So you know for a fact you've found a bit of malware, but as soon as you probe it to find it's secrets it kills its self.
This is not something that would thwart sandbox analysis, however...
In fact... as soon as the software does something, you know that there is actually malicious software,
then you can in a single click roll it back, skip the instruction, and run again!
Doing things aids analysis..... it's software that detects an analysis environment and then silently changes behavior to conceal malicious operation; that is more challenging to begin to analyze, Or at least to determine the answer to one of the most important questions: Is the file malicious?
If the MBR gets overwritten by it, then you can immediately be certain that it is malicious, and with the obvious messaging, you can be pretty confident that it is a response to detecting a debug environment.
FIXMBR only works if the bootcode is wrong or missing. It doesn't help if the entire MBR has been cleared,
since the disk's partition table is also stored in that sector.
Intel has 2 parts just for you: E7-8891v3 and E7-8893v3, maximum clock frequency, fewer cores.
This is a good idea for single-threaded tasks which can't be sped up anymore by distributing that task over multiple cores....... maximum single-core speed is ideal for certain workloads, and the extra cores would just be wasted.
Microsoft and Oracle already know how to deal with this: it's called "nominal cores".
The vendor comes up with a list of CPU models that are assigned "Weighting scores";
cores of certain CPU models are worth 150% of a core each, for licensing purposes,
certain cores are worth 75% of a core each for licensing purposes, etc.
A slight variant, would be on USB device drop/change.... immediately lock screen Beep, and system will hard power off if not unlocked within 15 seconds.
Other mitigating measures might also be taken such as purging any sensitive creds from RAM;
temporarily shutting off all network interfaces and unloading unnecessary drivers such as Wireless NIC, Firewire,
that might present attack surface.
with a psychotic behavior in which you put your computer data at severe risk to handle an unexpected seizure
Auto locking your computer is not putting your data at risk.
There is a very legitimate concern that you might forget to lock it, and you might become the victim of identity theft if some
robber pilfers your computer, when you stepped away for a bit and forgot to lock the screen.
The concern about data theft is also a reason to use full drive encryption, Or even back the system up to an encrypted cloud volume,
and make the system detect potential theft such as "unauthorized movement while locked" and respond by wiping out the data volume
that is disposable, since it gets backed up daily.
Unless Solar provides another benefit that can actually be worth more than the added cost,
for example: backup power to run the building if the aerial wires connecting the grid get taken down
by bad weather or other act of nature during/after a natural disaster.
A 15 year old who did not perform on a test, panics and does something stupid. Panic means: no reasoning, no oversight, and the existence of backups is totally forgotten, even if he knows about it.
Or such and such student figured that destroying the computer lab would also wipe out the records of his "All Fs" report card that he couldn't change by hacking, and he made a "rational choice" on the basis, that even if he would be caught, he anticipated being treated leniently because he was a child, and he knows that children get off lightly, And also nothing to lose, since he wouldn't graduate anyways with all those Fs.
don't just set a max for your bill and then shut you off if it goes over that, at least for billable items like long distanc
They can contact you, but POTS service and LD service are regulated by the FCC,
and they can't turn off your service, until certain legally mandated requirements are met.
It seems that turning off your LD service before a big bill can be incurred is not an option the telco is allowed to take,
even if they wanted to.
Which is funny, since you actually didn't have to pay the bill.
The parent who had setup the service is still responsible for the usage of their service,
and they can be held liable for usage they allowed their child to conduct.
"and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness."
This is an acknowledgement of a right that people as a whole have.
Individuals do not have this right, neither do small groups of people supporting a common cause.
And the moment a group of people begins to infringe upon someone else's rights, by causing harm to
other people's safety, prosperity, or happiness, in a violent manner, their
group changes from being a "protest" into an "illegal assembly", And every person participating in that
illegal assembly is essentially aiding and abetting the terrorist acts against the public and the business owners.
Then either the price goes up a bunch or Bitcoin isn't actually being all that disruptive.
