FBI hacks every VPN on the planet

Can VPN’s be trusted?

I got wind of an interesting rumour yesterday, passed to me by a fairly trustworthy source. I don’t normally comment on rumours until I’ve had a chance to check the facts for myself, but this looks like it’s going to spread.

Basically, the FBI paid certain developers working on the OpenBSD IPsec stack to and asked for back-doors or key leaking mechanisms to be added. This occurred in 2000/2001. Allegedly.

The code in question is open source and is likely to have been incorporated in various forms in a lot of systems, including VPN and secure networking infrastructure.

Whilst I have names of the developers in question and the development company concerned, it wouldn’t be fair to mention them publicly, at least until such code is found. If you’re using the IPsec stack in anything might want to take a good look at the code, just in case.

However, if the code has been there for nearly ten years in open source software, how come no one has noticed it before?

Error 0x8002007 installing Security Essentials

Good one this! If you’re trying to install Microsoft Security Essentials and it crashes out with Error 0x8002007, clicking on the Help link doesn’t really help.

If you read the technet blurb it relates to the Windows Update service not working, and if you believe this you’re going to waste a lot of time trying to repair it. I did. But the solution was really simple.

If you’re using Windows XP the Microsoft site will give you the Vista/Windows 7 version by default! Hunt around for the Windows XP 32-bit version, download that and it’ll probably work. Just don’t click the “Download Now” button because it doesn’t check which one you need – or give you the choice.

Some genuis programmers at Microsoft didn’t bother to check the version number as soon as start to run the installer. I wonder why not.

The one you get by default is:

mssefullinstall-x86fre-en-us-vista-win7

The one you probably want is:

mssefullinstall-x86fre-en-us-xp

Google is innocent (ish)

So Google’s streetview cars have been driving around harvesting people’s email passwords have they? Well this is probably true. Let’s sue/fine/regulate them!

Actually, let’s not. They haven’t done anything wrong. What Google’s surveying vehicles did was record the wireless Ethernet radio activity as they went along, to get an idea of where the WIFI hotspots are. This is a really useful thing for someone to have done – there’s no other way to find out what’s really where than by doing a ground-level survey.

In order to determine what kind of service they’re receiving you need to record a bit of the traffic for analysis. If it’s a private service, this traffic will be encrypted so it really doesn’t matter a jot – they’d be mostly recording gibberish. If it’s an open, public service they’d get the clear text of whatever happened to be transmitted at the time if the luser’s weren’t using application-layer encryption. If some technological dunderhead decides to do a radio broadcast of his unencrypted passwords, Google (and anyone else in the vicinity) will end up receiving that too.

Look at it another way – if someone wrote their password on a big sign and stuck it in the front of their house, anyone walking down the road couldn’t help but capture it. Are the pedestrians doing something wrong, or is the owner of the house an idiot?

It’s no good the idiots bleating on about Google. That won’t give them brains. It might, however, give them some of Google’s money and this could be the real motive.

The Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, has come up with some surprising statements about Google. But on review, they’re only surprising to someone understanding the technical issues here. Does this mean Graham is a technological klutz? It’s one theory – at times it seems like everyone the government appoints to deal with technology requires this as a qualification. However I think it’s far more likely a case of bowing to media/political pressure on the subject and wishing to be seen to be doing something about it.

Then, last Friday, Google signed an undertaking with the Information Commissioner’s Office to train their staff that they mustn’t do naughty things (just in case they were ever tempted). In return for this the ICO promises to leave them alone. Read it for yourself – it’s only three pages long.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Notices/google_inc_undertaking.ashx

What’s sad about the whole affair is that the ICO is, first and foremost, a political/media driven entity even if there are some level heads at work behind the scenes. But what a waste of time and money…

Oliver Drage makes mockery out of RIPA

Oliver Drage, suspected trader in child pornography, has just been sent down for refusing to disclose the password he’d used to encrypt his PC. This is an offence under RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000). So if you’ve got something dodgy on your computer, you’ll get locked up whether or not the cops can decrypt it (or you’ve lost the password).

A spokesman for Lancashire police was pleased: “Drage was previously of good character so the immediate custodial sentence handed down by the judge in this case shows just how seriously the courts take this kind of offence.”

Really. Drage is going to gaol for sixteen weeks  (read “two months”) . How long would he have been locked up for if he’d given them the password so they could decrypt whatever it’s alleged he was hiding? Five years? Ten years? Lock up and throw away the key?

This is not what I call “taking it seriously”.

The penalties under RIPA for not disclosing passwords are far lower than the likely sentence assuming someone’s been up to anything of interest of the authorities in this way. They don’t take it seriously at all.

Comment spam from Volumedrive

Comment spammers aren’t the sharpest knives in the draw. If they did their research properly they’d realise that spamming here was a stupid as trying to burgle the police station (while it’s open). You’ll notice there’s no comment spam around here, but that isn’t to say they don’t try.

Anyway, there’s been a lot of activity lately from a spambot running at an “interesting” hosting company called Volumedrive. They rent out rack space, so it’s not going to be easy for them to know what their customers are doing, but they don’t seem inclined to shut any of them down for “unacceptable” use. For all I know they’ve got a lot of legitimate customers, but people do seem to like running comment spammers through their servers.

If you need to get rid of them, there is an easy way to block them completely if you’re running WordPress, even if you don’t have full access to the server and its firewall. The trick is to over-ride the clients Apache is prepared to talk to (default: the whole world) by putting a “Deny from” directive in the .htaccess file. WordPress normally creates a .htaccess file in its root directory; all you do is add:

Deny from bad.people.com

Here, “bad.people.com” is the server sending you the spam, but in reality they probably haven’t called themselves anything so convenient. The Apache documentation isn’t that explicit unless you read the whole lot, so it’s worth knowing you can actually list IP addresses (more than one per line) and even ranges of IP addresses (subnets).

For example:

Deny from 12.34.56.78
Deny from 12.34.56.89 22.33.44.55
Deny from 123.45.67.0/24

The last line blocks everything from 123.45.67.0 to 123.45.67.255. If you don’t know why, please read up on IP addresses and subnet masks (or ask below in a comment).

So when you get a a load of spammers from similar IP addresses, look up to see who the block belongs to using “whois”. Once you know you can block the whole lot. For example, if you’re being hit by the bot using Volumedrive on 173.208.67.154, run “whois 173.208.67.154”. This will return:

NetRange: 173.242.112.0 - 173.242.127.255
CIDR: 173.242.112.0/20
OriginAS: AS46664
NetName: VOLUMEDRIVE
NetHandle: NET-173-242-112-0-1
Parent: NET-173-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation

<snip>

If you don’t have whois on your comptuer (i.e. you’re using Windoze) there’s a web version at http://www.whois.net/.

In the above, the CIDR is the most interesting – it specifies the block of IP addresses routed to one organisation. I’m not going in to IP routing here and now, suffice to say that in this example it specifies the complete block of addresses belonging to volumedrive that we don’t want – at least until they clean up their act.

To avoid volumedrive’s spambots you need to add the following line to the end your .htaccess file:

Deny from 173.242.112.0/20

If this doesn’t work for you the the web server you’re using may have been configured in a strange way – talk to your ISP if they’re the approachable type.

I have contacted Volumedrive, but they declined to comment, or even reply; never mind curtail the activities of their users.

This isn’t a WordPress-only solution – .htaccess belongs to Apache and you can use it to block access to any web site.

Perhaps there’s some scope in sharing a list these comment spambots in an easy-to-use list. If anyone’s interested, email me. This is a Turing test :-)

Why and how to hack a mobile phone

Anyone outraged that News of the Screws journalists have been “hacking” in to mobile ‘phones needs to get a grip on reality. They’re investigative tabloid journalists; what do you expect them to be doing?

To call it “hacking” is grossly overstating the case anyway – what they did required no technical knowledge other that that available in any playground in the country. All you need to do to retrieve people’s voice mail messages is dial their number, and when you get through to voice mail, enter the PIN. Most people leave the PIN as the system default.

You might argue that this is a gross breach of privacy and so forth. But it’s no more so than camping out on someone’s doorstep to see who goes in and out, following them, or tricking them into telling you something they wouldn’t if they knew your were a journalist.

New Labour was very keen to suppress the traditional liberties of the population in general and passed various dodgy laws to protect the lives of the guilty from prying journalists. In 2000, listening to other people’s voice mail was made a specific offence. “And quite right too!”. Wrong! It’s just another example of those in power making it difficult for us to check up on what they’re doing. We have (or had) a free press with a tradition of snooping on politicians, criminals and anyone else they wanted to using whatever means, as long as it was “In the public interest”.

