This assumes that a few untrained men in little boats could reliably stand up against an armed merchant ship manned and patrolled by hired PMC thugs. Even if it's technically possible, it's a matter of deterrence - the pirates are only going to risk their lives so far.
I'm sure something could be arranged. In fact, I'm certain of it. Legality is the least and most unimportant issue involved in this. If you are concerned with legality, your primary target should be the enforcment of laws in somalia, where the absence of government is the root cause of the problems faced by the merchant ships.
Actually, there's a part of somalia that's a bit more civilized and prosperous - I forgot it's name. They have a commission of some sort to fight this, but they apparently simply don't have the resources. This is from a year-old documentary, by the way.
That guy might speak for himself, but you have seen the "helicopter video" I assume? Not all people are like that, but I'd wager there's quite a large percentage out there. And their behaviour isn't psychopathic or otherwhise abnormal behaviour - it's human behaviour.
It hurts you when you hurt another human being. Unless you're a psychopath.
Yes and no. Venegance and "morally proper" defense are one of the two things that easily remove a lot of that pain. And I'd like to remind you that this situation is one involving firing at a direct aggressor posing a clear threat - not firing blindly at people you know "just follow orders".
Quite obviously the civilian crewmen themselves wouldn't man the guns. It'd be private security contractors hired by the company owning "the ship" (I'm sure there's a lot of entities behind large cargo vessels and fleets). There's the little aspect of using lethal force against people who "only" want to kidnap you for ransom for a few months, but I personally don't find that upsetting.
As a resident of dear peaceful northern europe, I'd say killing pirates would be met with a shrug from most people I know. "Well done" might be considered a bit distasteful or discurteous, because as you say most people would not feel good about such a deed regardless, but you would neither be punished under self-defense laws nor socially ostracized (by most). Any argument to the effect of "but killing is wrong" is ridiculous and a neurotic defense against the fact that the world is quite simply a horribly unjust and violent place, and making it less so often require force. However, you should obviously not kill unecessarily - but a laser like this would only be useful as an antipersonell defense in conjuction with other weapons. Blowing a pirate vessel out of the water would obviously only require "ordinary naval weaponry" (low-calibre autocannons?), and that (as people point out so feverishly) wouldn't be a moral transgression due to the circumstances. If however your intent is to capture the pirates alive out of a sense of mercy (capturing being a requirement, as setting them free would only make them go for another target) it would seem to me that you need them to surrender, somehow, and that would probably require the threat of immediate, deadly force. These being hardy men who keep alive on the seas, beset by various diseases (I've heard) I don't think it would be productive to assume anything less would suffice.
You can still compromize your position through tracking where and when the device switches AP. And don't forget, if the signal is identifiable up to your "device" (public routers don't use encryption, so the data from the wireless router and your device can be easily correlated) the transmission can be triangulated, though I don't know with what precision. I don't think this method provides much additional security over just using a notebook, especially since by using a notebook you could excise control over (start/stop/switch obfuscation method or MAC address) the connection. You could argue that switching APs by moving around while being tracked in real-time makes it provide *worse* security than the "sip coffee, perform attack, calmly leave the area" method. You're still leaving a large signal trail.
Actually, post-attack forensics would not be able to get anything useful out of botnet proxies even assuming black helicopters descending on them minutes after the fact. As long as it stays up, a node can be infected and malware injected and updated without ever touching disk, using multi-stage shellcode utilizing dll injection. The largest threat would be the botnet nodes being compromized during or before the attack. Now, if your criteria is that not only the attacker but also the *method used* being unknown, that puts up a few more barriers. Let's see - compromizing routers is considered "voodoo" still, and if you pulled it off right you could use it to erase or falsify the records. You'd have to somehow reset the router to a normal state afterwards though. A router log with a falsified connection record pointing somewhere amusing, on a router thought more or less "unhackable", and assuming that no other forensic information regarding the connection in question exists - that'd be "Whoops, a wizard did it". Regarding the satellite option, a *hacked* satellite could be used in the same manner as a hacked trusted router, but is probably more likely to be treated as "Whoops, a wizard hacked the satellite" than "Whoops, a wizard did it (and we don't know how)" due to the many different and unknowable methods that could have been used in the router method.
