07/6/12

Online Security Basic -should I use encryption

gAto fOuNd - this -/ Basic Security Guide /- a while ago in the .onion and while I don’t agree with everything in this write-up I learned some new things. At the end of the day –/ they can’t take away what’s in your head -always be a critical thinker - gAtO oUt

Online Security Basic - link are .onionLand

Transcribed from http://g7pz322wcy6jnn4r.onion/opensource/generalguide.html on 2011-04-16.

Contents[hide]

Basic F.A.Q.

What is encryption?

Encryption is a method of encoding information in such a way that it is computationally difficult for eavesdroppers to decode, but computationally easy for the intended recipient to decode. In practical terms, encryption makes it almost impossible for you to be successfully wiretapped. Encryption can also make it essentially impossible for computer forensic teams to gather any data from your hard disk drive. Encryption is the process of making information difficult or impossible to recover with out a key. The key is either a passphrase or a huge random number protected by a passphrase. Encryption algorithms fall into two primary categories: communications and storage. If you use a program such as GPG to encrypt your E-mail messages, you are using encryption for communications. If you use a program such as Truecrypt to encrypt your hard disk drive, you are using encryption for storage.

Is there a big difference between storage and communication encryption?

Yes. Data storage encryption often uses only symmetric algorithms. Communication encryption typically uses a combination of asymmetric and symmetric algorithms. Asymmetric algorithms are generally far easier to break than symmetric algorithms. In practice this is not significant as the computing power required to break either strong asymmetric or strong symmetric algorithms is not likely in the grasp of any agency.

Should I use encryption?

Yes! If you participate in the Internet underground it is essential for your continued freedom that you learn how to use encryption programs. All communications should be encrypted as well as all stored data. For real time communication encryption we suggest either Pidgin or Adium instant messages with the OTR plug-in. For non-real time communication encryption we suggest GPG. Truecrypt does a great job of encrypting stored data and can also encrypt the OS partition if you use Windows. Various flavors of Linux and Unix also allow for the OS partition to be encrypted although the particular program used will vary. If an alternative installation CD is used Ubuntu allows for OS partition encryption during the installation process.

What is plausible deniability?

When discussing stored data encryption plausible deniability means that an encrypted container can decrypt into two different sets of data depending on the key used. Plausible deniability allows for you to pretend to cooperate with authorities with out them being able to tell you are not cooperating. For example, perhaps they demand you give up your password so they can decrypt some of your communications or stored data. If you used a system with plausible deniability you would be able to give them a password that would indeed decrypt the encrypted data. However, the decrypted data they can now see will be non-sensitive data you intentionally allowed for them to decrypt. They can not see your sensitive information and they can not prove that you didn’t cooperate.

Do I need plausible deniability?

Possibly. It really depends on where you live. In the U.K. it is a crime to refuse to give law enforcement your encryption keys on demand. Refusal to reveal encryption keys is punishable by several years in prison, but this is quite possibly a lot less time than you would get if you did reveal your encryption keys. In the U.S.A. the issue has not yet gone to the supreme court and lower judges have ruled in both directions. In general it is a good idea to use plausible deniable encryption when possible. Truecrypt supports plausible deniability for all functions under Windows. For Linux there is no current software supporting out-of-the-box plausible deniability of the OS partition. With Linux you may be able to achieve a type of plausible deniability by encrypting your entire drive and putting the bootloader on another device. Then you can argue the drive was freshly wiped with a PRNG and there is no key to decrypt.

Of course the police can break encryption, right?!

If you are using a strong encryption program (such as GPG, OTR, Truecrypt, etc) and a long and random password (or automatically generated session key, such as OTR) the police are not going to be able to directly break the encryption. This is not to say they can not get your key in other ways! For example they could install a keylogger onto your keyboard or use various transient signal attacks to capture your key while you type it. An emerging method of encryption key compromise uses application layer exploits to remotely grab keys from RAM. These ‘side channel’ attacks need to have active measures taken against them (the best of which are using a strong anonymity solution and hardened OS).

What about the NSA?

The NSA is not going to be able to break strong data storage encryption algorithms (symmetric). They are also probably not able to break strong communication encryption algorithms (asymmetric). Very powerful quantum computers can be used to greatly reduce the bit strength of an encryption algorithm. Symmetric algorithms have their bit strength cut in half. Asymmetric algorithms are easily broken by such powerful computers. If you are using AES-256 a powerful quantum computer will reduce its bit strength to the still unbreakable 128. If you are using even a 4,096 bit RSA key with GPG, a powerful quantum computer can break the encryption. However, keep two things in mind; It is not likely that the NSA or anyone else has such a computer, and anyone sane will assure you that unless you are a foreign military or major terrorist the NSA will not act on any intelligence they gather by by breaking your communication encryption.

But anything can be hacked, right? Why not encryption?

Encryption algorithms are not hacked, they are cryptanalyzed. Not every single thing done with a computer can really be considered hacking. Hackers may be able to exploit the implemented code of a program using an encryption algorithm, but even the best hackers tend to know little about encryption. Hacking and cryptography are not the same field and most hackers who think they know a lot about encryption actually know very little about it. Encryption is a field of pure mathematics and good encryption algorithms are based firmly on the laws of mathematics as they are currently understood. Unless there is some very unlikely discovery in the field of mathematics the security claims made about most encryption algorithms will stand firm even if the best hackers (or even more impressively cryptographers) in the world try and attack them.

Note: Some hackers are skilled enough to side channel your encryption with application layer exploits unless you take hardening counter measures. This is not hacking the encryption algorithm although it is using hacking to counter encryption. Following our general security guide (later on this page!) will make it much harder for hackers to do this. To hack you through Open Source the attacker will first have to compromise Open Source, we have taken many security measures to make this very difficult to do.

Using encryption programs myself is difficult, but Hushmail, Safe-Mail or (Insert name here) will manage it for me!

Fully web based services can not really offer you strong encryption. They manage your keys for you and for this reason they have access to your keys. It does not matter what the company is named or what they promise, all of them are liars and some are probably honeypots. These services will not offer you strong encryption and law enforcement will be able to gain access to your communications. If you play with fire you need to learn how to protect yourself or you will be burned. It is not overly difficult to manage your own encryption and it is the only possible way for you to maintain your security.

What exactly is anonymity?

Anonymity is the property of being indistinguishable from a given set size (number of others). In the way the term is commonly used anonymity is the inability to be traced. A trace could mean that an attacker follows your communication stream from you to the end destination you are communicating with. A trace could also mean that an attacker follows a trail of logs from the end destination you communicate with back to your location. Anonymity solutions make it difficult to trace your communications and by doing so also make it harder to map out the networks you participate in. Anonymity can also be used to prevent censorship. If a server is hosted as part of an anonymity network and its location can not be determined then an attacker is incapable of demanding the censorship of the services hosted by the server.

Why do I need anonymity?

If you are not using an anonymity solution your presence on the Internet can be trivially traced back to your presence in real life. If you are participating in activities on the Internet which you would not want to be traced to your real life identity, you need anonymity. If you are participating in a network you need anonymity to protect yourself from network analysis. If no one on your network is using anonymity solutions and the police bust one of them, they will be able to see who all they communicated with as well as who all those people communicated with etc. Very quickly and with high precision the police will be able to map out the entire network, going ‘outward’ to many degrees. This may be useful for evidence (for use in court) and it is certainly useful for intelligence (so they know where to look next).

I already use encryption so there is no need for me to be anonymous!

Although encryption and anonymity highly compliment each other they serve two different goals. Encryption is used to protect your privacy, anonymity is used to hide your location and protect you from network analysis. Strong anonymity requires encryption, and encryption is greatly benefited when combined with anonymity (after all, it is hard to install a keylogger if you don’t know where the target is located!). If you use strong encryption but no anonymity solution the feds may not be able to see what you say but they will know who you are and who you are talking with. Depending on the structure and purpose of your network, a single compromised node may very well remove all benefits of using encrypted communications. Many of the most realistic and devastating attacks on encryption systems require the attacker to gain a physical presence; if you are not using an anonymity solution this is trivial for them to do. If the feds do not know where you are, they can’t bug your keyboard with a keylogger. Anyone who says you do not need anonymity if you use encryption should be looked at with great suspicion.

Tor exit nodes can spy on my communication streams so I should not use it!

If you use Tor to connect to the open Internet (.com instead of .onion) it is true that the exit node can spy on your communications. You can reduce the risk of this by making sure you only connect to SSL websites (https:// instead of http://). You can further reduce the risk of this by always checking the fingerprint of the SSL certificate and making sure it does not change with out an adequate reason being presented by the site administrator. You can eliminate the risk of a spying exit node in some contexts. For example if you encrypt a message yourself with GPG before you send it, the exit node will not be able to break the encryption even if they are spying.

