Posted on

North Korea Refuses to Deny Sony Cyber Attack

The popular media is in a frenzy – those dastardly North Koreans have launched a cyber-attack on Sony, pinched a lot of films and posted them on-line in revenge against the company for a disrespectful comedy making fun of their glorious leader. According to the BBC, they have refused to deny the attack, with a spokesman saying “Wait and see.”

The north Koreans must be loving this – they were, apparently, pretty hacked off about the depiction of Kim Jong-un. They have no sense of humour as far as he’s concerned. However, this bears all the hallmarks of a bunch of script kiddies ripping off a load of films to add to the pirate haul. The North Korean’s response, when doorstepped about the incident, suggests to me that they think their “enemy’s” predicament is hilarious, but stops well short of taking credit for it. Why would they be so coy? Because when the real culprits break cover they’d look stupid.

Yes, it could have been the North Koreans, but they’re not exactly high-tech. As far as I can tell there are only about a thousand IP addresses for the whole country. If it were China in the frame, I could believe it. Would the Chinese pull a stunt in support of their southern “friends” – I somehow doubt that; not over a film.

Given the extensive nature of the compromise, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was an inside job. Did the people involved set out to purpetrate the hack of the decade? There’ll be trouble now.

Posted on

Tristram Hunt, Education and New Labour Posh Boys

New Labour posh boy Ed Milliband (Corpus Christi and Oxford) must be so busy worrying about his position that he’s left New Labour posh boy Tristrum Hunt (University College School and Cambridge) to talk about a subject neither can conceivably know about from experience – state education. The latter’s only qualification in this respect is that the former made him Shadow Education Secretary.

I’ve got nothing against so-called Posh Boys, but they shouldn’t speak about matters they don’t understand, and I’ve just been listening to Tristrum Hunt on Today talking about how private schools (which he should know all about) will be forced to provide services to the local state sector – in particular lend their superior teaching staff to local state schools. I wonder how state school teachers feel about this assessment of their relative merit?

I’d also be interested to know whether he and millionaire Milliband had properly checked this with their Trade Union Paymasters. You see the teaching trade unions are currently mounting a campaign against the use of unqualified teachers. “You can’t let unqualified teachers teach our kids!” seems to be the general emotive argument for this closed-shop arrangement. And it sounds reasonable until you consider where teachers might come from. Either they train and obtain the necessary paperwork immediately following their own education, or they have a career, gain life experience and then convert to teaching later in life based on enthusiasm and aptitude.

In spite of government initiatives to attract more experienced people into the “profession”, it’s an up-hill struggle to obtain the paperwork mid-life. We’re talking about scientists and engineers here. Who can afford to take a huge drop income while training once you’re married with responsibilities?

There is an answer, however – the private sector. There it’s up to the head teacher to select teachers on merit, not paperwork. Good teachers need communication skills, a good knowledge of their subject and a transferable enthusiasm to pass it on. They don’t need paperwork.

So what are Ed Milliband and Tristrum Hunt thinking? Have they realised that the NUT is wrong, and this is an attempt to smuggle good “unqualified” teachers in to state classrooms by the back door? Or did they just not think it through?

Incidentally, I don’t share Milliband and Hunt’s assessment that state school teachers need help from the private sector, nor that career teachers are poorer than those bought in from industry, although life experience and hands-on knowledge is definitely an advantage when it comes to engineering and other real-world skills. State school teachers know a lot about education, which isn’t to be underestimated. And private schools have good and bad teachers, just like everywhere else.

People like me already volunteer to help out in state schools out of a desire to spread knowledge and experience to the next generation. In the state sector, however, the NUT has seen to it that we can only be “teaching assistents”; but we do it for the next generation – not the state.

Posted on

“Right to be forgotten” and police body cam footage posted forever on YouTube

In Europe, the court has decided that people who don’t like search engines like Google turning up embarrassing details about them now have the right to get the offending pages removed from the index. A Spanish lawyer by the name of Mario Costeja Gonzálezping hated people typing his in his name and finding an article in his local rag alluding to his past financial difficulties, and when they refused to pull the historical record he took all and sundry to court until Google (in particular) was forced to stop indexing the page. If you want to read the page from La Vanguardi, click here. Whilst I have some sympathy for the guy, taking Google to the European Court over the matter is not the best way to keep out of the public eye.

This isn’t without controversy – it’s censorship by the back door, handed down by a bunch of un-elected judges and everyone in Europe now has to comply. However, our colonial cousins, with their First Amendment, have e completely different problem – too much free speech.

