Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I fail to see the relevance, but this doesn't really interest me anymore.

 

[Dak]

You're clearly an idiot who doesn't know what diplomacy is. Nuclear stockpiles need to be checked up on, whether you like it or not. They kind of have the power to fucking destroy everything.

Checked up on by whom? That is even ignoring tht fact that Iran doesn't have any nuclear stockpiles anyway.

Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, destabilziation of Pakistan, and bases in nearly every small middle eastern country is not diplomacy.

The dangers of nuclear weapons are not lost on me. What apparently is lost on most Americans though (as well as most of the "West") is the concept of national sovereignty.

 

[Pessimism]

Nukelar!

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Checked up on by whom? That is even ignoring tht fact that Iran doesn't have any nuclear stockpiles anyway.

Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, destabilziation of Pakistan, and bases in nearly every small middle eastern country is not diplomacy.

The dangers of nuclear weapons are not lost on me. What apparently is lost on most Americans though (as well as most of the "West") is the concept of national sovereignty.

Yeah if you think Iran has the right to stockpile nuclear weapons with no one checking on them to make sure they're not preparing to kill all of their "enemies", I don't know what else to say.

 

[Mort Divine]

Even a small "local" nuclear scale war has potential for global harm. I don't care if only Pakistan and India go at it or Israel and Iran go at it, we have the right to step in because it will AFFECT THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET if it happens.

World Misled of Glacier Meltdown

More information surfacing over the heaping pile of bullshit that is "man-made global warming"

It was a big failure to check facts, but to say that MMGW is bullshit is just hilarious.

 

[Dak]

Yeah if you think Iran has the right to stockpile nuclear weapons with no one checking on them to make sure they're not preparing to kill all of their "enemies", I don't know what else to say.

So do we have the right to do the same thing?

Even a small "local" nuclear scale war has potential for global harm. I don't care if only Pakistan and India go at it or Israel and Iran go at it, we have the right to step in because it will AFFECT THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET if it happens.

India and China could go at it, or Russia and China, or Russia and the US, or the US and China, or the US and Ja-, oh, never mind. No one is arguing that using nuclear weapons isn't bad. What I am saying is, what gives the US the right to act in a unilaterally aggressive way against Iran(militarily or economically)?

Everyone is also still ignoring the IAEA's conclusion that Iran was not working in the direction of nuclear armament. The IAEA was supposed to be the "verifier" and the UN the enforcer, not the Pentagon and the White House acting unilaterally on self-serving Israeli intelligence.

It was a big failure to check facts, but to say that MMGW is bullshit is just hilarious.

OISM

Apparently these Scientists think otherwise.

 

[Einherjar86]

Nukelar!

The "s" is silent.

 

[Doomguy]

New IE hole exploited in attacks on U.S. firms

Attackers targeting Google and a host of other U.S. companies recently used software that exploits a new hole in Internet Explorer, Microsoft said Thursday.

"Internet Explorer was one of the vectors" used in the attacks that Google disclosed earlier this week, Microsoft said in a statement. "To date, Microsoft has not seen widespread customer impact, rather only targeted and limited attacks exploiting IE 6," the statement said.

The vulnerability affects Internet Explorer 6, IE 7, and IE 8 on Windows 7, Vista, Windows XP, Server 2003, Server 2008 R2, as well as IE 6 Service Pack 1 on Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, Microsoft said in an advisory on Thursday afternoon.

Google disclosed the attacks targeting it and other U.S. companies on Tuesday and said the attacks originated in China. Human rights activists who use Gmail also were targeted, Google said.

Source code was stolen from some of the more than 30 Silicon Valley companies targeted in the attack, sources said. Adobe has confirmed that it was targeted by an attack, and sources have said Yahoo, Symantec, Juniper Networks, Northrop Grumman, and Dow Chemical also were targets.

Microsoft said the vulnerability in IE exists as an invalid pointer reference and that it could allow an attacker to take control of a computer if the target were duped into clicking on a link in an e-mail or an instant message that led to a Web site hosting malware. "It could also be possible to display specially crafted Web content using banner advertisements or other methods to deliver Web content to affected systems," Microsoft said in the statement.

Microsoft is working on a fix but could not say whether it would address the issue as part of its next Patch Tuesday scheduled for February 9 or before.