Journalists are also out to sell papers, so the “public interest” defence is often strained to its limit, or broken. However, it should remain as a defence in a court of law and people should be able to argue their case there. It should be all about intent. But New Labour had other ideas.

People are uneasy about voice mail because it’s technological, so lets look at another example.

Suppose a journalist was camped outside someone’s house, noting down who came in and out. Another invasion of privacy, but right or wrong?

Well that depends – if it’s some innocent person then the journalist will probably end up throwing the notes away, so no harm done. If someone uses information collected in this way in the pursuance of a crime (e.g. Blackmail), that’s another matter, but journalists don’t do that.

Now supposing the journalist is investigating a suspected terrorist, and checking up to see who they’re associating with – or even a politician associating with a known crook. Clearly this information in the public interest.

It’s all about intent.

You could argue that investigations of this nature shouldn’t be carried out by private individuals but should be left to the security forces. That argument doesn’t bear scrutiny for more than a couple of seconds. The public needs the right to snoop as well as the government agents – anything else is known as a ‘police state’

As to the current difficulties – anyone who knows anything about the press will tell you that these and many other tricks are employed as a matter of course, although journalists won’t make a big noise about using them. It’s conceivable that an editor like Andy Coulson would neither know nor care exactly what his investigation teams were doing to come up with the information; you don’t ask. It’s also inconceivable that only the hacks on the News of the World had thought of it. Sources need protection.

It’s clearly a political stunt by old new Labour. Could they be upset that the press, including Mr Coulson’s old rag, turned against them? They used to be friends with the News of the World. At the time of the original scandal, it appears that the first politician to call Andy Coulson to commiserate with him about having to resign was none other than Gordon Brown. Apparently he went on to suggest that someone with his talent would soon find another job where he could make himself useful. (Source: Nick Clegg at today’s PMQs).

In defence of TalkTalk

The ICO has just had a go at TalkTalk for snooping on their customers. Hmm. I wouldn’t be a TalkTalk customer if they paid me so I’m not bothered on that score. But I’m also not worried because I can’t see they’ve actually done anything wrong in this instance.

What they’re accused of is harvesting the URLs of web sites visited by their punters. Reality check: networks log traffic anyway. It’s necessary for maintenance and optimisation. All managed networks do it, all the time. The system the ICO is making a fuss about simply collects the URLs and then sends a malware scanner to the site to check for dodgy stuff so it can blacklist the URL in future.

You can’t scan the whole web for malware; it’d take too long by a spectacular margin. Scanning the relatively small subset of URLs your customers are actually accessing is as good a way of directing your effort as any.

So why’s the ICO making the headlines? Just to show they’re on the ball, I suppose. And TalkTalk makes an easy target. This is probably the first time ever I’ve defended them on any issue.

Intel has just bought McAfee

Intel has just bought its neighbour in Santa Clara.

Well there’s a surprise. According to today’s Wall Street Journal it’s a done deal at $48/share (about £5bn). Paul Otellini (Intel’s CEO) has been saying that “security was becoming important” in addition to energy efficiency and connectivity. This lack of insight does not bode well.

I’ve been expecting something like this since Microsoft really got its act together with “Security Essentials”, its own PC virus scanner by another name. Unlike other PC virus scanners, Microsoft’s just sits in the background and gets on with the job without slugging the PC’s performance. Why would anyone stick with McAfee and Symantec products in these circumstances?

Whether PC virus scanners have much benefit in today’s security landscape is questionable, but at least the Microsoft one does no harm.

Intel has (apparently) paid about £5bn in cash for McAfee. I wonder if they’ve paid too much. It’ll generate revenue while lusers and luser IT managers are too scared to stop paying the subscription, but as anti-virus becomes built in to Windows this is going to dry up. I suspect McAfee was aware of this situation ad was moving on to mobile device security – not by developing anything itself, but by buying out companies that are.

When McAfee bought Dr Solomons in 1998, it was basically to pinch their technology for detecting polymorphic viruses and close down their European rival, which they did – everyone lost their jobs and the office closed. (Declaration of interest: Dr Solomons was a client of mine). Whether McAfee has any technology worth plundering isn’t so obvious, so presumably Intel is buying them as a ready-made security division.

McAfee does, of course, have some good researchers in the background – we all know the score.

India’s $10 laptop joke

There was a time when “Made in Hong Kong” was a byword for a cheap and nasty knock-off of the real thing, that didn’t really work. This was in the early 1970’s, and was pretty much true. In the late 1970’s I was horrified to discover that I’d bought a piece of electronic equipment “Made in Hong Kong”, but as it turned out, it was of really good quality and still works flawlessly today.