Someone is exploiting the system, and the fact that publicly generated records in the USA are public, by requesting all police body camera images in order to provide content for a new YouTube channel, as reported by Komo News. Basically they’re slurping all the footage shot by Poulsbo Police in Washington and posting the “best bits”. The privacy issues are mind-boggling! Forget getting drunk and posting an unfortunately selfie on your Facebook page – if you get a visit from the cops in Poulsbo, it could end up on YouTube forever.

What is Google (owner of Facebook) doing about THIS? Absolutely nothing (thus far);  it’s free speech, isn’t it?

Posted on

Tesco really doesn’t like journalists

I just had a most interesting experience at Tesco in Watford. I went to take a picture with a mobile phone and was suddenly surrounded by burly security guards. Apparently it’s company policy that no one is to take pictures in Tesco, or even Tesco car parks. How odd!

Okay, it’s private property and they can make up whatever rules they like. If you need a shot of their pick and mix, you’ll need a long lens so you can stand on the road outside. But it begs the question, are they stark raving mad?

Luckily a manager turned up pronto (presumably someone pressed the panic alarm), and I persuaded her to send the security people away while she explained – in fact the outcome was very satisfactory from my perspective, and should I ever need to speak to a manager within 30 seconds again, I now have a sure-fire method.

As a long-time hack, I know what I’m about when it comes to taking pictures. Normally, when you’re taking photographs with a camera on a mobile phone, it’s pretty clear you’re not doing so for commercial reasons and it’s unusual for anyone to complain. Okay, if I had my big press camera with me, I’d certainly have asked permission to photograph/film. Or I’d have used a hidden camera. But it wasn’t like that – in fact I was shooting the contents of my shopping trolley as a record – obviously domestic use only, and I even mentioned to a member of staff nearby that I was getting a shot of that if he had no objections.

So can they do this? Well it’s not illegal. They can make up any rules they like about who can and who can’t enter their premises and if they want to ban people taking photographs, they can. They could get a court order and bar you from every Tesco store in the country. What they can’t do (if this happens to you) is make you delete any photographs you have already taken, and neither can they touch you or your camera – that’s common assault.

But why should it come to this? Surely Tesco doesn’t hate journalists? Actually, I doubt they even realised. But on asking around, they have form in this respect. Had of Patrick Collinson’s experiences I’d have been prepared, but he was writing in The Guardian when he was nabbed for noting down prices.

So is this a one store going bonkers (I’ve not had any bother at my local Tesco, although don’t often shop there these days)? I set out to find a security guard who’d talk, and it didn’t take long (but he’s not from Watford, in case anyone from Tesco is reading this!)

Apparently, the only photographs allowed are general ones of the exterior of the shop. If you’re audacious enough to snap something specific, like and advert, or one of their products, they’re instructions are to “ask you why, and ask you to stop”. Obviously the “why” is out of politeness. And if you’re inside the shop, forget it! You need special permission from the duty manager, sign-in and have to wear a visitor’s badge. Want to shoot some grocery or other and send it to your other half for approval? Not in Tesco, you don’t.

It gets worse! Should you try this and then refuse to stop, Tesco security is instructed to detain you, call the cops and try to have you charged under Blair’s masterpiece, the Prevention of Terrorism Act [2005]. [I think he may be confusing this with Regulation of Investigatory Power Act 2000]. Boggle! I asked if he thought someone was pulling his leg, but apparently Tesco reckons that people taking pictures may be doing so in order to choose locations for placing bombs. They had some bother in 2007 with bomb hoaxes, and therefore this policy is for “our” protection. Somehow, without photographs, it must be very difficult to leave a bomb behind. Doesn’t that make you feel safer?

Or perhaps they’re still smarting after that youtube video of the horseburger skit.

I’ve written to Tesco for a clarification of this, but they have so far declined to comment. I certainly can’t find anything to suggest this is a genuine policy in writing, and I don’t recall every seeing any “no photograph” signs up. But the my source was adamant. Perhaps it’s a myth. I hope so. One incident like this, or  Patrick Collinson’s won’t damage their business much in itself, but every little helps.

Posted on

Malaysian flight MH17 “shot down” over Ukraine?

Updated 17th July at 2320

Since writing this, I’ve been watching the superior BBC journalism on Newsnight where they had the sense to interview someone from Jane’s. Apparently the separatists do have Buk missile launchers in the area, which is surprising. Did the Russian government really provide such a dangerous weapon? And apparently (I didn’t know this) a single launcher can operate in autonomous mode using on-truck forward-facing radar. Basically a goon with no overall tactical view – watching a blip on the radar can decide to shoot down the blip. There are rumours that the US tracked such a missile. This is scary, and derails the following conjecture. I’ve kept it for historical interest.

