inchcombec

This is getting a bit off topic, but no, motorcycles would not benefit from seatbelts. They would actually be a huge detriment. You're right with the idea that it is advantageous to be separated from the motorcycle in a crash. Not just due to not wanting to be dragged along however.

When I started riding a motorcycle several years back I took a proper safety and rider training course. One of the strategies that could be employed for an imminent crash was literally referred to as a "Superman Dive". Basically, you see you're about to hit a car/truck so you put your feet on the footpegs, hands on the gas tank and jump over the vehicle you're about to hit and then do your best to roll when you hit the ground on the other side. A seatbelt would naturally prevent this.

While hitting the ground on the other side of the vehicle and then going for a roll is far from a good day, it beats going from whatever-speed-you're-at to zero instantly when you're flung into the other vehicle. Since there is no metal box around you on a motorcycle, rather than be a safety feature, a seatbelt would limit or prevent actions that could seriously reduce the chances and severity of injuries.

You're assuming that the local IT staff regularly monitor network traffic and are generally competent. Sadly, that isn't always the case. The attacker may also only need a few hours to get the data he is after, a fairly small window. As well, they'd have to be monitoring internal traffic, not just outgoing, as with one of these plugged in an attacker would be on the internal network. Most likely this type of attack would have to be detected by noticing that someone was accessing files, or trying to anyway, they had no business accessing rather than network traffic per se.

I like the idea of a signal booster. That is actually a great idea for disguising these things. I've seen these things before and figured it would be best to just run the Ethernet behind a printer or something and hope that people don't notice it was still continuing on past the device, but your idea is even better. Everyone complains on some level about their Internet, just install the 'signal booster' to give them a stronger connection. ;-)

That is TERRIBLE advice. I don't know exactly what you mean by 'friendly hacking' but ANY exploitation of a website vulnerability without that site's permission would be a crime pretty much anywhere; even if it isn't malicious. It would be far from the first time that an administrator or owner didn't understand that the person was trying to help or just didn't really want to deal with it and it then just ended up being an issue of the vulnerability discoverer vs. law enforcement. Never a fun situation even if you win.

I really hate the fact that this nonsense keeps getting reported. Even the article itself, while it has the headline "'Anonymous' hackers plan to shut down the Internet this Saturday", states that "there is really no need to fear". Better title: 'A few individuals make crazy claims of doing something impossible.'.

Not only would it be basically impossible to take down the DNS servers even if they had large participation, but there will be essentially no participation since most main 'anonymous' sites/leaders are telling people to have nothing to do with it.

This is just nonsense intended to drive up hit counts. I really don't think a person needs to be very technical to realize this is nonsense. Most people aren't rocket scientists, but would have the sense to call bullshit pretty quickly if I claimed I was going to test a working warp drive on Friday. I've never understand why computers seem so complicated and strange to people that the same common sense and critical thinking that makes it obvious I don't really have a warp drive don't seem to apply.

Exactly. It seems to be a point that a lot of people forget. A lot of people don't fully trust the Internet security tools, such as TOR, for anonymity. So, they try to add a layer of what is essentially physical security by using an Internet connection that doesn't track back to them. However, a lot of times people don't fully consider that at that point you must now not only secure your Internet security but physical security as well. Ie. Not be seen.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea to want to add an extra layer of security/anonymity, but it actually has to be done right. If investigators trace it back to the coffee shop and see on the CCTV that you're the only one sitting there using a laptop for the entire time the attack took place you're screwed.

Interestingly enough, all the ways to actually add that layer of physical security are potentially illegal. (depending on local laws) Obviously, the laws can vary a lot, but in a lot of places the methods a person would use to hide themselves are considered unlawful access.

Take the coffee shop for example, instead of entering the coffee shop you sit outside it. If it doesn't have cameras outside, the businesses around it very well might have one that can see you, and then there are also the people that see you. (witnesses) Okay then, long range antenna, right? Wrong, still illegal in some places. Even though it is an unsecured wifi that is meant for people to connect to it, it is meant for customers. That means that you either have to go in and buy a coffee (which shows on camera that you were in the area) or to have previously asked permission to use it which means that someone in the coffee shop must know who you are to have given you permission. This caveat actually applies to the parking lot situation too and people really have been charged before for accessing a coffee shop's wifi from the parking lot without actually going in so this isn't just a thought exercise.

Generally, if you're doing something online illegal enough to be investigated that fully, illegally accessing some coffee shop's connection is the least of your problems. There are legitimate reasons to want total anonymity though, such as whistle-blowers or individuals living in certain countries. If you're going to try for that level of anonymity it is important to know the local laws and make sure that whatever you're trying to be anonymous about is worth potentially breaking that law if it exists.

