Although judging by the techincal contact of their domain registration, they have some connection to America. Maybe M$ will bring pressure to bear on their ISP? Then again, given that the registration information was updated yesterday, maybe they already prepared for such an event?
Possible, but fairly secure if your systems are secure.
Given that we're talking about what to do when a computer crime/intrusion has occured, I think it's streching things to assume that the system is secure...
Of course, you're going to have to show that the PGP key is authentic somehow... How does the court know you didn't alter the evidence and the key and then re-sign them? (Serious question... I'm trying to argumentative because that's exactly what a defense attorney is going to do... )
Has nothing really to do with whom the court trusts, but rather the defense attorney. If they are willing to stipulate that the evidence is admissable, then it gets in. (Or leads to an out of court settlement, which is what happens with most computer crime cases.) Defense attorneys are not computer experts, nor are juries. What they look for are mistakes; deviations from established procedures. A word to the wise: Develop a policy for what to do in the event of an intrusion. Then stick to it.
Check if the head or major limbs have been detached
(Yes, we investigate more than just computer crimes...) Seriously though, it's understandable that some immediate examination is going to have be conducted before you can declare that a crime has occured (e.g. Checking/etc/passwd for new UID 0 accounts, rolling over the body and checking for a pulse, etc.) But after that time you should leave the evidence alone.
It's a crime scene - If you came into the server room and found a dead body, chances are you wouldn't touch it; you'd call the police without disturbing anything. But when somebody hacks your box, it's tempting to look around and see what's been done. This is a Bad Thing(tm). You can hide the attacker's footprints. As soon as you know there's been an intrusion, start gathering evidence. Only type the minimum number of commands on the victim system and keep a record of everything you do. Avoid writing to the victim system as much as possible. You may overwrite recently deleted (and thus not really gone) files.
Evidence to gather includes (but is not limited to), what programs are running, where those files are on the disk (which may be only in/proc if the attacker has run a program and then erased the executable), who is logged on, and anything else that will disappear when the system is turned off.
If possible, do a full backup of the system (dump to tape, another computer's drive, etc.) without powering down.
Maintain a chain of custody for this backup(s) and any other records you take. It is important for court purposes to be able to show who had access to what evidence (to show that it's hasn't been tampered with.) If you have a personal safe, great. But put it somewhere where the least number of people have access to it. Keep a record of who touched the evidence at what times and what they did with it.
You don't have to call law enforcement right away. There are many things you can do that law enforcement cannot. As a system administrator you can do anything (monitor all traffic, read files) in order to maintain the integrity of the system. Law enforcement often requires court authorization to do those and it's a lengthy process. But be aware in everything that you do that you might tip off the attacker that you're on to her. It's a risk you have to consider before doing anything.
This list is by no means complete, but it's a good start for right now.
Or maybe it's fraud? Somebody impersonating Adobe's lawyers? Seriously, does anybody have a link to the original message from Adobe? Other corroboration?
Are you kidding? With three voices each capable of four waveforms across several octaves, sound was one of the major features of the Commodore 64! (And I should know, I still have one. No reasonable offer refused!)
Well, the jury is still out on whether fingerprints are unique. But, just like MD5 sums, although there may be collisions, the difficulty of finding constructing a collision is prohibitive to cracking the system. That is
Given f(m1), it is very difficult to find an m2 such that f(m1)=f(m2) in a reasonable amount of time, where f(x) can be the taking the fingerprint or the hash of x. (Ironically, maybe that's why hashing is sometimes called "fingerprinting"...)
Re:What are you watching?
on
FreeBSD on DVD
·
· Score: 1
Because if the maker of the Slurpee machine didn't have to pay a license fee for the operating system, it means Slurpee's can be that much cheaper. (No, $0.00003 per slurpee isn't going to matter, but the savings would be more noticable in other consumer electronics.)