Tor is not meant for privacy (unless you only access .onions) it is meant for anonymity! If you want privacy while using Tor you will need to either only access .onions or you will need to layer it on yourself by using GPG, SSL, OTR or other encryption on top of it. Using Tor to connect to the open Internet with out using any privacy tools yourself can actually reduce your privacy from some attackers. Remember, Tor to the open Internet is for anonymity it is not for privacy. Anonymity is just as important as privacy. Also, networking tools with a larger focus on privacy than anonymity (such as VPNs), will not offer you privacy from law enforcement anymore than Tor will and they also tend to offer substantially worse anonymity!

If I use Tor can I be traced by the feds?

So far, probably not unless you get very unlucky or misconfigure something. The feds are getting better at tracing people faster than Tor is getting better at avoiding a trace. Tor is for low latency (fast) anonymity, and low latency solutions will never have the ability to be as anonymous as high latency (very slow) solutions. As recently as 2008 we have documented proof that FBI working with various other international federal agencies via Interpol could not trace high priority targets using the Tor network. There is a large amount of information indicating that this is still the case. This will not be the case forever and better solutions than Tor are going to be required at some point in the future. This does not mean you should stop using Tor! It is quite possible that no VPN solution offers better anonymity than Tor, and the only low latency network which can be compared to Tor in terms of anonymity is I2P. Freenet is an anonymous datastore which possibly offers better anonymity than Tor or I2P. In the end it is very difficult to say what the best solution is or who it will hold up to, but most people from the academic anonymity circles say Tor, I2P or Freenet are the best three options. JAP is considered worse than the three previously suggested solutions, but better than most VPN services. You should at the very least use an encrypted two hop solution if you want a chance at remaining anonymous from the feds.

Traced is a very particular term. It means that the attacker either can observe your exit traffic and follow it back to your entry point or that the attacker can see your traffic enter a network and follow it to its exit point. Tor does a good job of protecting from this sort of attack, especially if you have not pissed off any signals intelligence agencies. Tor does not protect from membership revealment attacks! It is vital that you understand this attack and take measures to counter it if you are a vendor. To learn more about how to counter this attack keep reading this document, we discuss more in the applied security advice section on this page.

If I use Tor can I be traced by the NSA?

Probably. If you want a chance of being anonymous from the NSA you should research the Mixmaster and Mixminion remailer networks. NSA usually traces people by hacking them and doing a side channel attack. They have dozens of zero day exploits for every major application. This is also how they compromise GPG and FDE. Your best bet to remain anonymous/secure from the NSA is to use ASLR with a 64 bit processor to protect from hacking + Tor + Random WiFi location.Using airgaps can protect from them stealing encryption keys. This would involve using one machine with access to the internet to receive data, transfer the encrypted data to another machine with a CD which you then destroy, and decrypt on a machine with no access to the internet. Don’t reuse transfer devices or else they can act as compromise vectors to communicate between the machine with no internet connection and the machine with internet connection. Mixminion is better than mixmaster.

If I use hacked cable modems am I untraceable?

No, the cable company can trace you and so can the police and feds. However, it will make it more difficult for them to do so. People have been busted using this technique by itself!

If I use hacked or open WiFi am I untraceable?

The degree of untraceability you get by using WiFi access points depends largely on how you are using them. If you always use your neighbors connection, the trace will go to your neighbor before it goes to you. However, if law enforcement make it to your neighbors house before you stop the pattern of behavior, they can use WiFi analysis equipment to trace the wireless signal from your neighbors router and back to you. Many people have been busted this way. Also, if you use many different WiFi access points but they fit into a modus operandi (such as always from a particular type of location, maybe coffee shop) , you can eventually be identified if law enforcement put enough effort into doing so. Some people have been busted using this technique. If you use a brand new random location (harder than it sounds) every time you make a connection your identity can still be compromised, but the amount of effort required increases tremendously (assuming you are protected from side channel attacks anyway, be they CCTV cameras or remote WPS infections). We have not heard of anyone being busted if they used a brand new randomly selected WiFi access point for every connection.

If I send a package domestic to the USA with USPS do they need a warrant to open the package?

Yes, if it is sent in such a way that it could contain communications. For example, a letter will require a warrant but perhaps a very large and heavy box will not. For the most part, they need a warrant. No other mailing company requires a warrant to open any sort of packages. International packages can be inspected by customs with no need for a warrant.

Should I use masking scents, such as perfumes etc?

No, masking scents will not prevent a dog from hitting on the package. Masking scents will however make the package seem more suspicious to humans. Vacuum seal the product and be very careful to not leave any residues.

Applied Security Guide

Step Zero: Encrypt your hosts HDD

If you use Windows this can be done with Truecrypt

If you use Linux there are various ways you can accomplish this, usually an install time option

Step One: Configure the base system, harden OS

Application layer attacks exploit programming or design flaws of the programs you use, in general the goal of such attacks is to take over your system. For a deeper look at application layer exploits please check out the this page. These attacks are very dangerous because they can circumvent a lot of the other security you use, like encryption and anonymity solutions. The good news is that Open Source acts as an application layer firewall between you and everyone you communicate with through Open Source. We have taken great care to harden our server from attack and even if you take no precautions yourself it should not be trivial for you to be hacked through our server. However it is still a good idea for you to harden your own system. You don’t know for sure if you can trust us and there is no reason to be a sitting duck if our server is indeed compromised.

The first step you should take is running the operating system you use to connect to Open Source in a Virtual Machine. We suggest that you use Virtualbox. Virtual machines like Virtualbox create virtual hardware and allow you to run an operating system on this virtual hardware. It sounds complex but you really don’t need to know a lot about the theory, Virtualbox does all the work for you. There are a few reasons why you should use a virtual machine. The primary reason is that if the browser in your virtual machine is hacked the attacker is stuck inside of the virtual machine. The only way they can get to your normal OS is if they find a vulnerability in the virtual machines hypervisor, this adds complexity to their attack. The second reason you should use a virtual machine is because it makes it easier to use Linux if you are used to Windows or Mac OSX. Linux is a lot easier to secure than those operating systems but it is also harder to use. By using a virtual machine you can use your normal OS and Linux at the same time, Linux runs as a guest OS in a window on your normal (host) OS.

It is very simple to set up a virtual machine. Download and install Virtualbox. After launching it you will need to create a new VM. It is pretty simple and the program will walk you through the steps. Make sure to create a large enough virtual drive to install an OS, I suggest around ten gigabytes. You will need an install image so you can put the OS of your choice on the VM. Download the most recent Ubuntu ISO and use this. Remember, it doesn’t really matter if you don’t know how to use Linux. All you are using this VM for is using Firefox to browse Open Source, security comes before ease of use! Now that your virtual machine has been created you need to point it to your Ubuntu install CD. You can do this by going to the machines storage tab in the Virtualbox manager and pointing the CD drive to your install ISO. You will possibly be required to configure your virtual machine to connect to the internet if the default settings do not work for you, but chances are high that they will. Now you need to boot the virtual machine and install Ubuntu. Installing Ubuntu takes a little over half an hour and is very easy, you can simply select to use the default options for almost all of the steps.

Now that Ubuntu has been installed in a virtual machine it is time to start hardening it. The first step is to make sure it is fully patched and up to date. You can do this by going to System -> Administration -> Update manager from the bar on the top of your screen. Make sure you install all new updates because the updates include important security patches. It will take a while to update your system.

Now it is time to do some more advanced hardening steps. These steps may seem to be difficult if you are not very advanced technically, but don’t worry it is all just following instructions and you only have to do it once. Go to Applications -> Accessories -> Terminal from the top bar on your screen. This will launch a command line interface. Now type in the following commands hitting enter after each:

sudo aa-enforce /etc/apparmor.d/*

 

This command enables every AppArmor profile that Ubuntu ships with, including one for Firefox. AppArmor is an application layer firewall and makes it a lot harder for a hacker to compromise an application configured with a profile.

sudo apt-get install bastille

This downloads a generic hardening script that will walk you through some automated steps to make your system more secure.

sudo bastille -c

This launches the bastille hardening script. It will walk you through every step, in general you should select the default option. Make sure you at least read every step, there might be some things you don’t want it to do but in general the default options are good.