I really don't see much/any hypocrisy in the comments I've read. There aren't exactly many people just saying "Pirate ALL the things!".

There are legitimate reasons to be concerned by these constant attempts to attack certain technology or websites. Personally, I think that having a society that thinks that censorship is a good way to deal with ideas you dislike, which is where we're heading if this keeps up, is a lot more dangerous than intellectual property theft.

Hell, it has been known for years that certain ISPs even go as far as to throttle ALL bittorrent traffic and despite what the MPAA would like people to believe some of the bittorrent use is perfectly legal. World of Warcraft actually uses bittorrent for their patches.

As well, there are the facts that: -Laws have been passed that are so excessive in punishment that judges are actually slashing the penalties, and there are even stronger laws that lobbyists are trying to get passed. -This idea of protecting intellectual property at all costs has led to modern electronics devices being very rigidly controlled to the point that if you try to modify YOUR device to just install linux or something, you might be a criminal. -Copyright lasts a ridiculously long time. There should definitely be some rights so that the creator can benefit, but almost a century is too long.

I've actually got that book in my collection and you're right, it is a good read.

The idea of producing rocket fuel on Mars is not only a good one, but quite likely the only way such a mission would even be viable. The idea of hauling all that extra rocket fuel for the return trip to Mars and back simply doesn't work.

There are significant similarities between DuQu and Stuxnet, agreed. However, I don't think that necessarily means they share the same author. Stuxnet has been widely distributed and analysed. There are a lot of smart people/groups in this world and one of them could have decided to use it as a starting point for other purposes. I also agree that it isn't alarmist to believe Stuxnet had a national interest behind it, there has been significant research and evidence to support that, but that is Stuxnet, not DuQu. Again, since DuQu came after Stuxnet it is quite possible that another group is responsible for DuQu that is not related to the original. Although, I do also think that being wary of DuQu until more information is uncovered is wise. I just don't like how the comment about it being created by a nation state is thrown in there casually as if it were already an accepted fact when it is not.

Eugene Kaspersky's twitter comment seemed a lot more speculative than anything I heard Costin Raiu say. Exact quote:

"The mystery of #Duqu framework http://bit.ly/w5BrzP <- seems the state behind #Duqu sponsored the development of a new progr language"

I don't even do much programming and I was immediately wondering "wtf?" at that statement. The idea of developing a new programming language just to create a worm seemed far fetched, to say the least. He also mentions, as if it were fact despite that I've seen no hard evidence supporting it, that DuQu was created by a nation state. The whole thing just reeked of alarmist cyberwar nonsense.

I noticed that too and agree entirely. There is absolutely nothing in the article that suggests this argument was actually made and rejected. At the end of the day, judges are people too and can't possibly have the entirety of all case law in their minds at all times. It is up to defense attorneys to research the case and bring up relevant arguments. I just can't see anything in the article that even suggests that the idea of a wiretap warrant being more appropriate was even discussed.

The only way to really counter such an attack would be to have a constant stream of traffic going 24/7 that is set at such a level that your normal usage never exceeds it. Then, when you send a real message, the computer throttles back on the garbage communication and injects your real traffic into the stream. The amount of traffic thus remains constant and it would be difficult to do any type of frequency analysis on the traffic.

However, depending on how high the garbage stream must be set to ensure that there is never a spike of real communications higher than that, it could easily be too costly for most people.

Every TCP/IP packet has a MAC address for the sending device and the next receiving device. I say sending device, rather than just sender, as the MAC address may not be the original sender's MAC address. Every time a packet is received by a device in the chain where it is going the old MAC addresses are stripped from the packet. The device that just received it becomes the sending MAC and the device that is the next hop in the chain to where it is going becomes the destination MAC. The MAC addresses have to change at each hop for them to forward them to the next device along the chain to destination.

Theoretically, you could encrypt a MAC address, but all it would mean is that your packet would go nowhere as your own computer wouldn't even know where to send it. Even when using WEP/WPA/WPA2 the MAC addresses between the devices must be clear text. There is simply no way around that. It does mean that the idea that they just intercepted public signals is entirely accurate if all they did was determine MAC addresses as they are transmitted in the clear with no active attack needed. Heck, every time I open my wifi manager I see the MAC addresses for all neighbours within 500m.

My big question is why is someone's MAC important? I can't see it being a very useful piece of evidence. It isn't end-to-end like IP addresses so I can't see anyway it could be used to track him down. His own ISP probably doesn't even know it since they'll just see the MAC address of the modem he connects through. They are also notoriously easy to change at a seconds notice.