You missed a third alternative.... The price of Argentinian Pesos crashes utterly.
So that amount of pesos officially worth "$50B USD" crashes down and becomes worth "$1B USD"
Argentenians buying Bitcoins doesn't necessarily elevate the value of Bitcoins ----- it can equally devaluate Pesos, resulting in more and more Pesos sold for fewer and fewer BTC per Peso.
That circles around towns lowering 'hooks' to grab people at designated points, pick them up, whisks them through the air aways -- without having to load them up into a cabin, and drops them off at their destination when they push their personal 'eject' button.
A person in the FCC with past in the industry can be biased in favor of their previous employers
in some ways, and not so biased in others.
In other words: the bias can be unintentional or subconcious and systemic ---- For example,
it can lead to certain ways of thinking about certain policies ; However, in extreme situations,
they will not overtly side with their past employer when it would be obviously to
unfair degree against the interests of whom you are supposed to serve.
A good outcome out of a few policy definitions cannot definitely affect this for the positive.
It can be very easy to prove bias exists, if you have an extreme enough pattern.
Proving no bias or "fair treatment" not counting more than fair weight to the corporate position of
previous employers, in policymaking consideration; would be extremely difficulty (if impossible) to ever establish.
So they're trying to protect the site's reputation AND their users' security.
Sure, they take the notification seriously and are patching by all apparent counts --- i'm not doubting that they are concerned about their site's security as well.
That doesn't fully speak to the purpose of the "responsible disclosure" policy, and why they've decided to smite the researcher, however.
Groupon doesn't fear bad PR. If it was afraid of bad press, it would have folded long ago.
Possibly they don't mind bad press, but i'll bet they mind press that says their site is insecure, or
that if you do businesses with them, "Your identity/credit card number might get stolen"
That's probably why they got fussy and denied the researcher's bounty, when a note that a XSS bug (without substantive details) had been published.
Sounds like maybe the "responsible disclosure" policy was about protecting the site's reputation, not their users' security.
Because there are too few of them to pose a significant risk. There is an acceptable margin of non-vaccinated people.
And the number of people who are immunocompromised, or cannot have vaccination due to legitimate medical reasons is such a small number, that they fall within the margin of acceptable risk.
The number of people attempting to avoid vaccination for the sake of convenience, Or based on unqualified hearsay or personal opinion, far exceeds the acceptable margin.
Therefore, yes, as a whole: this group of people is more infectious and a much more serious public health danger.
They should disclose these vulnerabilities to build a safer Internet, not to line their pockets.
A safer internet doesn't put food on their table.
It's Groupon who is lining their pockets, when they could be building a safer internet by actually paying money for security.
It's the reluctants of companies to take security seriously and spend time and money on it that leads to an unsafe internet.
And then we get dumb things like this "responsible disclosure program," which is really not about protecting users, but
protecting Groupon's reputation. That is to say... it's a PR-protecting policy, not a policy for protecting users' safety.
The unintentional disclosure they referenced regarding ONE of the 30 vulnerabilities didn't even reveal meaningful
information about the vulnerability, therefore: Groupon was not concerned about exploit details being disclosed, but ONLY
the fact that there was publicity being generated that said their site was insecure.
The researchers need the bounty proceeds to justify spending the time researching to discover them.
It's the companies that are lining their pockets, by avoiding hiring people like these folks and other security professionals to do this ----- instead offering small bounties, only available if they DO discover something wrong after spending possibly thousands of hours beating around looking for something wrong.
Not being vaccinated is more like not digging a fire break around my house.
Your living spaces are right by each other, but you don't want to install the fire barrier required by the building code to stop rapid spread of fire, because you heard it through the grape vine that fire barriers fail catastrophically and cause cancer.
It doesn't matter what your opinion is; the authority having jurisdiction can deny you the right to occupy that structure, and issue an order that it be remediated into compliance within 10 days or will be demolished.