Step Two: Configure Tor and GPG, harden Firefox

Follow these simply step by step guides in order

Install TorInstall GPGConfigure Firefox with Tor and Harden it

Although it is not required for customers to know how to use GPG they still should. Our system will protect your communications in some ways. Your messages are stored in encrypted containers set to dismount if an intrusion is detected. Our server is highly hardened and resistant to hackers infiltrating it and spying on your messages. We are also a Tor hidden service and therefor offer encryption from you to us and from us to the people you communicate with. Our server is still the weak point in this system, a particularly skilled hacker could compromise the server and manage to spy on your communications undetected. The server could be traced by an attacker who could then flash freeze the RAM and dump the encrypted container keys. As far as you know we could even be law enforcement, or law enforcement could compromise us at a later date (the first is not true and the second is not likely, but do you really know this?). Our system does not hide your communications from us if we are your adversary, the same is true for Hushmail and Safe-mail. You can protect your communications with high grade encryption algorithms simply by learning to use GPG and it isn’t hard so we highly suggest you do it. Vendors are required to accept GPG encrypted orders!

Step Three: Conceal your membership (VERY IMPORTANT FOR VENDORS)

Using Tor by itself is not enough to protect you, particularly if you are a vendor. Membership revealment attacks combined with rough geolocation intelligence can lead to a compromise! The gist of a membership revealment attack is easy to understand. The attacker merely determines everyone who is connecting to a particular network, even if they are incapable of determining where the traffic being sent through the network is destined for. Tor does a good job of preventing an attacker who can see exit traffic from following the stream back to your location. Unfortunately, if you ship product the attacker can determine your rough geolocation merely by determining where you ship product from. If the attacker already knows your rough geolocation and they are capable of doing a membership revealment attack to determine who all in your area is connected to Tor, they can likely narrow down your possible identity to a very small set size, possibly even a set size of one.

This is not likely to be useful for evidence but it will provide strong intelligence. Intelligence is the first step to gathering evidence. The attacker may put everyone in your area who they detect are connecting to the Tor network under meatspace surveillance looking for evidence of drug trafficking activity. For this reason it is highly important that you protect yourself from membership revealment attacks!

Membership revealment attacks are less a worry for customers (provided financiall intelligence is properly countered to avoid an attacker finding rough customer geolocations!) than they are for vendors. There are a few reasons why this is true. First of all a customer is likely to reveal more about their identity when they place an order than the attacker will be able to determine with a geolocation + membership revealment attack. Secondly, the vendors allowed to operate on Open Source have been highly screened to significantly reduce the probability that any of them are federal agents, but the customers on Open Source are not only anonymous but they are also not screened at all. Third of all, the organizational structure reduces the risk for customers; a customer may work with a few vendors but each vendor is likely to be working with hundreds or thousands of customers. Customers sourcing from Open Source are at minimal risk even if they have products delivered directly to there own residence, vendors working on Open Source at particularly vulnerable to membership revealment attacks due to the open nature of the site.

The primary concern for customers is that they load finances anonymously and the vendor decentralizes their financial network. If a vendor is using a star network (centralized) financial topology there is a risk that an attacker could map out the geographic locations where customers loaded funds. After determining where funding was loaded the attackers could do anonymizer membership revealment attacks in an area around the load point and filter out everyone who is not using an anonymizer. This will likely leave the customer and few others. The attacker may even be able to compare CCTV footage of the load to the users of anonymizers in the area and look for a facial recognition match. To counter this it is important for customers to make use of good financial counter intelligence techniques (E-currency layering being one). Customers may also choose to utilize transients by paying them a fee to load currency, this way the customer avoids being on CCTV at any point. If vendors decentralize funding points (ditch the star network topology) customers will be strongly protected from such attacks, however it is impossible for a customer to ensure that a vendor is using a 1:1 customer to account/pseudonym identification ratio.

There are several ways you can protect yourself from a membership revealment attack, if you are a vendor it would be foolish to not take one of these countermeasures. The primary way to protect from a membership revealment attack is to make sure you do not enter traffic through the same network you exit traffic through. As all traffic to Open Source ‘exits’ through the Tor network, entering your traffic through a VPN first will reduce your vulnerability to membership revealment attacks. The attacker will have to determine who all in your area uses any anonymizing technology and put all of them under meatspace surveillance, there are likely to be far more people in your area using some sort of proxy system than there are people using Tor in particular. This will substantially increase the cost of putting all ‘potential targets’ under surveillance.

Using a VPN is helpful but it is not the most ideal solution. Your crowd space against a membership revealment attack will increase but perhaps not by much depending on the particular area you work out of. Also, a particularly skilled attacker may be able to determine you are using a VPN to connect to Tor by fingerprinting traffic streams. Tor traffic is padded to 512 byte size packets, normal VPN traffic is not. By filtering for 512 byte streams, an attacker can determine who all is using Tor in a given area. VPN’s protect from IP routing based membership revealment attacks but not from traffic fingerprinting membership revealment attacks. However, it is less likely that an attacker will be able to do a traffic fingerprinting membership revealment attack. The Chinese intelligence services apparently are still using IP address based attacks to block access to the Tor network. This is not nearly as effective as traffic fingerprinting based attacks. This could be an indication that traffic fingerprinting membership revealment attacks are more difficult to carry out (likely), however it could also be due to a lack of skill on the part of Chinas intelligence services. It could also be that China is not particularly interested in blocking/detecting all Tor traffic and IP address based attacks meet their requirements.

A better option than using a VPN would be to set up a private VPS and then enter all of your Tor traffic through this. Doing this will make you much more resistant to IP address based membership revealment attacks because now the attacker will not even be able to narrow you down to all people in your area using any anonymity technology. This is still weak to traffic fingerprinting membership revealment attacks!

Perhaps the best option to avoid membership revealment attacks is to use open or cracked WiFi from a different location + Tor every single time you connect. You could even use open Wifi + VPN/VPS + Tor for very high security from membership revealment attacks. Using random (not your neighbors) open/cracked WiFi greatly increaces your resistance to a wide variety of identity revealing attacks. An attacker can still do membership revealment attacks on users of open WiFi but they can no longer gain useful intelligence from the attack. If they detect that an open WiFi connection unrelated to you is using Tor it can not be used to put you under meatspace surveillance unless they manage to identify you (facial recognition from CCTV cameras, etc).

If you are operating as part of a group you can avoid membership revealment attacks via smart organizational policy. The person responsible for communicating with customers should be different from the person shipping orders. Now the customers are incapable of determining where your actual rough geolocation is because product is sent from a different geographic area than you communicate from. Your shipper should be aware that they will potentially come under scrutiny via a geolocation + membership revealment attack, especially if they use Tor to enter traffic.

nother option is to configure Tor to use a bridge. Tor bridges are designed to allow people in nations such as China the ability to connect to the Tor network. China uses IP address based blocking to prevent users from connecting to known Tor nodes. Bridges are Tor entry guards that are not publicly listed and have a limited distribution mechanism. You can get some Tor bridge IP addresses from the Tor website. We do not suggest you use Tor bridges because they replace your entry guard and they are under crowded. This will lead to a lot less multiplexing on your Tor circuit and can hurt your anonymity in other ways, although it will indeed offer some level of protection from membership revealment attacks. China has managed to detect about 80% of Tor bridges, it is likely that NSA knows all of them. Police agencies in the West are probably not yet particularly worried about locating bridge nodes but they can probably do so with near the same accuracy as China. In our opinion it is not smart to rely on a Tor bridge to protect you from membership revealment attacks in most cases.

Step Four: Know how to do safe product transfer, handle finances safe

Note: Although customers sourcing from Open Source are encouraged to take the best security measures they can, it is not likely required for them to utilize advanced operational security regarding mail (such as fake ID boxes, tactical pick utechniques, etc). Because the vendors allowed to be listed here have been highly screened it is likely safe for customers to have product delivered directly to their homes. If you only work with highly trusted and trusted vendors your biggest concern will be a package being intercepted!

 

05/30/12

Hide SCADA in the ToR network – ..-hiding in plain site..

Hide SCADA in the ToR network – ..FREE-hiding in plain site..

any internet connection 2-ToR

gAtO cAn -now provide your company a FREE .onion network – reliable 24/7 secure / encrypted / untraceable communication between your SCADA systems talking to each other and the main office giving you real-time data from any remote SCADA  site. As an example from Scheider Electric white paper on – Video Surveillance Integrated with SCADA – White Paper  – we can now take that physical video security of all your remote video assets and transmit them securely, encrypted and untraceable to anyplace in the world to your datacenter. When going in and out of the invisible .onion network, you can control the entry and exit relays so picking safe verified relays to use is easy, or you can use your own relays, the more relays the better the system becomes at making you more invisible. The more people that use it the more untraceable and unmonitored it becomes. This kind of SCADA  communication in the ToR- onion network redefines geo-political digital boundaries. Since it rides on any Internet connection it can be used anywhere.

in the ToR-.onion network merchants can’t spy on you and they can’t steal your information

Not if but when —business take over the ToR- .onion network it will change the landscape and give it more order but it will still give the user anonymity thats the key to this network your signal, your voice cannot be found but you can still communicate. The ToR- .onion network rides not on top or the bottom of the digital super-highway but thru it.

