Is it a cartoon? A Facebook rival? No it’s a virus idiot!

Friday, April 8th, 2011

Koobface has been causing trouble for web users for some time now and has hit headlines more than a few times in the past – at least in the tech world it has.

Anyway, to highlight how little the average person on the street cares about developments in the security industry, a survey released this week found 13 per cent of Brits thought Koobface was a cartoon character (see below for an image drawn by some person we picked up off the street… he clearly didn’t go to art school but we thought it necessary to understand the kind of people we are dealing with here. Truly terrifying stuff).

It's a scary beast

Over half of respondents to the Eclipse poll thought Koobface was actually an alternative to Facebook, the very site it has used to propagate.

Should we be harsh on those not in the know? No, of course not. All people want to know is that they can go online without having to worry about their computers getting infected. Essentially, they just want to do their job with no fuss.

They don’t really need to know what Koobface is at all – that is the job of the IT department.

What workers do need to be made aware of is the propagation method of Koobface and similar viruses, which spread by using social engineering tricks on the likes of Facebook.

People just need to learn simple common sense – don’t follow any links sent from dodgy sources. Only trust those you know, just as you should do with email.

In the meantime, see if you can beat Jimmy “The Midnight Drawer” Blogs’ cartoon version of Koobface above. We’ll do a kind of Tony Hart rundown of our favourites when we’re ready.

Amazon releases cloud music player… for US ears only

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011

I was genuinely excited when I woke up this morning to discover Amazon had finally launched a cloud-based music service.

I’d now be able to connect to the cloud with my HTC Desire, hook up to all my tunes, and then buy more songs when out and about via the Amazon MP3 player. I went online and ordered my 5GB Amazon Cloud Drive and uploaded some songs (for whatever reason it took 3 hours to upload around 3GB of music – not massively impressive…).

Then I discovered the smartphone-to-cloud capability was only available in the US. My dreams were shattered into tiny shards of pain and I put my headphones over my ears and went back to blasting out some tunes in my inconsolable, cloudless depression.

Now, considering most albums are actually released here a few days before the US, how come we have to wait longer for this?

In fact, if cloud computing is meant to make access to files super fast and insanely easy, and if data can be delivered from anywhere over the cloud, why the Dickens can’t the UK and elsewhere get hold of this service from today? Are we not good enough guinea pigs for you Amazon? You must have enough storage space to accommodate our musical needs…

And I thought the tech world understood that my generation was full of impatient brats like myself, so why aren’t they catering to my every demand? I want it and I want it now, so deliver it unto me posthaste.

Perhaps others will pip Amazon to the post in making cloud-based music services available to the world…

Almost all of my music is stored on Apple software/hardware. Now, given how much Apple hates being behind competitors, I’d hope Steve Jobs and Co will have a cloud-based music depository ready soon. And I’d hope they’d make it available in the UK straightaway, not treat us like unwanted relatives and keep us waiting.

Surely the likes of Google and Facebook are having a look at what they can do in this arena as well. Even BT are rumoured to be bringing out a music streaming service, although that’s a slightly different kettle of fish.

If tech behemoths like these all get on board, the cloud might prove to be the chimera that is the ’saviour of the music industry’ (that’s if the industry is actually dying – another question entirely). It will certainly change things anyway. Let’s just hope everyone has the foresight to do things globally now, rather than acting in an insular fashion.

iPad stolen… time for an iPad 2?

Friday, March 25th, 2011

Well what a start to the weekend – my iPad is stolen from my bag as I enjoy a well earned drink after work – and the day before the iPad 2 goes on sale! What a joke.

Somehow the sneaky so-and-so managed to get into may bag, which was never more than five metres away from me, open it, take the iPad (which I also referred to as my best friend) and then zip the rucksack up again.

So, so infuriating. To whoever took it – you are an awful person. Rethink your life. To myself – never let anything valuable out of your sight in central London and lose your faith in the inherent goodness of people – it’s a fallacy. To my parents who bought me the iPad, I’m sorry… it wasn’t my fault, blame society.

Thankfully, there wasn’t any important data or work on there, but it’s still massively upsetting. Losing it has proven to me how much I valued the iPad with all its wonderful apps and speedy browsing – I wouldn’t be that bothered if my Android phone went missing. It’s not worth that much for starters.

Anyway, as my ire simmers down, I’ve started to think about what to do now. First off, I’ll have to see if my insurance will cover it. If so, great – I might be able to afford a new iPad. If not, then I’ll have to start saving. Either way, I’m getting an iPad again.