There's the latency, though. I can think of two other "bullet-proof" solutions: no-strings-attached satellite signal (you can only track so far as the uplink satellite's "footprint" as far as I'm aware), and simply tunneling the connection through two different botnet nodes in different jurisdictions, making sure not to transmit presonally identifiable data through the endpoint. If you obfuscate the data in time and shape, you could even pass a connection through the same "listening post" twice, allowing you to perform anonymous attacks or communication in your own region even under "perfect" local internet surveillance.
It has nothing to do with application-level code execution exploits, but there's no effective difference to the person and system being attacked. It's just a different means to the same end.
You seem to assume that any eventual spy-hackers couldn't (or haven't) come up with efficient fuzzer tools like this on their own. Assuming knowledge on how to write this class of exploits and domain knowledge of the protocol or file structure being attacked, any programmer here could write a fuzzer like this.
It just makes no sense to me. Sitting with a laptop computer at a public access point and targeting people to spoof/sniff credit card information and credentials seems to have such low throughput to effort when botting at this point in time is almost simpler to execute (like firing an automatic shotgun). The people hanging out at the botting forums I've seen seem like ordinary criminals for the most part, and the barrier to entry nonexistant. Why use a low-risk low-pay method when you could use the no-risk higher-pay method?
But that assumes you're being targeted specifically and maliciously by a skilled attacker. Unless you have a high-profile job, that defies common sense. And assuming a skilled attacker, there's really nothing you can do about it except minimizing the attack surface and just plain keeping stuff off your computer. A simple encrypted VPN connection routing all your traffic will effectively stop all local wireless attacks, reducing the attack surface to the wireless drivers, kernel packet processing and the VPN software itself.
Yes. There's a list right at the bottom link of other browsers it managed to break, including firefox and opera. It apparently works by stressing the garbage collection mechanisms through creating and destroying DOM objects/references; I don't know what that means really, but he's written a step-by-step of the mechanisms that seems easy enough to follow.
I also think that it's very important for normal people to realize what hyper/hyposensitivity and emotio-sensory over/understimulation in asperger means (apparently, autistics are less vulnerable to this). Just because you feel something doesn't mean you understand what you are feeling (I can only speak for myself of course). A normal person who "brags" probably brags, while an asperger person simply throws thought and emotion full-force in someones general direction and hopes that they catch it. I think that being hit in the face by this is what the parent means by "them bragging". There's only 1 and 0, and processing 0.5 takes some effort. And some people just can't.
Interesting. I have Asperger's, and I think I experience such an effect - in the middle of a conversation (or otherwhise), it feels like something "shuts down" wholly or partially in the brain (a sense, like closing your eyes or plugging your ears) - and I become effectively socioemotionally aphasic, and have to keep the conversation going via mechanical acting until this kicks in again. This is hard, and makes me feel "fake". I also doubt that this "sense" or "mode" functions at full capacity regularly. I also experience other people's emotions like "aura colors" in my mind to a large degree. I came across a study where they scanned the brains of high and low-functioning asperger cases, and saw that the activation in the autistics where located in the frontal lobes, and not an area in the center of the brain. They dubbed this the "self signal", theorizing that it signified awareness of self in a social context. This would also explain why I feel like I "lose myself" when this happens as I observe others interact.
Even if he comes of as violently histrionic, I can't see the bulk of that ad as anything but an attempt to make himself appear less intimidating to approach. I guess it could be a sign of romantic insecurity if he wrote it like that to preemptively deflect criticism.
Slashdot Mirror
Posted AC accidentally.
This assumes that a few untrained men in little boats could reliably stand up against an armed merchant ship manned and patrolled by hired PMC thugs. Even if it's technically possible, it's a matter of deterrence - the pirates are only going to risk their lives so far.