Let’s keep in mind that access to the ToR-.onion network is FREE to anyone and your company’s use of the network makes it safer for everyone since the more people use it the more unreachable-undetectable you become. But in business you also have to deal with hostile governments and protecting your people and assets thru a ToR .onion network becomes even more critical. You can still operate but be safe and secure in your business communications.

The ToRProject.org is something that is making an impact on the very lives of people that want to have a free safe secure voice. Just look at Mr Chen a dissident from China he was jailed because he spoke up about the disable in China. The ToRProject.com helps people like Mr. Chen speak and to remain in anonymity. But by adding real business -reays into the ToR- .onion network we will give these people and the business more transparency, it makes you more invisible on the internet. You can donate to the ToR project and it’s a 501(c), so it’s deductible. Look at the donors list and see who support this invisible network. U.S Naval Research, National Science Foundation- DARPA – National Christian Foundation are some of the people supporting the ToR Project, it’s not so bad if they use it— see lab Notes below -

How you gonna hack what you can’t find, can’t see and can’t trace to you?

Just think mr. bankers a free secret untraceable encrypted-communication place were you can do your banking deals -in secret- and nobody but you and your closes friends know it even exist, not the government, not your spouse and harder for criminals to find your valuable data. It hides you in an Internet bubble of packets were nobody knows who you are or how to find you. Try can’t even tell it’s a ToR- .onion network it hides it’s signal to blend into the bit’s and bytes of the landscape in the digital noise.

Technically it pretty cheap get the free software as many copies as you need FREE!!! No volume pricing no updates FREE!!! Once your computer that talks to the internet hooks up to a ToR- Relays it’s in the matrix. If you add your own ToR-Relays you can use trusted Relays as entry and exit nodes into the ToR-.onion network so you can let the program use it randomness or choose a path into a FREE invisible communication media accessible from any Internet connection. -

The ToRProject.org is currently still fighting censorship and monitoring in China, Iran, Syria and others were people are being killed and sent home in small boxes to their relatives. Because that person could not use a ToR-network access to his gmail account that was monitored they showed him his emails and his guilt and killed him. That’s how brutal it can become if you cannot have a safe secure access to a basic email to communicate with the world. Government will kill you for what you say. Donate to the ToRProject.org

It’s easy -if all else fails call the gAtO I can help your business become invisible in/on the Internet- gATO oUt.

We use the ToR network for all communication in SCADA systems.  Here are a few SCADA White papers try them with ToR- .onion Networks.

 

lab Notes— gAtO 5/29/12

Tor: Sponsors

The Tor Project’s diversity of users means we have a diversity of funding sources too — and we’re eager to diversify even further! Our sponsorships are divided into levels based on total funding received:

Magnoliophyta (over $1 million)

Liliopsida (up to $750k)

Asparagales (up to $500k)

Alliaceae (up to $200k)

  • You or your organization?

Allium (up to $100k)

Allium cepa (up to $50k)

Past sponsors

We greatly appreciate the support provided by our past sponsors in keeping the pre-501(c)(3) Tor Project progressing through our ambitious goals:

WiKi-Pedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCADA

SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) generally refers to industrial control systems (ICS): computer systems that monitor and control industrial, infrastructure, or facility-based processes, as described below:

  • Industrial processes include those of manufacturing, production, power generation, fabrication, and refining, and may run in continuous, batch, repetitive, or discrete modes.
  • Infrastructure processes may be public or private, and include water treatment and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment, oil and gas pipelines, electrical power transmission and distribution, wind farms, civil defense siren systems, and large communication systems.
  • Facility processes occur both in public facilities and private ones, including buildings, airports, ships, and space stations. They monitor and control HVAC, access, and energy consumption.

A SCADA system usually consists of the following subsystems:

  • A human–machine interface or HMI is the apparatus or device which presents process data to a human operator, and through this, the human operator monitors and controls the process.
  • A supervisory (computer) system, gathering (acquiring) data on the process and sending commands (control) to the process.
  • Remote terminal units (RTUs) connecting to sensors in the process, converting sensor signals to digital data and sending digital data to the supervisory system.
  • Programmable logic controller (PLCs) used as field devices because they are more economical, versatile, flexible, and configurable than special-purpose RTUs.
  • Communication infrastructure connecting the supervisory system to the remote terminal units.
  • Various process and analytical instrumentation

 

05/27/12

Information Leakage -Scrubbing Document Formats

gAtO tHiNk - that our documents have too much information about us – it’s called metadata  and it’s embedded in the picture you just took with your iPhone/android phone. It has your geo-location and other information that you should clean up before you post it on Facebook  or Pintrest -so here a re a few tips to keep you paranoid.

Many document formats conveniently embed personally identifying attributes, and sometimes even attempt to limit redistribution. This can be problematic to whistle blowers who need to produce/deliver incriminating memos and photos to journalists, and also to academic researchers who wish to electronically publish their work anonymously.

 Microsoft Office

Microsoft Office embeds your name, machine name, initials, company name, and revision information in documents that you create.

According to Microsoft’s knowledge base article on the Metadata, the best way to remove all personal metadata from a document is to go to Tools | Options | Security Tab | “Remove personal information from this file on save”. Be warned that this does NOT remove hidden text and comment text that may have been added, but those tasks are also covered in that article.

Microsoft also provides the Remove Hidden Data Tool that apparently accomplishes those same functions but from outside of Microsoft Office.

This NSA Guide to sanitizing documents might also be of some interest, but I think the Microsoft KB articles cover the info better and in more depth.

StarOffice/OpenOffice

By default, users of StarOffice/OpenOffice are not safe either. Both of these programs will save personal information in XML markup at the top of documents. It can be removed by going to File | Properties and unchecking “Apply User Data”, and also clicking on “Delete”. Unfortunately it does not remove creation and modification times. It’s not clear how to do this without editing the file raw in a plain text editor such as notepad.

 Document DRM – Digital Rights Mangement

Document DRM can come in all shapes and sizes, mostly with the intent to restrict who can view a document and how many times they can view or print it (in some cases even keeping track of everyone who has handled a document). For whistleblowers who need to circumvent DRM to distribute a document, the most universal approach is to use the “Print Screen” key to take a screenshot of your desktop with each page of the document and paste each screenshot into Windows Paint and save it. Some DRM software will attempt to prevent this behavior. This can be circumvented by installing the 30 day trial of the product VMWare Workstation and installing a copy of Windows and the DRM reader onto it. You can then happily take screenshots using VMWare’s “Capture Screen” or even the “Capture Movie” feature, and the DRM software will be none the wiser. With a little image cropping, you can produce a series of images that can be distributed or printed freely.

The VMWare approach may be problematic for DRM that relies on a TPM chip. The current versions of VMWare neither emulate nor provide pass-through access to the TPM. However, TPM-based DRM systems are still in the prototype stage, and since it is possible to emulate and virtualize a TPM, it should only be a matter of time before some form of support is available in VMWare.

Depending on the DRM software itself, cracks may also be available to make this process much more expedient. Casual searching doesn’t turn up much, most likely due the relative novelty (and public scarcity) of document-oriented DRM. Note that when doing your own google searching for this type of material, be sure to check the bottom of the page for notices of DMCA 512 takedowns censoring search results. It is usually possible to recover URLs from chillingeffects’ C&D postings. That, or use a google interface from another country such as Germany.

 Image Metadata

Metadata automatically recorded by digital cameras and photo editing utilities may also be problematic for anonymity. There are three main formats for image metadata: EXIF, IPTC, and XMP. Each format has several fields that should be removed from any image produced by a photographer or depicting a subject who requires anonymity. Fields such as camera model and serial numbers, owner names, locations, date, time and timezone information are all directly detrimental to anonymity. In fact, there is even a metadata spec for encoding GPS data in images. Camera equipped cell phones with GPS units installed for E911 purposes could conceivably add GPS tags automatically to pictures.

The WikiMedia Commons contains a page with information on programs capable of editing this data for each OS. My preferred method is to use the perl program ExifTool, which can strip all metadata from an image with a single command: exiftool -All= image.jpg. MacOS and Linux users should be able to download and run the exiftool program without any fuss(for Ubuntu install package libimage-exiftool-perl). Windows users will have to install ActivePerl and run perl exiftool -All= image.jpg instead. Running exiftool without the -All= switch will display existing metadata. The -U switch will show raw tags that the tool does not yet fully understand. As far as I can tell, the -All= switch is in fact able remove tags that the tool does not fully understand.