Keeping the IE Internet zone security setting on "high" will protect users from the vulnerability by prompting before running ActiveX Controls and Active Scripting, Microsoft said. Customers should also enable Data Execution Prevention (DEP), which helps mitigate online attacks, the company said. DEP is enabled by default in IE 8 but must be manually turned on in earlier versions.

Microsoft acknowledged Google, Mandiant, Adobe Systems, and McAfee for working with the company and providing details on the attack.

Operation Aurora
Earlier on Thursday, McAfee CTO George Kurtz detailed the vulnerability in a blog post.

"As with most targeted attacks, the intruders gained access to an organization by sending a tailored attack to one or a few targeted individuals. We suspect these individuals were targeted because they likely had access to valuable intellectual property," Kurtz wrote. "These attacks will look like they come from a trusted source, leading the target to fall for the trap and clicking a link or file. That's when the exploitation takes place, using the vulnerability in Microsoft's Internet Explorer."

"We believe this attack is a watershed moment. We've never seen this level of sophistication on attacks targeting commercial companies that aren't affiliated with a government or the defense industrial base."
--Dmitri Alperovitch, VP of threat research, McAfee

Many targeted attacks involve a "cocktail" of zero-day vulnerabilities combined with social engineering, he said. "So there very well may be other attack vectors that are not known to us at this time," he wrote.

Initially, security researchers investigating the attacks believed that a hole in Adobe Reader was a culprit, but Adobe has said that it has no evidence to suggest that a vulnerability in its technology was an attack vector.

McAfee believes the internal name attackers gave to the operation was "Aurora," which the code indicated was the directory name on the computer where the code was compiled into an executable file, said Dmitri Alperovitch, vice president of threat research at McAfee.

The attack was notable for its level of sophistication, using obfuscation techniques not typically seen in attacks on corporations, he said. It dropped about 10 different malicious files with different capabilities that were used at different stages of the infection and used crypto and other techniques to avoid detection, he added.

"The exploit itself was a piece of JavaScript code that encrypted itself and had multiple layers of encryption that got you to the executable binary code, which phoned home and then pulled an encrypted file from an external server," Alperovitch said. "That file used multiple keys for encryption and once it was decrypted it turned into an executable that dropped various modules onto the infected system."

One of the modules was a back door that phoned home to a different server and established an encrypted channel designed to avoid detection by masquerading as an Secure Sockets Layer protocol, he said. "That allowed the hackers to connect to the machine and basically take it over remotely. From then on they had a beachhead to explore the rest of the network for reconnaissance."

Asked what what type of data or areas of the network the code was programmed to look for or access, Alperovitch said "We saw the backdoor, but we did not see the capability in the malware to scan networks and locate things."

The attacks lasted about three weeks, from mid-December until January 4 and were most likely timed to coincide with the holiday season when offices would be closed or lightly staffed, he said.

In early January the command-and-control channels that the code used to receive instructions from the attackers were shut down, he said, adding, "So, we could not verify where the data was going or whether there were links to China."

He said he does not know why the command-and-control servers were shut down. They were located in Taiwan and in Texas and Illinois, he said.

"We believe this attack is a watershed moment," Alperovitch said. "We've never seen this level of sophistication on attacks targeting commercial companies that aren't affiliated with a government or the defense industrial base."

Wired initially reported the IE hole earlier on Thursday, citing an unnamed source.

Apparently the officials have urged those using IE to not use it until further notice.

 

[Dak]

ECB prepares legal ground for Euro rupture as Greece crisis escalates

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Schwarzung, I'm surprised you found that article without learning of the Google-China incident that arose from it, as I thought that was a far more notable aspect of that event.

Here's where the real drama started after the attacks were discovered - a post on Google's official blog declaring that they will no longer censor their search results for China:

A new approach to China
1/12/2010 03:00:00 PM

Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.

First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.

We have already used information gained from this attack to make infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to learn more about these kinds of attacks can read this Report to Congress (PDF) by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (see p. 163-), as well as a related analysis (PDF) prepared for the Commission, Nart Villeneuve's blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.

We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China's economic reform programs and its citizens' entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China."

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html

And a news article about the situation:

Google Threat Jolts Chinese Internet Industry

BEIJING — Google Inc.'s threat to walk away from China sent shockwaves through the country's fast-growing Internet industry Wednesday, with users, executives and analysts trying to gauge the potential fallout.

Internet users gathered outside Google headquarters in Beijing after the company's announcement that it may pull out of China. WSJ's Aaron Back reports.