I certainly won’t be looking at buying any other tablet – they all look fairly inferior. The only contender that looks like it could get close is the Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9-inch, but it still won’t have the delights of iOS 4.3.

Admittedly, I wouldn’t have paid for an iPad 2 if my original one hadn’t gone missing – now I’ll just have to. In the meantime, I’ll have to cope with real books and PC/console games. It’s a hard life.

.XXX TLD – how to make more money from porn

Monday, March 21st, 2011

If you really want to make money from the internet and have fairly loose morals, then get involved in the porn business, because when .XXX top level domains (TLDs) go live, there will be even more moolah to go around than ever before.

In a somewhat paradoxical move, the Internet of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has approved the use of the TLDs, which will surely see more porn on the web rather than less. Confusing, no?

On closer inspection though, it’s easy to see why ICANN has agreed to this: this thing will make money for almost everyone involved.

For starters they’re charging around $60-70 to have your own .XXX website. Furthermore, the head of the ICM Registry, which applied for the TLD to be set up and will help manage it, has already boasted to the Associated Press about how the .XXX project could make his company millions.

Now porn sites will be able to spread their wings even further too, as they’ll have extra places on the web to set up shop whilst retaining their brand.

It’s hard to see many reasons for the change outside of the financial gains. For starters, .com websites will still be able to contain lewd material and it’s not even clear whether .XXX sites would have to have pornographic content on them.

Even anti-porn groups have bemoaned the decision, claiming the .XXX domain would only lead to more porn sites being established and you can hardly disagree with that.

Supposedly, the scheme will help protect children from salacious content as to get the .XXX TLD sites will have to get through an application process. This will be manned by a seven-person fellowship, also known as a policy council, consisting of a child protection representative, a privacy and security expert, free-speech advocates and adult entertainment industry leaders (I think I would have preferred an elf, a future king and a dwarf, but hey ho).

Hmm… seems like there are more freedom of speech and adult entertainment representatives on that panel and you know what way they would swing if some contentious content was up for discussion.

And the argument that the world actually wanted this extra TLD is pretty ludicrous. I’m not one to shy away from edgy topics and this hasn’t even appeared my radar until now. And what research was done? I wasn’t asked about this!

I’d also like to see how .XXX would help protect users against viruses and other web threats, especially considering there is only one security expert on the policy council.

Ironically, the only organisation set to lose out from this appears to be ICANN – its reputation will certainly be tarnished in the eyes of many who believe the body has caved in to pressure from the porn industry.

Some have accused ICANN of ignoring advice from governments as well – who in their right minds would want to burn bridges there?

ICANN may have shot itself in the foot here – possibly even the head. I’ve heard calls for a new organisation to be established – either one that can counter ICANN or replace it entirely.

Anyway, I’m thinking of dirtying my fingers and putting them in the money pot. I may set up my own xxx.xxx website, which will log my progress in getting the classic 2002 film xXx starring that bald, pumped up, shotgun wielding chap known as Vin Diesel (or Xander Cage if you want his ridiculous character name) remade.

Anonymity: Cowardice or authenticity?

Monday, March 14th, 2011

Histrionics are fairly rife in the upper echelons of the tech industry, as highlighted this week when a dogmatic statement on anonymity from Mark Zuckerberg was slammed by 4chan founder Christopher Poole.

Back in 2009, the Zuck (or el Zuckerino if you’re not into the whole brevity thing) said that having two identities was “an example of a lack of integrity.”

Poole came out at the South By Southwest conference and said the Facebook founder was completely in the wrong to make such a statement. Anonymity actually offers “authenticity,” allowing users to “share in a completely unvarnished, raw way,” according to Poole.

So who was right? Well, both of them… and neither of them. It’s fairly obvious to anyone that anonymity can be used for heinous acts over the web, from straight-up bullying to slandering a company or individual that doesn’t really deserve it.

Then again, anonymity allows people to say things that need to be said, without placing themselves at excessive risk. It’s not the most revolutionary point of view, but it’s clearly the most sensible.

And let’s be clear here as well: both Zuckerberg and Poole share a similar agenda – they both want to make it known that their respective company’s way of operating is right. Even though these guys are big shots in the tech industry, they’re not exactly impartial and not really the perfect people to get a measured opinion from.