Re:Microsoft is just trying to minimize the damage
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 2
Think bureaucrat logic: In both cases you have to do massive code review. M$ = 49 million lines, Linux = (I don't know, but have to assume it's a lot less...). Linux saves money. Also, to even get your hands on M$ code, you have to... sign big contracts, pay lots of money, and promise not to tell anybody anything. Given that the whole goal of the NSA is to advise the rest of the government, that sort of defeats your purpose.
Re:Microsoft is just trying to minimize the damage
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 2
And don't forget about NSA's version of Linux. Why Linux? NSA's official job includes safeguarding the secrets of the US government. (They approve all of the methods, systems, codes, etc, for guarding sensitive information.) They've come to the conclusion that because they can't see what Windows is doing (closed source), that it can't be trusted. Sounds logical to me too. If NSA doesn't trust MS, (they only trust what they can get their paws on), the GPL/Linux will be allowed to exist.
I'd love to respond, but I just crossed the border into New York state and my cell phone is ringing.
Seriously, things only change when the powers at be are somehow inconvenienced. (e.g. personally affected by said law, unable to get re-elected because of it, etc.)
They do indeed. One does not become rich by giving things away. (Well, at least not after you get them hooked. You could argue that M$ got the US Gov't/many business 'addicted' to Windows and Office and is now charging whatever they want for it. If we can't get them on anti-trust, can they be arrested on drug charges and have their assets seized and auctioned by the DEA?)
Making television shows takes money. Lots of money. Even if you could find artists to work for free (writers, directors, actors, etc), you're going to have to pay a lot of technicians to set up, maintain, and operate the equipment necessary to make it happen. (cameras, video tapes, satellite transmitters, camera operators, cue card holders, grips, lighting personnel, etc etc etc).
Given this need for money, the end consumer (viewer) pays for it, somehow, no matter what.
TV could be paid for with subscription models (e.g. HBO, which wasn't running external ads the last
time I saw it), taxes (e.g. the BBC), donations (e.g. PBS) and probably a number that I haven't thought of, off the top of my
head.
Subscription model: obvious
Taxes: You pay from your paycheck
Donations: Obvious
Now, I'm not saying that TV wouldn't survive without all of the flashy F/X and big dollar promotions, but even so, it costs you something to watch televised entertainment.
Without the dollars generated by advertising, there wouldn't be any good television programs. M*A*S*H required lots and lots of money: actors, sets, lighting, directors, editors, etc. You can't get something for nothing in the art/entertainment business.
A coincidence, or just good advertising? Get/. to post an article about a product, put up a few posts about how "nah, there's no risk from these things, they're really cool," put the ad at the top of the screen, and wait for the orders to roll in. That would be worth a few bucks... (Yet another conspiracy theory?)
Slashdot Mirror
Although judging by the techincal contact of their domain registration, they have some connection to America. Maybe M$ will bring pressure to bear on their ISP? Then again, given that the registration information was updated yesterday, maybe they already prepared for such an event?
Given that we're talking about what to do when a computer crime/intrusion has occured, I think it's streching things to assume that the system is secure...
Of course, you're going to have to show that the PGP key is authentic somehow... How does the court know you didn't alter the evidence and the key and then re-sign them? (Serious question... I'm trying to argumentative because that's exactly what a defense attorney is going to do... )
Has nothing really to do with whom the court trusts, but rather the defense attorney. If they are willing to stipulate that the evidence is admissable, then it gets in. (Or leads to an out of court settlement, which is what happens with most computer crime cases.) Defense attorneys are not computer experts, nor are juries. What they look for are mistakes; deviations from established procedures. A word to the wise: Develop a policy for what to do in the event of an intrusion. Then stick to it.
(Yes, we investigate more than just computer crimes...) Seriously though, it's understandable that some immediate examination is going to have be conducted before you can declare that a crime has occured (e.g. Checking /etc/passwd for new UID 0 accounts, rolling over the body and checking for a pulse, etc.) But after that time you should leave the evidence alone.
This list is by no means complete, but it's a good start for right now.
Unless your "secret" for getting rich is selling that secret to other people.
I giggled at this, and then realized I had just scanned the column without really reading it...
Or maybe it's fraud? Somebody impersonating Adobe's lawyers? Seriously, does anybody have a link to the original message from Adobe? Other corroboration?
Are you kidding? With three voices each capable of four waveforms across several octaves, sound was one of the major features of the Commodore 64! (And I should know, I still have one. No reasonable offer refused!)
Well, the jury is still out on whether fingerprints are unique. But, just like MD5 sums, although there may be collisions, the difficulty of finding constructing a collision is prohibitive to cracking the system. That is
Given f(m1), it is very difficult to find an m2 such that f(m1)=f(m2) in a reasonable amount of time, where f(x) can be the taking the fingerprint or the hash of x. (Ironically, maybe that's why hashing is sometimes called "fingerprinting"...)
Eh... it's repeat.
Do the karma whore dance!
Because if the maker of the Slurpee machine didn't have to pay a license fee for the operating system, it means Slurpee's can be that much cheaper. (No, $0.00003 per slurpee isn't going to matter, but the savings would be more noticable in other consumer electronics.)
Think bureaucrat logic: In both cases you have to do massive code review. M$ = 49 million lines, Linux = (I don't know, but have to assume it's a lot less...). Linux saves money. Also, to even get your hands on M$ code, you have to... sign big contracts, pay lots of money, and promise not to tell anybody anything. Given that the whole goal of the NSA is to advise the rest of the government, that sort of defeats your purpose.
And don't forget about NSA's version of Linux. Why Linux? NSA's official job includes safeguarding the secrets of the US government. (They approve all of the methods, systems, codes, etc, for guarding sensitive information.) They've come to the conclusion that because they can't see what Windows is doing (closed source), that it can't be trusted. Sounds logical to me too. If NSA doesn't trust MS, (they only trust what they can get their paws on), the GPL/Linux will be allowed to exist.
Seriously, things only change when the powers at be are somehow inconvenienced. (e.g. personally affected by said law, unable to get re-elected because of it, etc.)
Socks
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 20500-0003
Remember to always use ZIP+4 codes!
They do indeed. One does not become rich by giving things away. (Well, at least not after you get them hooked. You could argue that M$ got the US Gov't/many business 'addicted' to Windows and Office and is now charging whatever they want for it. If we can't get them on anti-trust, can they be arrested on drug charges and have their assets seized and auctioned by the DEA?)
Careful though. The post office could report you if they think you're acting suspiciously. The Man is everywhere.
Is there going to be a "guess the time it cracks" contest?
Making television shows takes money. Lots of money. Even if you could find artists to work for free (writers, directors, actors, etc), you're going to have to pay a lot of technicians to set up, maintain, and operate the equipment necessary to make it happen. (cameras, video tapes, satellite transmitters, camera operators, cue card holders, grips, lighting personnel, etc etc etc).
Given this need for money, the end consumer (viewer) pays for it, somehow, no matter what.
TV could be paid for with subscription models (e.g. HBO, which wasn't running external ads the last time I saw it), taxes (e.g. the BBC), donations (e.g. PBS) and probably a number that I haven't thought of, off the top of my head.
Subscription model: obvious
Taxes: You pay from your paycheck
Donations: Obvious
Now, I'm not saying that TV wouldn't survive without all of the flashy F/X and big dollar promotions, but even so, it costs you something to watch televised entertainment.
Without the dollars generated by advertising, there wouldn't be any good television programs. M*A*S*H required lots and lots of money: actors, sets, lighting, directors, editors, etc. You can't get something for nothing in the art/entertainment business.
A coincidence, or just good advertising? Get /. to post an article about a product, put up a few posts about how "nah, there's no risk from these things, they're really cool," put the ad at the top of the screen, and wait for the orders to roll in. That would be worth a few bucks... (Yet another conspiracy theory?)
No, it was a completely fictious company that the FBI invented for this case. (But those names are rather similar. Maybe all spooks think alike?)