I'm sure something could be arranged. In fact, I'm certain of it. Legality is the least and most unimportant issue involved in this. If you are concerned with legality, your primary target should be the enforcment of laws in somalia, where the absence of government is the root cause of the problems faced by the merchant ships.
Actually, there's a part of somalia that's a bit more civilized and prosperous - I forgot it's name. They have a commission of some sort to fight this, but they apparently simply don't have the resources. This is from a year-old documentary, by the way.
I can assure you that the parent within all probability is a normal human being with a strong clear sense of morality, and not a sociopath.
It hurts you when you hurt another human being. Unless you're a psychopath.
Yes and no. Venegance and "morally proper" defense are one of the two things that easily remove a lot of that pain. And I'd like to remind you that this situation is one involving firing at a direct aggressor posing a clear threat - not firing blindly at people you know "just follow orders".
Quite obviously the civilian crewmen themselves wouldn't man the guns. It'd be private security contractors hired by the company owning "the ship" (I'm sure there's a lot of entities behind large cargo vessels and fleets). There's the little aspect of using lethal force against people who "only" want to kidnap you for ransom for a few months, but I personally don't find that upsetting.
As a resident of dear peaceful northern europe, I'd say killing pirates would be met with a shrug from most people I know. "Well done" might be considered a bit distasteful or discurteous, because as you say most people would not feel good about such a deed regardless, but you would neither be punished under self-defense laws nor socially ostracized (by most). Any argument to the effect of "but killing is wrong" is ridiculous and a neurotic defense against the fact that the world is quite simply a horribly unjust and violent place, and making it less so often require force. However, you should obviously not kill unecessarily - but a laser like this would only be useful as an antipersonell defense in conjuction with other weapons. Blowing a pirate vessel out of the water would obviously only require "ordinary naval weaponry" (low-calibre autocannons?), and that (as people point out so feverishly) wouldn't be a moral transgression due to the circumstances. If however your intent is to capture the pirates alive out of a sense of mercy (capturing being a requirement, as setting them free would only make them go for another target) it would seem to me that you need them to surrender, somehow, and that would probably require the threat of immediate, deadly force. These being hardy men who keep alive on the seas, beset by various diseases (I've heard) I don't think it would be productive to assume anything less would suffice.
It's funny because it's true.
You can still compromize your position through tracking where and when the device switches AP. And don't forget, if the signal is identifiable up to your "device" (public routers don't use encryption, so the data from the wireless router and your device can be easily correlated) the transmission can be triangulated, though I don't know with what precision. I don't think this method provides much additional security over just using a notebook, especially since by using a notebook you could excise control over (start/stop/switch obfuscation method or MAC address) the connection. You could argue that switching APs by moving around while being tracked in real-time makes it provide *worse* security than the "sip coffee, perform attack, calmly leave the area" method. You're still leaving a large signal trail.
Actually, post-attack forensics would not be able to get anything useful out of botnet proxies even assuming black helicopters descending on them minutes after the fact. As long as it stays up, a node can be infected and malware injected and updated without ever touching disk, using multi-stage shellcode utilizing dll injection. The largest threat would be the botnet nodes being compromized during or before the attack. Now, if your criteria is that not only the attacker but also the *method used* being unknown, that puts up a few more barriers. Let's see - compromizing routers is considered "voodoo" still, and if you pulled it off right you could use it to erase or falsify the records. You'd have to somehow reset the router to a normal state afterwards though. A router log with a falsified connection record pointing somewhere amusing, on a router thought more or less "unhackable", and assuming that no other forensic information regarding the connection in question exists - that'd be "Whoops, a wizard did it". Regarding the satellite option, a *hacked* satellite could be used in the same manner as a hacked trusted router, but is probably more likely to be treated as "Whoops, a wizard hacked the satellite" than "Whoops, a wizard did it (and we don't know how)" due to the many different and unknowable methods that could have been used in the router method.