Another easy way to remove all metadata from an image it to open it in MS Paint, copy it, and paste it into another copy of paint. The Windows clipboard only copies the raw pixels and leaves the metadata behind. -gAtO oUt

04/30/12

Cyber Weapons and Cyber Attacks

gAtO wAs -reading my friend Pierluigi Paganini’s Security Affairs blog – http://securityaffairs.co -  about “Google Used as Cyber Weapons and it got me thinking. To put it in todays terms, cyber Iran is in the news lately and they do control oil coming from the middle east. Their oil fields are controlled by the Internet (SCADA) and thus vulnerable to a cyber attack. So talking about cyber weapons is not far fetched.. so.. What are Cyber weapons and how do we use them in today’s digital infrastructure. Cyber weapons today are not just about security but also as a geo-political tool and it’s power to control the price of oil as well as an a attack vector. 

We have targeted and un-targeted cyber weapons. If we look at Stuxnet and DuQu style of targeted attacks we have a cyber weapon that is guided to make sure it has the right target then uses unpublished certificates to give the software a trusted attack vector, then it goes about doing it’s dirty work. DuQu is different and these two codes do different things one is a computer to kinetic cause and effect like messing with their centrifuges in their enrichment plant and telling the monitoring stations that everything was cool and dandy and then deletes itself from the face of the earth after a self-kill date.

One lone person can with today’s tools develop, control and execute a massive cyber attack to any physical device that is connected to the Internet.

 

What is a Cyber Weapon? – http://hackmageddon.com/2012/04/22/what-is-a-cyber-weapon/

On the other hand DuQu goes and does recon and gathering of information to make an attack transmit it back to Command & Control, then sits back and waits quietly and undetected. What a dynamic dual these two are, why mention these two because, Stuxnet was the first and DuQu was the son of…stuxnet. We now have an evolving Code-Based warrior class of cyber weapons that using this framework other cyber weapons can be created.

 

The Internet was design as a weapons-class communication medium.

Spammers and phising criminals have got a new tool social engineering: it is used in:Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) style attacks just a simple email attachment and your their next victim. Then the Chinese did a clever legal plain overt in your face thing— they created an FACEBOOK account for “James Stavridis”  who happens to be an American Admiral in the Minister of Defence in NATO and then other officials from NATO accepted his Friend request and gathered tons of personal information about high ranking NATO officials.

This is the plain in sight social engineering planning that goes into today’s complex cyber operations. It’s a numbers game. The question needs to be asked. How many dead unknown family relatives have died and left me billion of dollars from Nigeria? Like I said someone will click on the link, greed, stupidity or just drunk, they just created another zombie computer. This zombie can now be given a dictionary attack code to hack your site and the hack begins a new. The life-cycle of hacking botNet.

The bad guy’s are everywhere -  The social engineer aspect in today’s social networks is so new that nobody has the rules. 

Let’s go into a hackers mind. I’m a game player and we figure out the games and then find the weak spot and slide right in and killing that monster to that level 22 knight elf warrior. To make it more fun Google and Facebook are changing their security policy to allow more and more information about ourselves is available online. Make sure you know that anything you say online is stored, collected and examined until you go down the rabbit hole like ToR “Smile your on candid camera” – all the time.

 

In today’s digital matrix just about anything can be used to hack you. 

We today have attacks like the LuckyCat attack from China that has a Chinese professor with a masters and PHD in computer science leading the team. The LuckyKat hack was very well though out and planned with “state-sponsored individuals in China”. Lucky Cat:

To avoid detection, the hackers used a diverse set of infrastructure and anonymity tools. Each attack used a unique campaign code to track which victims were compromised by which malware, illustrating that the attackers were both very aggressive and continually targeted intended victims with several waves of malware, according to Trend Micro’s report.

The security company was able to connect an email address used to register one of the group’s command-and-control servers to a hacker in the Chinese underground community.

The hacker has been using aliases “dang0102″ or “scuhkr” and has been linked to the Information Security Institute of the Sichuan University in Chengdu, China, where he was involved in a research project on network attack and defense.

The person behind the aliases and the email address is Gu Kaiyuan, who is now apparently an employee at Tencent, China’s leading Internet portal company, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

While we spend time on low hanging fruits like the Anonymous attack from the LulzSec crewz and Sabu. Come on this was an embarrassment and the FBI took it personal while the RSA (March 27, 2012 NSA Chief:China behind RSA Attacks: ( http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/232700341 ) and Locckheed Martin (May 31, 2011- Lockheed Martin Suffers Massive Cyber attack – http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/229700151 ) hacks from foreign nationalist hacking into our defense contractors was a much bigger deal but we ate up the LuLz and three months later we gave Loockheed Martin a National contract to protect our National electrical grid(July 27, 2011 – Lockheed Promised Electric Grid Security Contract – http://uscyberlabs.com/blog/2011/07/27/lockheed-promises-electric-grid-security/ ).

Now why is “gAtO going LoCo” over all this is because while all this madness is going on these professional hacks are being given to smaller countries and even smaller terrorist cells that can use these same tools professionaled managed and all in a box. How to Hack a Box going to your local nut case living in mama’s basement, another unemployed person with time on their hands and reading all about it. This is the bottom of the connect the dot contest. One lone person can with today’s tools develop, control and execute a massive cyber attack to any physical device that is connected to the Internet now that’s a cyber weapon

 

How many devices connected to the Internet that you know about??? -?— gAtO oUt. .

 

03/2/12

Hacking The Deep Web – AntiSec Embassy Backdoor Open

gAtO wAs - in the deep web today just for the lulz and found that yes even-no especially in the deep web a miss-configured website can open the door to everything. How can we find simple hacks that even the best leave open – you go back to square one. The URL is the key to most every website clearWeb or dark Web it does not matter. The .onion only hides you but if you find a form anywhere a simple 1=1 and you just may find that WoW it works. The reason is that HTML is HTML and the .onion does not do anything differently. Testing a website for Sql-injection with a simple ‘ will work anywhere if you think that just because you build a dark website that everything is cool and they can’t find you- your right but the web is the web and the same everywhere.

the site backdoor to the files

http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/final/

Front door

http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/

I noticed that my clearWeb site uscyberlabs.com displays differently in ToR than in the normal web. Why – first thing it’s the Time Clock I have and second is my categories, my tweets code did not come thru either…Now one is code and the other is just a wordpress widget so how come??? First thing I though is that TOR does not like geo location information. This would make sense but why the Categories in wordpress, what so especial about them. The tweet is just code too… Just a few things I noticed about my site in the Deep Web and the clearWeb.

 The deep Dark Web is nothing without good security on your site. If you think that ToR will hide you’re right but will it protect your site from bad code or mis-configuration NO. Hacking is hacking in the .onion or the clearWeb people will try to hack you. In the deep web you may have more information than other because you feel safer and that safe feeling is were you may leave stuff that you do not want out, so don’t think for a second that you will not get hacked in the deep web I just did. I cannot tell you until the site is secure and this site did have lot’s of confidential information, maybe some a little outdated but be careful other gAtOs may not be so nice especially if you tried to hack his site before -gAtO OuT

 

Index of /final/ca/

Name Last Modified Size Type
Parent Directory/ - Directory
cpizzotti/ 2011-Nov-09 03:58:34 - Directory
ddelariva/ 2011-Nov-09 03:26:48 - Directory
kfair/ 2011-Nov-09 03:26:58 - Directory
3strikes.sql 2011-Nov-06 01:43:36 152.0K application/octet-stream
amvicforum555.mdb 2011-Nov-04 09:29:37 784.0K application/msaccess
backup.sql 2011-Nov-06 01:12:11 13.5M application/octet-stream
cariiforum555-2.mdb 2011-Nov-04 09:33:46 1.1M application/msaccess
cariiforum555.mdb 2011-Nov-04 09:32:07 580.0K application/msaccess
colre_forum_555-2.mdb 2011-Nov-04 09:34:00 2.6M application/msaccess
colre_forum_555.mdb 2011-Nov-04 09:32:31 2.6M application/msaccess
cslea_passwords.txt 2011-Dec-31 22:28:02 613.9K text/plain
file_listing.txt 2011-Nov-04 07:19:39 5.6M text/plain
forum.mdb 2011-Nov-04 09:35:36 576.0K application/msaccess
hpacforum555.mdb 2011-Nov-04 09:32:28 368.0K application/msaccess 

 

 

the site backdoor to the files

http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/final/

Front door

http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/

http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/final/ca/kfair/HTML_INBOX/threads.html

http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/

http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/final/ca/kfair/HTML_INBOX/msg05626.html

http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/final/ca/ddelariva/HTML_INBOX/maillist.html

http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/final/ca/ddelariva/HTML_INBOX/bmpHJsZxBZeRw.bmp

http://ibhg35kgdvnb7jvw.onion/final/ca/cpizzotti/HTML_INBOX/threads.html

 

 

12/27/11

Phone Hacking Timeline-Is Rupert Murdoch a Criminal

News of the World: UK Police Put Phone-Hacking Victims At Around 800

LONDON — The total number of people whose phones were hacked by journalists at the News of the World tabloid is around 800, British police said Saturday.