To get a real idea of the conflicting aspects of anonymity, you might want to get in contact with someone at Anonymous (well, duh!). As was highlighted by the recent spat with Westboro Baptist Church, anyone can pretend to be part of the hacktivist group and potentially make a mockery of the Anonymous campaign.

Conversely, anonymity brings greater uniformity and therefore strength to the operation, with no individuals shining out. No doubt it helps them avoid the cops as well, despite a number of arrests being made as part of investigations into Anonymous.

But then again, in lieu of a leader, there is no focus point or single voice for the organisation. It must be a confusing movement to be part of at times.

It’s clear the subject of anonymity will only grow in prominence if heavyweights like Zuckerberg and Poole come out with such blunderbuss comments.

Of course, trying to bring an end to anonymity on the web would be like attempting to get everyone to leave Facebook and join some open source social network with a name resembling some kind of disease (what was that called again? Diarrhoea? Diana? Diasp… ah forget it). Facebook might be trying to push the so-called “real-name culture,” but there will always be fake accounts on the service and anonymous identities across the internet.

As one final point, don’t take all Zuckerberg’s comments seriously – remember the time he said the iPad wasn’t mobile? Yeah, exactly.

iPad 2: An iPad 1 owner’s verdict

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011

So I happen to own an iPad. In about three weeks or so it will be out of date thanks to the arrival of the iPad 2.

Should I be upset about this or should I support Apple and its continuing development of its hardware into ever more shiny, more powerful bundles of joy? Well, because of what Apple announced during its much-hyped event in San Francisco, I’m not too depressed. In fact, I’m a little non-plussed.

This is largely because I’ll be able to get what excited me most about Steve Jobs’ revelations from iOS 4.3. From the additional number of titles coming to iBooks via Random House, to the additional pieces of software like GarageBand and iMovie which I can use for work and play alike, iOS 4.3 looks pretty splendid.

OK, I’m a little jealous about the iPad 2’s enhanced graphics (nine times better) and the processor (twice as fast), and maybe a tad upset I won’t have cameras to make my face look even more ridiculous on Photo Booth, but outside of that there was nothing too mind-blowing to send me into fits of rage at my antiquated iPad.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d switch to an iPad 2 without a moment’s thought and it’s another beautiful piece of kit from Apple. I’m fairly certain it’ll be superior to any other tablet to come out this year. But, and this was probably expected, the iPad 2 announcement didn’t inspire the same reaction as the initial iPad introduction did.

Another slight disappointment was that Jobs didn’t really go in-depth to answer questions surrounding the iPad’s business capabilities – it would have been great to have had a fuller explanation about why the iPad is as good inside corporations as it is outside. I’ve used my iPad for work and it’s absolutely fine – almost as effective as my laptop and definitely less cumbersome.

Well, at least Marc Benioff joined in to give his backing to the device. The Salesforce boss congratulated Apple on the release of its latest baby via Twitter and was even included on one of the promotional videos saying iPads and tablets were the business devices of the future. To have the backing of an enterprise-focused man like Benioff is probably enough to prove the newest iPad is good enough for plenty of organisations.

For now, though, I’m happy enough with the iPad original and won’t be chucking it out of the office window like some new-age rockstar. Neither will I be running out and picking up an iPad 2 with froth pouring from my mouth – largely because it wouldn’t be worth spending half my monthly wages on.

Admittedly, if I were a rich man, it’d be in my hands not too long after release. But to me, a big iPad fan, this hints that anyone not convinced by the original will not be astounded by this latest iteration.

Libya: Internet experiencing blackouts

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

It didn’t come as much of a surprise to hear Libya’s internet was hit by various blackouts.

Renesys indicated there had been some internal shutdowns, and again this came as no shock.

When Egypt’s internet was cut off it sent shivers down the spine, but once you came to terms with the notion that switching off the web wasn’t that hard, it simply made sense. What better way to put a gag in people’s mouths and clamp down on freedom of speech?

You fear this will become a trend as insurrection spreads across the Middle East, with curfews or complete blackouts becoming the norm for cracking down on rebellious behaviour.

Outside of such egregious actions, the internet blackouts also call into question who has control over the web. It is supposed to be us, the people who create and use its content, but at the end of it all, it is the corporations and the governments who have ultimate power.

Yes, the internet has proven to be an incredibly effective platform for organising protest movements. We’ve seen what has been brought about in Egypt, Bahrain and Tunisia thanks to social networks. Not so long ago, Facebook helped

But it is clear that people do not have much say if it comes to the crunch. