Skip to main content

Home/ Advanced Concepts Team/ Group items tagged IP

Rss Feed Group items tagged

LeopoldS

Operation Socialist: How GCHQ Spies Hacked Belgium's Largest Telco - 4 views

  •  
    interesting story with many juicy details on how they proceed ... (similarly interesting nickname for the "operation" chosen by our british friends) "The spies used the IP addresses they had associated with the engineers as search terms to sift through their surveillance troves, and were quickly able to find what they needed to confirm the employees' identities and target them individually with malware. The confirmation came in the form of Google, Yahoo, and LinkedIn "cookies," tiny unique files that are automatically placed on computers to identify and sometimes track people browsing the Internet, often for advertising purposes. GCHQ maintains a huge repository named MUTANT BROTH that stores billions of these intercepted cookies, which it uses to correlate with IP addresses to determine the identity of a person. GCHQ refers to cookies internally as "target detection identifiers." Top-secret GCHQ documents name three male Belgacom engineers who were identified as targets to attack. The Intercept has confirmed the identities of the men, and contacted each of them prior to the publication of this story; all three declined comment and requested that their identities not be disclosed. GCHQ monitored the browsing habits of the engineers, and geared up to enter the most important and sensitive phase of the secret operation. The agency planned to perform a so-called "Quantum Insert" attack, which involves redirecting people targeted for surveillance to a malicious website that infects their computers with malware at a lightning pace. In this case, the documents indicate that GCHQ set up a malicious page that looked like LinkedIn to trick the Belgacom engineers. (The NSA also uses Quantum Inserts to target people, as The Intercept has previously reported.) A GCHQ document reviewing operations conducted between January and March 2011 noted that the hack on Belgacom was successful, and stated that the agency had obtained access to the company's
  •  
    I knew I wasn't using TOR often enough...
  •  
    Cool! It seems that after all it is best to restrict employees' internet access only to work-critical areas... @Paul TOR works on network level, so it would not help here much as cookies (application level) were exploited.
LeopoldS

jse_13_2_dibble.pdf (application/pdf-Objekt) - 3 views

  •  
    the PH paper Martin was mentioning ...
nikolas smyrlakis

EUROPA - Press Releases - Investing in the future: Commission calls for ad... - 0 views

  •  
    an additional investment of €50 billion in energy technology research will be needed over the next 10 years. This means almost tripling the annual investment in the European Union, from €3 to €8 billion
ESA ACT

NASA Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) - 0 views

shared by ESA ACT on 24 Apr 09 - Cached
  •  
    NASA Innovative Partnerships Program homepage. To cover areas of relevance identified as critical technology needs.
LeopoldS

Global Innovation Commons - 4 views

  •  
    nice initiative!
  • ...6 more comments...
  •  
    Any viral licence is a bad license...
  •  
    I'm pretty confident I'm about to open a can of worms, but mind explaining why? :)
  •  
    I am less worried about the can of worms ... actually eager to open it ... so why????
  •  
    Well, the topic GPL vs other open-source licenses (e.g., BSD, MIT, etc.) is old as the internet and it has provided material for long and glorious flame wars. The executive summary is that the GPL license (the one used by Linux) is a license which imposes some restrictions on the way you are allowed to (re)use the code. Specifically, if you re-use or modify GPL code and re-distribute it, you are required to make it available again under the GPL license. It is called "viral" because once you use a bit of GPL code, you are required to make the whole application GPL - so in this sense GPL code replicates like a virus. On the other side of the spectrum, there are the so-called BSD-like licenses which have more relaxed requirements. Usually, the only obligation they impose is to acknowledge somewhere (e.g., in a README file) that you have used some BSD code and who wrote it (this is called "attribution clause"), but they do not require to re-distribute the whole application under the same license. GPL critics usually claim that the license is not really "free" because it does not allow you to do whatever you want with the code without restrictions. GPL proponents claim that the requirements imposed by the GPL are necessary to safeguard the freedom of the code, in order to avoid being able to re-use GPL code without giving anything back to the community (which the BSD license allow: early versions of Microsoft Windows, for instance, had the networking code basically copy-pasted from BSD-licensed versions of Unix). In my opinion (and this point is often brought up in the debates) the division pro/against GPL mirrors somehow the division between anti/pro anarchism. Anarchists claim that the only way to be really free is the absence of laws, while non-anarchist maintain that the only practical way to be free is to have laws (which by definition limit certain freedoms). So you can see how the topic can quickly become inflammatory :) GPL at the current time is used by aro
  •  
    whoa, the comment got cut off. Anyway, I was just saying that at the present time the GPL license is used by around 65% of open source projects, including the Linux kernel, KDE, Samba, GCC, all the GNU utils, etc. The topic is much deeper than this brief summary, so if you are interested in it, Leopold, we can discuss it at length in another place.
  •  
    Thanks for the record long comment - am sure that this is longest ever made to an ACT diigo post! On the topic, I would rather lean for the GPL license (which I also advocated for the Marek viewer programme we put on source forge btw), mainly because I don't trust that open source is by nature delivering a better product and thus will prevail but I still would like to succeed, which I am not sure it would if there were mainly BSD like licenses around. ... but clearly, this is an outsider talking :-)
  •  
    btw: did not know the anarchist penchant of Marek :-)
  •  
    Well, not going into the discussion about GPL/BSD, the viral license in this particular case in my view simply undermines the "clean and clear" motivations of the initiative authors - why should *they* be credited for using something they have no rights for? And I don't like viral licences because they prevent using things released under this licence to all those people who want to release their stuff under a different licence, thus limiting the usefulness of the stuff released on that licence :) BSD is not a perfect license too, it also had major flaws And I'm not an anarchist, lol
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20 items per page