It isn't the community's job because it is no job at all. Property rights, living rights, trading rights, and travel rights are all pretty fundamental and it requires no effort to not interfere in them.
Wrong. It does require efforts to support these legal rights. Property rights require assignment of rights to a scarce public resource (land). Property rights require ownership records, police and courts to protect, and support infrastructure. Travel requires maintenance of roads.
They are not human rights; or more specifically, they are not among the inalienable rights. They are rights that can be and are withheld, not given to, or taken away from people.
Property/travel/trade rights are frequently withheld from people who fail to pay taxes, fail to appear when summoned by the court to appear, or who fail to meet other standards or fulfill other duties that have been imposed upon them; Even people travelling in a dangerous manner, can lose travel rights due to DUI, can get fines for speeding --- ultimately resulting in restriction of travel (loss of license), or jail time, in some cases.
Refusing to take vaccinations is really no different fundamentally from refusing to do other thinks required.
Driving is a highly-regulated activity, and as officials are apt to repeat often:
your eligibility for a license to do so is a privilege, not a right.
The same is true, also... regarding your ability to access public goods in any manner.
You have the right to equal protection under the law; however, so you
have protection from being deprived of the privilege, except if you
fail to meet a standard required by the law.
Disobeying a traffic law can lead to failure to meet the standard: resulting in revocation of
any privileges the law sees fit to revoke.
So vaccination could be the same.....
It seems like people might have more second thoughts about this whole home schooling thing;
if in addition proof of vaccination or medical exemption were required not only to access schools,
BUT also for the person to take a GED exam after, to obtain or renew driver's licenses, to board a plane or train,
to enter a concert or other public event, to open a bank account, to transfer real property, or
to obtain a passport.
Slashdot Mirror
So you know for a fact you've found a bit of malware, but as soon as you probe it to find it's secrets it kills its self.
This is not something that would thwart sandbox analysis, however...
In fact... as soon as the software does something, you know that there is actually malicious software, then you can in a single click roll it back, skip the instruction, and run again!
Doing things aids analysis..... it's software that detects an analysis environment and then silently changes behavior to conceal malicious operation; that is more challenging to begin to analyze, Or at least to determine the answer to one of the most important questions: Is the file malicious?
If the MBR gets overwritten by it, then you can immediately be certain that it is malicious, and with the obvious messaging, you can be pretty confident that it is a response to detecting a debug environment.
FIXMBR only works if the bootcode is wrong or missing. It doesn't help if the entire MBR has been cleared, since the disk's partition table is also stored in that sector.
Intel has 2 parts just for you: E7-8891v3 and E7-8893v3, maximum clock frequency, fewer cores.
This is a good idea for single-threaded tasks which can't be sped up anymore by distributing that task over multiple cores....... maximum single-core speed is ideal for certain workloads, and the extra cores would just be wasted.
Microsoft and Oracle already know how to deal with this: it's called "nominal cores". The vendor comes up with a list of CPU models that are assigned "Weighting scores"; cores of certain CPU models are worth 150% of a core each, for licensing purposes, certain cores are worth 75% of a core each for licensing purposes, etc.
A slight variant, would be on USB device drop/change.... immediately lock screen Beep, and system will hard power off if not unlocked within 15 seconds. Other mitigating measures might also be taken such as purging any sensitive creds from RAM; temporarily shutting off all network interfaces and unloading unnecessary drivers such as Wireless NIC, Firewire, that might present attack surface.
with a psychotic behavior in which you put your computer data at severe risk to handle an unexpected seizure
Auto locking your computer is not putting your data at risk.
There is a very legitimate concern that you might forget to lock it, and you might become the victim of identity theft if some robber pilfers your computer, when you stepped away for a bit and forgot to lock the screen.
The concern about data theft is also a reason to use full drive encryption, Or even back the system up to an encrypted cloud volume, and make the system detect potential theft such as "unauthorized movement while locked" and respond by wiping out the data volume that is disposable, since it gets backed up daily.
those putting in solar are just blowing money.