I’ve just been listening to the BBC reporting that “someone” in the Ukraine has shot down a Malaysian airliner flying overhead at 35,000′. Okay, it’s possible, and the fact it’s crashed is certainly a tragedy, but are any of these hacks aware that this is a long way up?

There are basically three kinds of Surface to Air Missiles. Before blaming the separatists, you have to realise that the hand-portable types (MANPADS) you’d associate with rebels aren’t really any good at shooting down much apart from attack helicopters or slow things close to the ground. Basically, don’t bother if it’s more than 10,000′ up. It’s possible that they have Igla Russian systems, but they couldn’t have used them.

There are portable systems that can hit targets that high – such as the Russian Buk. These are big beasts, built in to a truck. The separatists may have got tanks from somewhere, possibly with a nod and a wink from the Russian military – but are they going to really going to let a bunch of rebels have a Buk (SA-24)? It’s not something you’re going to miss like an old tank.

Could the Ukrainian government have done it? I don’t know whether the Ukrainian military has such a system; it probably does. But again, it’s not the kind of thing you’d fire off by mistake. Shooting at high-altitude jets isn’t going to be an accident, and why would they do it in purpose? Did they think it was a Russian military aircraft? I think not, but if they did, there are some complete idiots with dangerous weapons out there.

That leaves the Russian government – did they order it shot down? The same applies – why would they do that deliberately, and if it was an accident, it beggars belief.

The BBC is talking about missiles, but it could have been shot down “old school” with a fighter. Are the Ukrainians or Russians really going to shoot down a Malaysian airliner filling the windscreen of their MiG? That’d be crazy.

So I’m taking all this “shot down” news with a pinch of salt. Perhaps it suffered a failure and crashed; perhaps it was an on-board terrorist or bomb.

I think the BBC thinks the separatists (whom they don’t like) dunnit with a Stinger.

Posted on

Anonymous to attack World Cup sponsors

According to an article in the Guardian, Anonymous is planning attacks on World Cup sponsors to coincide with the football tournament in a few days time. Whilst I certainly disapprove of all types of cybercrime, I have to admit that the rationale for such an escapade has my sympathy.

Someone calling himself Che Commodore has claimed to be part of the Anonymous collective, and is a name that popped up a lot last year in connection with Anonymous Brazil. He’s hacked off because the Brazilian government is spending loads of money on a football tournament while people in the country are starving (putting the case directly and emotively). Attacking the commercial sponsors for colluding with this is an obvious choice.

Is he serious about the threat? The Guardian figures he must be, because he wouldn’t be boasting about it early unless everything was in place. I’m less convinced. Forewarning allows sites to get ready to use scrubbing centres against DDoS attacks. Is it really a “watch this space”, or is it a bluff? In the absence of any evidence that the self-styled Anonymous Brazil has the capabilities to carry out such an attack, I have to disagree with the Guardian (once again) and go with it being a bluff. But it’s a good one, as it’s raised awareness of the warped priorities that lead to huge amounts of money being spent on sports tournaments, in excesses reminiscent of the circus maximus. But you can only bluff once, and I suspect Mr Commodore’s stunt isn’t going to go down well with other users of the anonymous Moniker.

Personally I’m already boycotting as many of the sponsors as I can, but the intrigue has got me marginally interested in the World Cup for the first time ever.

 

Posted on

New way to deal with cold callers

I’ve just had another cold-call from one of those idiots from a call centre located a long way to the East. “Hello, I am from Choice UK…”

It’s insulting that they’d be so stupid as to believe anyone would be so stupid as to believe they’re in the UK, or anywhere nearby.  But I found another way to turn the tables – “Prove it.”, I said. When he’d figure out what it meant he asked “How can I do that?”

“If you’re from the UK you can tell me the first line of the National Anthem?”. As usually happens eventually, he hung up.

So what are these people up to? Well, EU Law makes it illegal for companies to cold-call people without their permission. The is implied if there’s a pre-existing business relationship, but cold-calls are out. Great! A law from Brussels that we all like. Except it’s pointless – locate your call centre in Hyderabad and no EU member state can touch you. As a bonus, you can hire a load of cheap local labour to do the calling.

Now these outfits don’t try to sell you anything. To be honest, their English isn’t good enough anyway. What they’re doing is canvassing so they can sell your details on to companies in the UK. One you’ve said “yes” to a question like “Would you like to know how to save money on electricity?”, then, according to their interpretation, you’ve given permission for a UK company to call you with their latest special offer.

Of course, these are not honest people. They’ll sell your name on whether you said “yes” or “*$^@: Off!” And companies in the UK trying to mount a telephone marketing campaign within the law will buy the data and call you anyway.