Scotland Yard said investigators have spoken with 2,037 people, of whom “in the region of 803 are victims” whose names appeared in notes seized from a private investigator working for Rupert Murdoch’s now-shuttered News of the World.

“We are confident that we have personally contacted all the people who have been hacked or who are likely to have been hacked,” it said.

Police had identified 5,795 potential phone-hacking victims in material collected from Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator at the center of the scandal who was jailed in 2007.

Scotland Yard said Saturday that while there are still “a raft of people” it needs to speak to who were identified as potential targets, those individuals are unlikely to have been hacked.

What had for several years been a trickle of allegations by people who claimed to have been hacked by the News of the World – from celebrities like Sienna Miller and Jude Law to politicians including former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott – exploded this summer with the revelation that the paper had hacked into the phone of a 13-year-old murder victim, Milly Dowler, in hopes of getting material for news stories.

Two top London police officers and several senior Murdoch executives resigned in the scandal, and the investigation into phone-hacking has seen more than a dozen News of the World journalists arrested, including former editor Andy Coulson, who resigned his post as Prime Minister David Cameron’s media chief as the scandal widened.

It also has prompted multiple investigations and an official inquiry into media ethics, which has heard from the Dowler family and celebrities such as Hugh Grant about the effects of media intrusion on their lives.

1843
News of the World is first published, by John Browne Bell

1969
Australian Rupert Murdoch buys the newspaper, his first toehold in Great Britain

1984
Murdoch revamps News of the World from a broadsheet to a tabloid format

1989
Rebekah Wade
(she married horse trainer Charlie Brooks in 2009 and took his name) is hired at News of the World, as a secretary

March 2002: 

British tabloid News of the World began intercepting Dowler’s voicemail messages

Days after the disappearance of 13-year old Milly Dowler, British tabloid News of the World began intercepting Dowler’s voicemail messages. The paper deleted old messages to make room for new ones, leading some to speculate that she was alive. The Guardian reports: “The Dowler family then granted an exclusive interview to the News of the World in which they talked about their hope, quite unaware that it had been falsely kindled by the newspaper’s own intervention. Sally Dowler told the paper: ‘If Milly walked through the door, I don’t think we’d be able to speak. We’d just weep tears of joy and give her a great big hug.’”

April 2002:

Police first became aware that the paper was listening to Dowler’s messages after it reported that an employment agency had called Dowler about a job vacancy, but didn’t take action “partly because their main focus was to find the missing schoolgirl and partly because this was only one example of tabloid misbehaviour,” according to the Guardian.

November 2005:

A News of the World item about his knee injury lead Prince William to believe that his aides’ voicemail messages were being listened to by a third party. Three royal aides also noticed that new voicemails were showing up as old. Months later, the New York Times reported, News of the World editor Clive Goodman wrote a piece about Prince Harry’s visit to a strip club that quoted a voice mail message from his brother William word-for-word.

January 2007:

Goodman (right) and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire (left) received jail time for intercepting hundreds of voicemail messages meant for royal aides. The pair accessed the voice mailboxes of three aides 609 times, according to BBC News. An earlier search of Mulcaire’s home turned up “dozens of notebooks and two computers containing 2,978 complete or partial mobile phone numbers and 91 PIN codes; at least three names of other News of the World journalists; and 30 tape recordings made by Mulcaire,” reports the Times, but the pair were only charged for hacking the royal aides.

July 2009:

New allegations from the Guardian that NoW paid £1m to suppress evidence of phone hacking prompted Parliament to hold new hearings two years after News International exec Les Hinton (bottom left next to Murdoch) first testified that Goodman was the only person at NoW who knew about the hacking. At the new hearing, Coulson (top left) maintained that he was unaware of phone hacking during his time at NoW.

September 2010:

A New York Times piece alleged that phone hacking was pervasive at NoW and Coulson was aware of conversations about the practice, despite denying any knowledge about it. According to the Times: “‘Everyone knew,’ one longtime reporter said. ‘The office cat knew,’” and reporters “described a frantic, sometimes degrading atmosphere in which some reporters openly pursued hacking or other improper tactics to satisfy demanding editors.”

January 2011:

Coulson stepped down as communications chief, blaming media speculation that he knew about phone hacking during his tenure of NoW. News editor Ian Edmondson was fired after allegations of phone hacking, and new information prompted police to re-open the investigation on NoW.

April 2011:

The News of the World admitted its role in phone hacking in a public apology on its website and paper. Former editor Edmondson and reporters James Weatherup and Neville Thurlbeck were arrested on charges of intercepting voicemail messages.

June 2011:

Levi Bellfield was found guilty of murdering Milly Dowler, but a second charge that he had attempted to abduct another schoolgirl was abandoned after tabloid publicity made it impossible for the jury to reach a fair verdict. News of the World paid Sienna Miller £100,000 in damages after publishing 11 articles that used private information from her messages in 2005 and 2006, according to the Guardian.

July 2011:

Police notified Milly Dowler’s family that NoW intercepted and deleted the young woman’s voice mail messages, destroying possible evidence in the search for her killer. New evidence also shows that NoW targeted families of London’s 7/7 bombings.

July 8, 2011:

Andy Coulson, former communications chief to David Cameron and ex-editor of News of the World, was arrested in the investigation on phone hacking at NoW.

July 10, 2011:

The News of the World released its final issue after James Murdoch, head of parent company News Corp’s operations in Europe, made the decision to shutter the paper. The move was expected to “take some of the heat off immediate allegations about journalistic behavior and phone hacking.”

July 11, 2011:

Multiple news outlets reported that the Sun and the Sunday Times, also owned by parent company News International, had been hacking the voice mail box and other records of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown for years. The Sunday Times allegedly posed as Brown to obtain his financial records, and the Sun allegedly received details about Brown’s son’s cystic fibrosis. The revelations mark the first time allegations have targeted News International’s other papers.

July 11, 2011:

News Corp referred its bid to take over satellite broadcaster BSkyB to the Competition Commission, which will delay the deal by at least six months as the company awaits regulatory clearance. British leaders have called for Murdoch to drop the bid, with Labor Party leader Ed Millibrand calling the deal “untenable” and Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg calling on News Corp to “do the decent and sensible thing.”

July 13, 2011:

Rupert Murdoch withdrew its $12 billion bid for BSkyB, the largest pay-TV broadcaster in Britain, after the British government withdrew its support the day before. The deal, which would have substantially increased Murdoch’s foothold in the British media, appeared like it would sail through until last week. News Corp, which began to seek full ownership of BSkyB in March 2011, will keep its 39% stake in the company.

July 14, 2011:

The FBI launched a probe into allegations that News Corp. attempted to hack the phones of September 11 victims after Representative Peter King and other members of Congress wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller demanding an investigation. Murdoch also agreed give evidence before a parliamentary committee. He had previously said that he was not available to attend the hearing, but relented after receiving a personal summons delivered to him and his son by a deputy sergeant-at-arms.

July 15, 2011:

Les Hinton announced his resignation as Dow Jones CEO, and Rebekah Brooks stepped down as chief executive of News International. Brooks presided over the News of the World during the phone hacking of murder victim Milly Dowler, and is scheduled to appear before a parliamentary committee next week. Murdoch also met with Dowler’s family to apologize.

July 17, 2011:

Brooks was arrested in connection with the scandal, throwing her scheduled appearance before Parliament on Tuesday into serious doubt. In addition, Sir Paul Stephenson, the head of Scotland Yard, resigned his position, becoming the highest-profile public official yet to lose his job because of the scandal. (The Met has itself been plunged into crisis for its lax handling of the scandal and for the corrupt ties police officers developed to News International.)

