researchers who alert them of security vulnerabilities so they can fix them. And it's not only criminal organizations, who pay for vulnerabilities they can exploit. Now there are governments, and companies who sell to governments, who buy vulnerabilities with the intent of keeping them secret so they can exploit them. This market is larger than most people realize, and it's becoming even larger. Forbes recently published a price list for zero-day exploits, along with the story of a hacker who received $250K from "a U.S. government contractor" (At first I didn't believe the story or the price list, but I have been convinced that they both are true.) Forbes published a profile of a company called Vupen, whose business is selling zero-day exploits. Other companies doing this range from startups like Netragard and Endgame to large defense contractors like Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon. This is very different than in 2007, when researcher Charlie Miller wrote about his attempts to sell zero-day exploits; and a 2010 survey implied that there wasn't much money in selling zero days. The market has matured substantially in the past few years. This new market perturbs the economics of finding security vulnerabilities. And it does so to the detriment of us all.
This market is larger than most people realize, and it's becoming even larger. Forbes recently published a price list for zero-day exploits, along with the story of a hacker who received $250K from "a U.S. government contractor" (At first I didn't believe the story or the price list, but I have been convinced that they both are true.) Forbes published a profile of a company called Vupen, whose business is selling zero-day exploits. Other companies doing this range from startups like Netragard and Endgame to large defense contractors like Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon.
This is very different than in 2007, when researcher Charlie Miller wrote about his attempts to sell zero-day exploits; and a 2010 survey implied that there wasn't much money in selling zero days. The market has matured substantially in the past few years.
This new market perturbs the economics of finding security vulnerabilities. And it does so to the detriment of us all.
What's the english for "bicyclette", that over-the-head thing he tried in the first half? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Q: And then a new administration might come into office. A: They waited 4,000 years to have a nuclear bomb, so they can wait another four months. They want to see how the new president, be it Obama or Romney, sees it. In the meantime, they can enrich another [batch of] low-enriched uranium. They want to delay.
A: They waited 4,000 years to have a nuclear bomb, so they can wait another four months. They want to see how the new president, be it Obama or Romney, sees it. In the meantime, they can enrich another [batch of] low-enriched uranium. They want to delay.
by Migeru - Jun 15 39 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 17 20 comments
by Katrin - Jun 12 88 comments
by Jerome a Paris - Jun 9 68 comments
by DoDo - Jun 9 22 comments
by Zwackus - Jun 11 64 comments
by Metatone - Jun 8 4 comments
by Ted Welch - Jun 3 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1720 comments
by Migeru - Jun 1539 comments
by Katrin - Jun 1288 comments
by DoDo - Jun 1126 comments
by Zwackus - Jun 1164 comments
by Jerome a Paris - Jun 968 comments
by DoDo - Jun 922 comments
by Metatone - Jun 84 comments
by DoDo - Jun 671 comments
by DoDo - Jun 417 comments
by Ted Welch - Jun 31 comment
by gmoke - Jun 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 3113 comments
by A swedish kind of death - May 3113 comments
by ceebs - May 2927 comments
by ARGeezer - May 2915 comments
by Zwackus - May 271 comment
by DoDo - May 2631 comments
by DoDo - May 2346 comments
by Metatone - May 1490 comments