Unless Solar provides another benefit that can actually be worth more than the added cost, for example: backup power to run the building if the aerial wires connecting the grid get taken down by bad weather or other act of nature during/after a natural disaster.
Most likely the pharmacy saves your contact info in their own customer database, which they hopefuly dont share.
Until a partner pays them enough for it, or a rogue employee finds a buyer....
A 15 year old who did not perform on a test, panics and does something stupid. Panic means: no reasoning, no oversight, and the existence of backups is totally forgotten, even if he knows about it.
Or such and such student figured that destroying the computer lab would also wipe out the records of his "All Fs" report card that he couldn't change by hacking, and he made a "rational choice" on the basis, that even if he would be caught, he anticipated being treated leniently because he was a child, and he knows that children get off lightly, And also nothing to lose, since he wouldn't graduate anyways with all those Fs.
don't just set a max for your bill and then shut you off if it goes over that, at least for billable items like long distanc
They can contact you, but POTS service and LD service are regulated by the FCC, and they can't turn off your service, until certain legally mandated requirements are met. It seems that turning off your LD service before a big bill can be incurred is not an option the telco is allowed to take, even if they wanted to.
It caught cryptowall 3.0 and all his files are now permanently irrecoverable.
In general that's not true; just help walk the customer through paying the ransom and retrieving their files... it's probably all they want, anyways.
Which is funny, since you actually didn't have to pay the bill.
The parent who had setup the service is still responsible for the usage of their service, and they can be held liable for usage they allowed their child to conduct.
"and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness."
This is an acknowledgement of a right that people as a whole have.
Individuals do not have this right, neither do small groups of people supporting a common cause.
And the moment a group of people begins to infringe upon someone else's rights, by causing harm to other people's safety, prosperity, or happiness, in a violent manner, their group changes from being a "protest" into an "illegal assembly", And every person participating in that illegal assembly is essentially aiding and abetting the terrorist acts against the public and the business owners.
IIRC; ATT still charges us extra for "Touch tone dialing", because it's a "Value-added feature", or some crap such as that.
Then either the price goes up a bunch or Bitcoin isn't actually being all that disruptive.
You missed a third alternative.... The price of Argentinian Pesos crashes utterly. So that amount of pesos officially worth "$50B USD" crashes down and becomes worth "$1B USD"
Argentenians buying Bitcoins doesn't necessarily elevate the value of Bitcoins ----- it can equally devaluate Pesos, resulting in more and more Pesos sold for fewer and fewer BTC per Peso.
That circles around towns lowering 'hooks' to grab people at designated points, pick them up, whisks them through the air aways -- without having to load them up into a cabin, and drops them off at their destination when they push their personal 'eject' button.
Did he sell the M60? No? Then no, he didn't complete Step 4.
I suspect Step 4. is totally awesome duck-hunting, not selling it.
A person in the FCC with past in the industry can be biased in favor of their previous employers in some ways, and not so biased in others.
In other words: the bias can be unintentional or subconcious and systemic ---- For example, it can lead to certain ways of thinking about certain policies ; However, in extreme situations, they will not overtly side with their past employer when it would be obviously to unfair degree against the interests of whom you are supposed to serve.
A good outcome out of a few policy definitions cannot definitely affect this for the positive.
It can be very easy to prove bias exists, if you have an extreme enough pattern.
Proving no bias or "fair treatment" not counting more than fair weight to the corporate position of previous employers, in policymaking consideration; would be extremely difficulty (if impossible) to ever establish.
So they're trying to protect the site's reputation AND their users' security.
Sure, they take the notification seriously and are patching by all apparent counts --- i'm not doubting that they are concerned about their site's security as well.
That doesn't fully speak to the purpose of the "responsible disclosure" policy, and why they've decided to smite the researcher, however.
Groupon doesn't fear bad PR. If it was afraid of bad press, it would have folded long ago.