July 18, 2011:

John Yates, assistant commissioner of the British Metropolitan Police, stepped down after the resignation of chief Paul Stephenson the previous night. The scandal has focused on British police for failing to investigate evidence of News of the World’s phone hacking activities and for accepting bribes for information from tabloid writers. Yates decided not to reopen the investigation two years ago, saying he did not believe there was new evidence to consider.

July 19, 2011:

Rupert Murdoch, son James and former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks testified in front of a parliamentary committee. All three insisted that they were not aware of phone hacking activities at the tabloid. Rupert Murdoch also made clear that he would not resign. Someone attempted to pie Murdoch in the face with shaving cream.

July 21, 2011:

A former editor and a top lawyer for the News of the World accused Murdoch of lying in his testimony that he had no knowledge of phone hacking at the tabloid. The two recall showing him an email between private investigation Glenn Mulcaire and then-reporter Neville Thurlbeck with transcripts of hacked voice messages. Sun editor Matt Nixson was fired following allegations that he knew about phone hacking during his time at the News of the World. The investigation also threatened to spread to other newspapers that were named for using a private investigator to illegally obtain information.

July 28, 2011:

The Guardian reported that the News of the World hacked the phone of Sara Payne, the mother of an 8 year old girl who was abducted and killed by a pedophile. The 2000 murder had prompted Rebekah Brooks to launch a campaign for a sex offender’s law in Britain now known as “Sarah’s Law.” The phone that the tabloid hacked may have been one that Brooks personally gave to Payne in the aftermath of the tragedy, which Payne had praised as for helping her “stay in touch with my family, friends and support network.”

August 16, 2011:

Clive Goodman, a former News of the World reporter, has alleged that there was a massive coverup of phone hacking at the tabloid. He was arrested for phone hacking in 2007, and now claims that former editor Andy Coulson offered to let him keep his job in exchange for saying that he was the only person at the tabloid who hacked phones. The allegations are deeply damaging to Coulson and Rupert and James Murdoch, who have all maintained that they knew nothing about phone hacking.

August 18, 2011:

Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator hired by the News of the World to intercept voicemails, sued News Corp. over the payment of his legal fees. The company had been paying his fees since 2007 when he was found guilty of hacking the phones of aides to the royal family, but recently terminated the arrangement after Rupert and James Murdoch’s testimonies in Parliament. Mulcaire himself is the target of dozens of civil lawsuits filed by suspected victims of phone hacking.

August 19, 2011:

Glenn Mulcaire has been ordered to release the names of people who ordered him to hack the phones of six public figures. He is due to make the disclosure by the end of next week, as part of actor Steve Coogan’s lawsuit against News Group. The revelations threaten to blow the defense presented by News of the World editors, who claim they knew nothing about phone hacking.

August 22, 2011:

News breaks that the News of the World hacked even more of Milly Dowler’s voicemails than previously assumed.

August 26, 2011:

News International is continuing to pay Glenn Mulcaire’s legal fees, despite the company’s insistence that it would stop. The previous month, the private investigator had released the names of people who ordered him to hack phones, but the names were kept confidential.

September 13, 2011:

News International announces the discovery of thousands of new documents related to phone hacking.

September 19, 2011:

Milly Dowler’s family is slated to receive £3 million in a settlement with News Corp.

September 30, 2011:

Neville Thurlbeck, a former News of the World reporter, insists that he is innocent and was unfairly dismissed. His account contrasts News Corp.’s defense, which places Thurlbeck as the single rogue reporter responsible for phone hacking at the News of the World

October 5, 2011:

News International faces a lawsuit from the parent of a 7/7 London bombing victim, among at least 60 other lawsuits.

October 19, 2011:

Yet another lawyer has accused News International of misleading Parliament over its knowledge of phone hacking. Julian Pike, a partner of the firm that used to represent the company, said that he saw evidence that there were more journalists involved in phone hacking in 2008. His testimony came after the company signed with a new law firm and Pike was no longer bound by client-attorney privilege.

October 21, 2011:

Rupert Murdoch faced angry shareholders at News Corp.’s annual meeting. Shareholder after shareholder vented frustration with the company, and Murdoch struggled to remain calm, losing his temper at one point.

October 24, 2011:

James Murdoch has been called back to testify in front of Parliament for the second time on November 10. His testimony will focus on discrepancies in his account, given witnesses who have said that he signed off on phone hacking payouts to Gordon Taylor.

October 24, 2011:

Les Hinton, the former CEO of Dow Jones, testified about phone hacking in front of Parliament. The former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, who had previously testified on phone hacking in 2007 and 2009, denied that he misled Parliament in his past testimonies. He resigned in the summer, and was the most senior executive claimed by the scandal.

October 25, 2011:

James, Lachlan and Rupert Murdoch were all re-elected to the board of News Corp. despite huge shareholder opposition to their leadership. Their tenure was never in doubt, due to the company’s shareholder structure, but the majority of shareholders voted against James and Lachlan.

November 1, 2011:

A series of internal News International memos could be damning for James Murdoch, who is set to testify in front of Parliament for the second time next week. One of the documents was prepared for a meeting between James Murdoch and Colin Myler, the former editor who challenged his account of events, and specifically discusses the hacked voice mails. The notes of Julian Pike, then-lawyer for the company, also contain incriminating phrases like “paying them off.

November 10, 2011:

James Murdoch testified on phone hacking in Parliament for a second time. The younger Murdoch faced new evidence that he may have been aware of phone hacking at the time of his company’s settlement with footballer Gordon Taylor. He maintained his innocence, claiming that he was aware that Taylor had been hacked, but that he was unaware the News of the World had targeted others.

08/4/11

Black Hat Google Hacking Goes After China – www.esecurityplanet.com

Search engines aren’t just for finding Web content, they can also be valuable tools for security research.

At Black Hat 2010, researchers from Stach and Liu released Google and Bing tools called GoogleDiggity and BingDiggity. Those tools enable researchers to leverage those search engines to find security vulnerabilities in websites and applications. For Black Hat 2011, the researchers are back and this time they’re expanding their tools providing new capabilities to find and indentify security risk with the help of search engines.

“This year we’re adding a whole host of tools including a Windows desktop application as well as an iPhone app,” Stach and Liu security researcher Francis Brown said.

via Black Hat Google Hacking Goes After China – www.esecurityplanet.com.

06/12/11

The Alarming Growth of Global Cyber Menace – Hacking | Asian Tribune

When gmail accounts of some of the US state officials were hacked two weeks ago, the Defence Department categorized any serious cyber attack, as an act of war. Since Google had tracked down the source of the attack to a certain province in China, it was all too clear that the Pentagon was not beating about the bush while taking the cyber threat seriously. The gmail attack came hot on the heels of another high-profile attack – Lockheed Martin Corporation, the high-tech defence firm.Having been annoyed by implicit accusation, China hit back at Google by warning that the company would face the music, if it accused the Chinese government of covert involvement.

The disturbing cyber nuisance did not end there. The servers of

Sony

, the entertainment giant, were subjected to two successive hacking within a matter of days. On the first occasion – the more serious one – the accounts of millions of had been hacked into and then details were stolen; the servers of

Nintendo

suffered the same fate. On June 3, the servers of

Codemasters

, the largest UK game publisher, were hacked. The hackers did not spare even the

National Health Service

of the UK; there has been a breach of security in some servers, according to media reports.

The spate of attacks has pushed millions of online users, not necessarily the folks who play games, into a state of perpetual anxiety. Since the hackers have been able to stay a few rungs above the security experts along the learning curve, it’s high time the threat was treated as something against the whole online community, not just selected strata of it.

The companies, which have been affected, are counting the cost in terms of loss of both revenue and reputation. Although, they assure the customers of better security mechanisms in future – and when the horse had left the barn, of course – restoring customer confidence is going to be an uphill struggle for the companies in question.

According to the details that came out so far, the hacking had been performed by duping the customers into web pages which looked identical to what they normally had been familiar with; once signed in, they had been taken for a ride, to say the least.

So, the companies affected implied that the customers should not have done that; well, how do ordinary folks distinguish between a real one and a fake one, when they look almost similar? The explanations have not gone far enough to address the serious side of the issue; all they can say is warning the public to be on their guard at all times – and they already are.

These high profile hackings are not the works of adventurous individuals, carried out in their bedrooms as a way of fighting boredom. Nor are they the works of teenagers, who could spare hours on computers in typing in endless combinations of characters into login names and passwords, in the hope that one of them would make them lucky by pure chance – one day. The nature of sophistication clearly shows the involvement of highly organized individuals – perhaps, with a substantial technical background – who are prepared to break hell lose, if they can get away with it.