There's the latency, though. I can think of two other "bullet-proof" solutions: no-strings-attached satellite signal (you can only track so far as the uplink satellite's "footprint" as far as I'm aware), and simply tunneling the connection through two different botnet nodes in different jurisdictions, making sure not to transmit presonally identifiable data through the endpoint. If you obfuscate the data in time and shape, you could even pass a connection through the same "listening post" twice, allowing you to perform anonymous attacks or communication in your own region even under "perfect" local internet surveillance.
It has nothing to do with application-level code execution exploits, but there's no effective difference to the person and system being attacked. It's just a different means to the same end.
You seem to assume that any eventual spy-hackers couldn't (or haven't) come up with efficient fuzzer tools like this on their own. Assuming knowledge on how to write this class of exploits and domain knowledge of the protocol or file structure being attacked, any programmer here could write a fuzzer like this.
It just makes no sense to me. Sitting with a laptop computer at a public access point and targeting people to spoof/sniff credit card information and credentials seems to have such low throughput to effort when botting at this point in time is almost simpler to execute (like firing an automatic shotgun). The people hanging out at the botting forums I've seen seem like ordinary criminals for the most part, and the barrier to entry nonexistant. Why use a low-risk low-pay method when you could use the no-risk higher-pay method?
But that assumes you're being targeted specifically and maliciously by a skilled attacker. Unless you have a high-profile job, that defies common sense. And assuming a skilled attacker, there's really nothing you can do about it except minimizing the attack surface and just plain keeping stuff off your computer. A simple encrypted VPN connection routing all your traffic will effectively stop all local wireless attacks, reducing the attack surface to the wireless drivers, kernel packet processing and the VPN software itself.
Yes. There's a list right at the bottom link of other browsers it managed to break, including firefox and opera. It apparently works by stressing the garbage collection mechanisms through creating and destroying DOM objects/references; I don't know what that means really, but he's written a step-by-step of the mechanisms that seems easy enough to follow.
How beautiful. Then we can finally get all those hydrogen atoms accounted for.
I also think that it's very important for normal people to realize what hyper/hyposensitivity and emotio-sensory over/understimulation in asperger means (apparently, autistics are less vulnerable to this). Just because you feel something doesn't mean you understand what you are feeling (I can only speak for myself of course). A normal person who "brags" probably brags, while an asperger person simply throws thought and emotion full-force in someones general direction and hopes that they catch it. I think that being hit in the face by this is what the parent means by "them bragging". There's only 1 and 0, and processing 0.5 takes some effort. And some people just can't.
Interesting. I have Asperger's, and I think I experience such an effect - in the middle of a conversation (or otherwhise), it feels like something "shuts down" wholly or partially in the brain (a sense, like closing your eyes or plugging your ears) - and I become effectively socioemotionally aphasic, and have to keep the conversation going via mechanical acting until this kicks in again. This is hard, and makes me feel "fake". I also doubt that this "sense" or "mode" functions at full capacity regularly. I also experience other people's emotions like "aura colors" in my mind to a large degree. I came across a study where they scanned the brains of high and low-functioning asperger cases, and saw that the activation in the autistics where located in the frontal lobes, and not an area in the center of the brain. They dubbed this the "self signal", theorizing that it signified awareness of self in a social context. This would also explain why I feel like I "lose myself" when this happens as I observe others interact.
http://www.technologyreview.com/biotech/20167/
I'm from a small town as well, and that sort of behavior *is* common in some people. If that's the reason, he does it with unusual vigor though.
And, sadly, hairstyle.
Even if he comes of as violently histrionic, I can't see the bulk of that ad as anything but an attempt to make himself appear less intimidating to approach. I guess it could be a sign of romantic insecurity if he wrote it like that to preemptively deflect criticism.
Exactly. If he decides to do something, the consequences (besides lost company revenue, but that's just life) should not rest on your shoulders.
Seconded. Maybe someone could voulenteer to put cameras inside there too?