I’ve spoken to a few companies buying false data about me (apparently I’ve been seriously injured in a car crash). They trace back to a company called Communication Avenue in Newark on Trent. If you talk to the caller nicely, often they’ll tell you – because remember – they’ve paid someone good money for something they thought was a sales lead and they’re not happy either. Communication Avenue declined to comment (or more precisely, ignored my email and failed to answer the phone). I have now left the matter with the ICO.

BT is powerless to help. So it says. They claim they can’t, technically, block calls from overseas numbers for you. As a “help” they gave me “free” caller-ID, so I could simply not answer foreign numbers. BT the BT caller display telephone didn’t display anything and to add insult to injury, after a year they started charging for it.

So what can be done? The solution to this one IS technical. All it needs is an option to block all calls coming from countries that do not subscribe to, and enforce, EU-wide telecoms regulations – including VoIP gateways. One has to ask why this hasn’t been done, but I dare say the answer is commercial.

 

 

Posted on

US judge tells Microsoft to hand over data on foreign servers

Yesterday, a judge in a New York court ordered Microsoft to hand over information stored on a server in Ireland following a US search warrant. Magistrate Judge James Francis reckons a search warrant for servers is different to a search warrant for anywhere else – more of a subpoena to hand over documents. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft plans to roll the dice again with a Federal judge this time.

Microsoft, of course, has recently been soothing its cloud customers by saying that if the data is held outside the US, Uncle Sam won’t be able to plunder it in violation of the users’ local rights. In particular, the EU legislation being drafted to prevent companies sharing EU citizens’ data with foreign powers unless explicitly allowed by international treaty or another EU law. The NSA, or US corporations, would not be allowed to just look at whatever they wanted.
This plays right in to Angela Merkel’s proposal for an EU communications network that can’t be legally snooped on by the yanks by avoiding the use of US-based servers.

In a statement to Reuters, Microsoft said:

“A U.S. prosecutor cannot obtain a U.S. warrant to search someone’s home located in another country, just as another country’s prosecutor cannot obtain a court order in her home country to conduct a search in the United States. (Microsoft) thinks the same rules should apply in the online world, but the government disagrees.”

Is Microsoft really so naive? Although the ruling followed its challenge of a search warrant concerning a Microsoft account, its implications apply to all US cloud service providers. Although they intend to appeal, in the mean time any US company holding your data off-shore might as well have its servers in America – they’ll be forced to hand over all your data either way.

This isn’t to say that data held in the UK, for example, is any more secure. There’s RIPA to worry about – the Act allows authorities can plunder what they like, although it does make it illegal for anyone other than the State to do this.

 

Posted on

Infosec 2014 set to be disrupted by tube strike

It could hardly come at a worse time for Infosec, the UK’s best Information Security show due to take place at Earls Court next week. The RMT is planning a tube strike through the middle of it. Infosec 2014 runs from 29th April to 1st May; the strike runs from the evening before and services aren’t expected to resume until the 1st May. As many exhibitors shut up early on that day and head for home, and the real networking happens in the evenings at the hostelries around Earl’s Court, this is something of a disaster.

On a personal note, the largest outlet for my scribblings on the show in recent years shut up shop at the end of 2013; I’ll be putting the trade stuff in the Extreme Computing newsletter and probably blogging a lot more of it here. If I can get there. I shall try my best, and blog live as the show continues.

Posted on

BBC pulls Queen’s Christmas message

The BBC iPlayer is supposed to “make the unmissable, unmissable”, according to the BBC itself. That only applies if the BBC itself wants you (the license payers) to see something.

Even before Christmas was over, the Queen’s Christmas Message was removed from the playlist. What’s the excuse? I’m still waiting for a reply to that one (and ITV don’t feature it either). It was produced by the BBC this year, and there doesn’t seem to me to be any technical reason why they can’t keep it there for the duration of Christmas, if not the whole year. it’s not just iPlayer; it’s been dropped from the BBC web site too.

The BBC is, of course, embroiled in allegations of left-wing political and social bias, and this seems a likely explanation. At the very least, lefty decision makers will have regarded the Queens Message as unimportant and dropped it quickly.

The BBC once had a monopoly on the Royal Christmas Message, but this was ended in 1997 when it was announced that ITN would alternate with it (and Sky joined the rotation in 2011). At the time it was speculated that this decision reflected the Palace’s displeasure with the low-brow coverage of Royal matters within BBC News and Current Affairs. You can’t argue with that, although it was denied by Buckingham Palace. Subsequent revelations tend to back this up, and show it was the right decision.

It comes to something when the state broadcaster, funded by the nation, fails in its duty to make the Queen’s message available, forcing everyone on to YouTube to watch it. Perhaps its time to drop the BBC from the production rota and replace them with Google.