The two groups, which are at the forefront of hacking, are Anonymous and LulzSec. The former claims to be a ‘leaderless structure’ while the latter introduces itself as the ‘world’s leaders in high-quality entertainment at your expense.’ Who can disagree with them?

Anonymous has been in the habit of hacking into government websites in order to teach them a ‘lesson’; it was at its peak of activities, known as ‘hacktivity’, when Wikileaks were coming out in dribs and drabs. LulzSec, meanwhile, claims that since fun is restricted to Fridays, they are going to extend it beyond that – and to the weekend. Whether what is fun for LulzSec, is certainly fun for everyone, remains to be seen in the days ahead!

In addition, there are clumsy hackers too. I keep getting an email from one such stupid hacker, who is in the habit of urging me to collect a parcel from a well-known courier service while clicking on a link provided. However, he could not completely conceal the tentacles of idiocy: the ‘To’ field of the email consists of a chain of email addresses, not just mine. So, I decided to keep getting the emails for academic purposes, without diverting them into a spam folder.

If a user can be duped by such an email, then of course, big companies cannot be blamed for mistakes of that kind. In short, users have to be a bit responsible too while login into similar-looking web sites and opening unsolicited emails.

As the menace of hacking reached fever pitch, some countries in South East Asia have started cracking down on potential hackers – finally. The arrests have been made in Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan. However, this is just the tip of the colossal iceberg.

The geography of the places where hackers were found, the time taken before the action being carried out and the abundance of other regional criminal activities, do not paint a serene picture for the online community in particular, and the law-abiding global citizens in general.

If the governments in question keep treating the threat as trivial or non-existent, the trend can easily give a cumulative nasty shock for all of us at an unexpected time – something from which we may not recover without paying a heavy collective price.

via The Alarming Growth of Global Cyber Menace – Hacking | Asian Tribune.

06/12/11

The Alarming Growth of Global Cyber Menace – Hacking | Asian Tribune

When gmail accounts of some of the US state officials were hacked two weeks ago, the Defence Department categorized any serious cyber attack, as an act of war. Since Google had tracked down the source of the attack to a certain province in China, it was all too clear that the Pentagon was not beating about the bush while taking the cyber threat seriously. The gmail attack came hot on the heels of another high-profile attack – Lockheed Martin Corporation, the high-tech defence firm.Having been annoyed by implicit accusation, China hit back at Google by warning that the company would face the music, if it accused the Chinese government of covert involvement.

The disturbing cyber nuisance did not end there. The servers of

Sony

, the entertainment giant, were subjected to two successive hacking within a matter of days. On the first occasion – the more serious one – the accounts of millions of had been hacked into and then details were stolen; the servers of

Nintendo

suffered the same fate. On June 3, the servers of

Codemasters

, the largest UK game publisher, were hacked. The hackers did not spare even the

National Health Service

of the UK; there has been a breach of security in some servers, according to media reports.

The spate of attacks has pushed millions of online users, not necessarily the folks who play games, into a state of perpetual anxiety. Since the hackers have been able to stay a few rungs above the security experts along the learning curve, it’s high time the threat was treated as something against the whole online community, not just selected strata of it.

The companies, which have been affected, are counting the cost in terms of loss of both revenue and reputation. Although, they assure the customers of better security mechanisms in future – and when the horse had left the barn, of course – restoring customer confidence is going to be an uphill struggle for the companies in question.

According to the details that came out so far, the hacking had been performed by duping the customers into web pages which looked identical to what they normally had been familiar with; once signed in, they had been taken for a ride, to say the least.

So, the companies affected implied that the customers should not have done that; well, how do ordinary folks distinguish between a real one and a fake one, when they look almost similar? The explanations have not gone far enough to address the serious side of the issue; all they can say is warning the public to be on their guard at all times – and they already are.

These high profile hackings are not the works of adventurous individuals, carried out in their bedrooms as a way of fighting boredom. Nor are they the works of teenagers, who could spare hours on computers in typing in endless combinations of characters into login names and passwords, in the hope that one of them would make them lucky by pure chance – one day. The nature of sophistication clearly shows the involvement of highly organized individuals – perhaps, with a substantial technical background – who are prepared to break hell lose, if they can get away with it.

The two groups, which are at the forefront of hacking, are Anonymous and LulzSec. The former claims to be a ‘leaderless structure’ while the latter introduces itself as the ‘world’s leaders in high-quality entertainment at your expense.’ Who can disagree with them?

Anonymous has been in the habit of hacking into government websites in order to teach them a ‘lesson’; it was at its peak of activities, known as ‘hacktivity’, when Wikileaks were coming out in dribs and drabs. LulzSec, meanwhile, claims that since fun is restricted to Fridays, they are going to extend it beyond that – and to the weekend. Whether what is fun for LulzSec, is certainly fun for everyone, remains to be seen in the days ahead!

In addition, there are clumsy hackers too. I keep getting an email from one such stupid hacker, who is in the habit of urging me to collect a parcel from a well-known courier service while clicking on a link provided. However, he could not completely conceal the tentacles of idiocy: the ‘To’ field of the email consists of a chain of email addresses, not just mine. So, I decided to keep getting the emails for academic purposes, without diverting them into a spam folder.

If a user can be duped by such an email, then of course, big companies cannot be blamed for mistakes of that kind. In short, users have to be a bit responsible too while login into similar-looking web sites and opening unsolicited emails.

As the menace of hacking reached fever pitch, some countries in South East Asia have started cracking down on potential hackers – finally. The arrests have been made in Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan. However, this is just the tip of the colossal iceberg.

The geography of the places where hackers were found, the time taken before the action being carried out and the abundance of other regional criminal activities, do not paint a serene picture for the online community in particular, and the law-abiding global citizens in general.

If the governments in question keep treating the threat as trivial or non-existent, the trend can easily give a cumulative nasty shock for all of us at an unexpected time – something from which we may not recover without paying a heavy collective price.

via The Alarming Growth of Global Cyber Menace – Hacking | Asian Tribune.

05/30/11

Lockheed Martin hacked, cyber crime steps up to major leagues – International Business Times

 

Lockheed Martin just recently admitted that it was hacked on May 21, 2011.  It managed to stop the “tenacious” attack before any critical data was stolen.

Back in October 2008, Lockheed Martin launched its cyber-defense operations.  It bragged that it wanted a piece of the red-hot cyber security industry.

 

Warfare

It’s shocking, therefore, that hackers are now bold enough to target a company that specializes in defending against them.

The cyber security industry is worth $40 billion in 2010, according to Federated Networks, a player in that industry. After several incidents in the last two years, however, it’ll probably get even bigger.

In late 2009, Google and other high profile tech companies like Adobe Systems were hacked fromChina.  The purpose of the attack was reportedly to steal intellectual information and access certain Gmail accounts.

In late 2010, a loose-organized internet vigilante group called Anonymous organized an attack on Visa and MasterCard for their anti-Wikileaks stance.  The attacks brought down the two companies’ websites.

In April 2011, Sony‘s PlayStation Network was hacked, forced to shut down for weeks, and user credit card numbers were likely stolen.  Sony was hacked by either internet vigilantes affiliated with Anonymous or thieves looking to steal credit card numbers.

These instances of hacking teach us two things: hacking can do serious damage to society and it’s surprisingly easy to perpetrate.

Hacking Google, for example, means gaining access to the most private information of individuals.  Hacking tech companies in general means gaining key intellectual information, which is their lifeblood.

Hacking defense contractors like Lockheed Martin is a matter of national military security.

The hacking of MasterCard and Visa demonstrates the utter unpreparedness of major corporations.  It shows that a group of rule-breaking enthusiasts can trump Fortune 500 companies.  In the physical/real world, something like that would be unimaginable.

Corporations, governments, universities, and consumers in general aren’t prepared for cyber attacks.

Many experts had predicted the rising importance of cyber security ever since it became clear that cyberspace would be an integral part of modern society.

Hackers, however, haven’t really done too much damage until the last two years because criminals and other rule-breakers (e.g. unscrupulous government agencies) didn’t seriously incorporate cyber attacks into their repertoire.

Now, they have and are finally giving hacking the organizational backing it needs to do some serious damage.  In other words, hacking has changed from being a crime perpetrated by loose-organized operators for petty gains to an operation backed by major crime syndicates and other powerful organizations for more nefarious and impactful purposes.

Society at large, therefore, needs to beef up its cyber security.  It needs to resemble the robustness of security in the physical world.

The US, for example, has a network of police force at every single municipality and state to deal with local criminal threats.  On the national level, it has the FBI and a standing army.

As cyber crimes have moved to the major leagues, cyber security needs to do the same.

 

Lockheed Martin hacked, cyber crime steps up to major leagues – International Business Times.