The U.S. search giant's announcement that it will stop censoring its Chinese search site, and may withdraw from the country altogether, triggered an outpouring of concern, and some anger, among Chinese Internet users. Students and others gathered at Google's offices in Beijing and Shanghai Wednesday with flowers in an emotional show of support for the company, which analysts say has an audience of more than 40 million loyal users in China.

"It's a tragedy if Google pulls out of China," said Xu Hao, a junior studying Japanese at Tongji University in Shanghai. Wu Zhiwei, a sophomore studying philosophy at Fudan University in Shanghai, said "a lot of people are very angry at government censorship," and also said he understands that it contradicts Google's philosophies on free-Internet use.

Google's statement, which also said that the company had discovered massive cyber attacks against itself and numerous other foreign companies that it said emanated from China, jolted foreign businesses that operate in the country. It prompted quick response from human rights advocates, who praised Google's statement, and from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said Google's allegations "raise very serious concerns and questions." "We look to the Chinese government for an explanation," Mrs. Clinton said on a visit to Hawaii. "The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy."

The Internet giant operates a Chinese-language search engine from Beijing that has similar functions to its international English-language Web site, but which tailors its search and other products like news and maps to the needs of users based in China. Because the Web site is operated locally, the company is required to abide by Chinese regulations, including requirements to filter its content and remove search results related to pornography and politically sensitive content, in order to stay in operation.

The Google statement was widely followed on China's Internet, and was initially treated as a major story by local Web sites. But China's official state media offered limited coverage of the issue, and news portals later in the day began restricting coverage of the story after being ordered to play down coverage of it, according to several people working for the portals. Several sites had translated and posted the full text of the statement by David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, originally published in English on Google's blogspot blog, which is not accessible in China, but these translations appeared to have been removed soon after they were posted.

Google considers withdrawing from China following a cyberattack that targeted as many as 34 firms and email accounts of human rights activists. Hong Kong bureau chief Peter Stein discusses the subject with technology reporter Andrew LaVallee.

Internet users continued to comment on the news, however. Some worried their Google e-mail accounts would be deleted, and others expressed concern that Chinese authorities would further tighten its Internet controls. "Our postings on the Internet are deleted by [other] Web sites, or when we upload pictures showing bad things on the street, they are deleted … I don't know what to do without Google," Ms. Xu said.

Google users "are all very active users of the Internet. They have high demand for the stability of Gmail, and also rely on it a lot in their daily lives," said Lu Bowang, managing partner with the China IntelliConsulting Corp. The firm estimates that 80 million people log on to Google at least once a week, and half are frequent users of the Web site. If Google leaves China, the impact on the Chinese Internet will be "huge," Mr. Lu said.

Despite significant difficulties along the way, Google has had a major impact throughout China's information technology sector since it entered the market in 2005. If the U.S. company's decision to discontinue its cooperation with Chinese censors leads to the shuttering of its Chinese Web site, Google.cn, it could throw the future of its investments and partnerships throughout the Chinese Internet and telecommunications sectors into question – while also potentially creating opportunities for Chinese rivals.

Google last March launched a music service in cooperation with Top100.cn, a Chinese company in which it owns a stake, and with the world's four biggest music labels, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music, EMI Group Ltd., and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment. That free, advertising-supported service, which lets users download or stream music in China, has been closely watched as a possible solution to rampant music piracy.
A Difficult Search

Sina Corp., one of China's largest Internet portals, partners with Google to offer the American company's search bar on its home page. China Mobile Ltd., the country's largest mobile carrier, uses Google's Chinese mobile search service on its handset browsers. The state-owned company has released several smart phones that run on Google's Android operating system, and is planning many more in partnership with various handset makers, as part of its competitive response to a rival carrier's launch of Apple Inc.'s iPhone in China.

Officials at Google's partner companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and it's not clear that its other initiatives and investments would be damaged if Google shuts its Chinese search business. Technically, most of Google's partnerships and other investments could continue, but by snubbing Chinese authorities so publicly, the company risks government retaliation against itself or its partners.

Google's share of the Chinese market has risen markedly in recent years, to 35.6% in the fourth quarter of 2009 from less than half that just three years earlier, according to Beijing-based research firm Analysys International. That still made it a distant second to Chinese competitor Baidu Inc., which boasted 58.4% market share in the latest period. But it makes Google arguably the most successful foreign Internet company in China, whose 338 million Internet users as of June were more than any other country.