Hong Kong has now been assimilated by mainland China, and it seems that everything is made there – and is often none the worse for that. India has taken over Hong Kong’s mantel, although in this time of political correctness you don’t hear comedians joking about it.

But why is this? India seems to be a country desperate to be taken seriously – it has a space programme for no other reason than this. But artefacts manufactured in India tend to be either rough and ready, or inferior and semi-functional knock-offs of something made better elsewhere.

While still musing on the above I was sent this:

Apparently this thing, which looks like an iPad and runs Linux, would soon be produced for as little as $10. This in incredible. (Not credible). India’s Education Minister knows nothing about electronics or computing, and has announced this in spectacular style to the world. Apparently it was designed by the Indian Institute of Technology, and the Indian Institute of Science. Apparently they’re “elite” and “prestigious”. Their spokeswoman, Mamta Varma, said the device was feasible because of falling hardware costs. What they actually are, if this is anything to go by, is a laughing stock.

Of course, most people don’t know much about computing devices, but generally they have the good sense not to pretend they do. For the benefit of this majority: There is no way you can put a processor, colour touch-screen display and enough memory into a box for $10. It’d cost that for the battery and power supply.

Apparently this marvel has the facilities for video conferencing (i.e. a fast processor and a camera) and can run on solar power. Hmm. You’d need more than $10 worth of solar cells, for a start.

However, this won’t be “Made in India” – Sibal stated they were in discussions with a Taiwanese company about manufacturer. For $10? I don’t think so!

If India doesn’t want to be treated as a joke it needs to start by muzzling its ministers.

Sage data files

Sage Line 50 ACCDATA contains a load of files, and nowhere have I found any useful documentation as to what they are. Here’s a summary of what I think they are. They’re all data files unless otherwise stated. Most of the rest are indexes to the corresponding data files.

Anyone with more information is positively encouraged to leave a comment! Presumably Sage know, but they don’t seem that keen on publishing the information.

1..n.COA

Chart of Accounts
ACCESS.DTA

Access rights for users
ACCOUNT.DTA

Control Information (stuff across all accounts – VAT?
ACCRUAL.DTA

Accruals
ACCRUAL.DTA

Currency
ACCSTAT.DTA

Account Status
ASSETS.DTA

Fixed Asset
ASTCAT.DTA

Fixed Asset Categories file
ASTINDEX.DTA

Fixed Asset index file
BANK.DTA

Bank
BANKWWW.DTA

Bank WWW data
BILLS.DTA

Bills
BNKINDEX.DTA

Bank index file
CATEGORY.DTA

Category definitions
CONTACT.DTA

Contacts
CONTINDA.DTA

Contact Records index file
CONTINDD.DTA

Contact Date index file
COURWWW.DTA

Courier Resources
CREDWWW.DTA

Credit Resources
DEPARTM.DTA

Departments
FINRATES.DTA

Credit Charge
HEADERS.DTA

Transaction Headers file
INVINDEX.DTA

Invoice Record index file
INVITEM.DTA

Invoice Line Items file
INVOICE.DTA

Invoice Headers
MISCWWW.DTA

Miscellaneous Resources
NOMINAL.DTA

Nominal
NOMINDEX.DTA

Nominal Record index file
PREPAY.DTA

Prepayments
PUOINDEX.DTA

Purchase Order index file
PUOITEM.DTA

Purchase Order Line Items file
PUORDER.DTA

Purchase Order Headers
PURCHASE.DTA

Suppliers
PURINDEX.DTA

Suppliers record index file
QUEUE.DTA

List of users currently using
RECUR.DTA

Recurring Entries
REMIT.DTA

Remittance Line
REMITIDX.DTA

Remittance Line index file
SALES.DTA

Customers
SALINDEX.DTA

Customer Record index file
SAOINDEX.DTA

Sales Order index file
SAOITEM.DTA

Sales Order Line Items file
SAORDER.DTA

Sales Order Headers
SETUP.DTA

Setup information – manager passwords &c
SPLITS.DTA

Transaction Splits file
STKCAT.DTA

Stock Category
STKINDEX.DTA

Stock Record index file
STKTRANS.DTA

Stock Transactions file
STOCK.DTA

Stock
TODO.DTA

Task Manager
TODOIDX.DTA

Task Manager index file
USAGE.DTA

Transaction Usage’s file