Possibly they don't mind bad press, but i'll bet they mind press that says their site is insecure, or that if you do businesses with them, "Your identity/credit card number might get stolen"
That's probably why they got fussy and denied the researcher's bounty, when a note that a XSS bug (without substantive details) had been published.
Sounds like maybe the "responsible disclosure" policy was about protecting the site's reputation, not their users' security.
Can you explain why?
Because there are too few of them to pose a significant risk. There is an acceptable margin of non-vaccinated people.
And the number of people who are immunocompromised, or cannot have vaccination due to legitimate medical reasons is such a small number, that they fall within the margin of acceptable risk.
The number of people attempting to avoid vaccination for the sake of convenience, Or based on unqualified hearsay or personal opinion, far exceeds the acceptable margin.
Therefore, yes, as a whole: this group of people is more infectious and a much more serious public health danger.
They should disclose these vulnerabilities to build a safer Internet, not to line their pockets.
A safer internet doesn't put food on their table.
It's Groupon who is lining their pockets, when they could be building a safer internet by actually paying money for security. It's the reluctants of companies to take security seriously and spend time and money on it that leads to an unsafe internet.
And then we get dumb things like this "responsible disclosure program," which is really not about protecting users, but protecting Groupon's reputation. That is to say... it's a PR-protecting policy, not a policy for protecting users' safety. The unintentional disclosure they referenced regarding ONE of the 30 vulnerabilities didn't even reveal meaningful information about the vulnerability, therefore: Groupon was not concerned about exploit details being disclosed, but ONLY the fact that there was publicity being generated that said their site was insecure.
The researchers need the bounty proceeds to justify spending the time researching to discover them. It's the companies that are lining their pockets, by avoiding hiring people like these folks and other security professionals to do this ----- instead offering small bounties, only available if they DO discover something wrong after spending possibly thousands of hours beating around looking for something wrong.
Not being vaccinated is more like not digging a fire break around my house.
Your living spaces are right by each other, but you don't want to install the fire barrier required by the building code to stop rapid spread of fire, because you heard it through the grape vine that fire barriers fail catastrophically and cause cancer.
It doesn't matter what your opinion is; the authority having jurisdiction can deny you the right to occupy that structure, and issue an order that it be remediated into compliance within 10 days or will be demolished.
It isn't the community's job because it is no job at all. Property rights, living rights, trading rights, and travel rights are all pretty fundamental and it requires no effort to not interfere in them.
Wrong. It does require efforts to support these legal rights. Property rights require assignment of rights to a scarce public resource (land). Property rights require ownership records, police and courts to protect, and support infrastructure. Travel requires maintenance of roads.
They are not human rights; or more specifically, they are not among the inalienable rights. They are rights that can be and are withheld, not given to, or taken away from people.
Property/travel/trade rights are frequently withheld from people who fail to pay taxes, fail to appear when summoned by the court to appear, or who fail to meet other standards or fulfill other duties that have been imposed upon them; Even people travelling in a dangerous manner, can lose travel rights due to DUI, can get fines for speeding --- ultimately resulting in restriction of travel (loss of license), or jail time, in some cases.
Refusing to take vaccinations is really no different fundamentally from refusing to do other thinks required.
Why should your right to drive how you want
Driving is a highly-regulated activity, and as officials are apt to repeat often: your eligibility for a license to do so is a privilege, not a right.
The same is true, also... regarding your ability to access public goods in any manner.
You have the right to equal protection under the law; however, so you have protection from being deprived of the privilege, except if you fail to meet a standard required by the law.
Disobeying a traffic law can lead to failure to meet the standard: resulting in revocation of any privileges the law sees fit to revoke.
So vaccination could be the same.....
It seems like people might have more second thoughts about this whole home schooling thing; if in addition proof of vaccination or medical exemption were required not only to access schools, BUT also for the person to take a GED exam after, to obtain or renew driver's licenses, to board a plane or train, to enter a concert or other public event, to open a bank account, to transfer real property, or to obtain a passport.