Chinese government officials have yet to respond to Google's declaration, and Chinese media were largely silent on the issue, with some reporters saying the topics of censorship and cyber espionage were too sensitive. But a report by China's state-run Xinhua news agency quoted an official at China's State Council Information Office saying authorities were seeking more information on the Google statement. As of Wednesday, Google's Chinese Web site was still filtering search results, with a message at the bottom of its Web pages notifying users of the practice.

News of the security breach at Google and other companies alarmed other foreign companies with China operations. Google's statement against censorship in China also set a new standard for many multinational companies that have cooperated with the Chinese government for years, saying that sacrifices had to be made in order to reach China's massive market.
Journal Community

Mr. Lu lamented the possibility of Google's departure. He said Google's "influence on the Chinese Internet industry goes far beyond its role as a search engine, mostly thanks to its strong power of innovation … the existence of Google in the Chinese market was always regarded as a motivation for Chinese Internet ventures' efforts to innovate. Without Google, such motivation … would be gone."

Still, analysts said some in the industry could stand to benefit from Google's departure. Baidu, for example, could immediately benefit if its main competitor vanishes—although it might also risk a backlash if Chinese users angry over Google's treatment see Baidu as aligned with government censors.

Chinese Internet portals such as Netease.com Inc., Sohu.com Inc., and Tencent Holdings Ltd.--all of which have their own search engines with negligible market share—could also benefit.

"If Google pulls out from the market completely, it will be a fight between Tencent, Netease and Sohu for the number two spot," said Elinor Leung, an analyst at CLSA.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362004575000440265987982.html

 

[Dak]

If anyone thinks that this situation wasn't caused in part to meddling by some facet of USGov operations, they would be extremely naive. I find it extremely interesting, in light of the pressure China had been exerting on us regarding debt.

 

[Doomguy]

Thanks for the insight there Grant. Definitely a lot more to it then I was previously aware about.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

If anyone thinks that this situation wasn't caused in part to meddling by some facet of USGov operations, they would be extremely naive. I find it extremely interesting, in light of the pressure China had been exerting on us regarding debt.

Mind qualifying that statement with some logic and evidence? Sure there's a motive for someone in the US gov't to be behind it, but that doesn't prove that it was US-based.

 

[Dak]

Mind qualifying that statement with some logic and evidence? Sure there's a motive for someone in the US gov't to be behind it, but that doesn't prove that it was US-based.

Any backroom pressure on Google to put a squeeze on China wouldn't be anywhere, but the effects this brings combined with the ongoing debt issue is obvious:

Facts:

Unless Google backs down, the outcome of this disagreement for the government of China ranges from bad to disastrous.

1.If China stands firm on it's right to control the Net in it's country, Google removes itself, leading to a good possiblity of domestic disorder in China. The potential severity isn't clear though.

2. If China backs down from Google, it will expose a weakness that could potentially be exploited repeatedly by other successful corporations, same logic line as why the US "doesn't negotiate with terrorists".

Besides the attractiveness of the above situations to the US, we are in desperate need of a domestic distraction in China to take the focus off our debt issues, not to mention sending a message to China that we still have cards in our hand to play.

China Losing Taste for US Debt

is the most recent headline, but there have been dozens of similar stories for the past year or more, not to mention all the articles regarding the increase in commodity and precious metal buying by China.

It is simple dot connecting.

 

[Dak]

Different note:





Traces the history of gun control laws to racial reasons in the 60s and earlier.

 

[cookiecutter]

The irony of that is lots of the guys obsessed with guns are motivated out of fear of the racist stereotype of an armed black man.

 

[Badbird]

The irony of that is lots of the guys obsessed with guns are motivated out of fear of the racist stereotype of an armed black man.

Like Krig?

 

[cookiecutter]

I always figured Krig had a small penis but that's just mean-spirited speculation.

 

[Badbird]

He also lives with his parents and he hates Obama too right?

 

[Dak]

The irony of that is lots of the guys obsessed with guns are motivated out of fear of the racist stereotype of an armed black man.

Kind of like how lots of the guys obsessed with guns are motivated out of fear of the stereotype of police thugs? Or government abuse in general?

He also lives with his parents and he hates Obama too right?

Living with/off parents and/or disliking Obama are have nothing to do with second amendment rights and government interest in gun control.

Just look at Dodens and cookie.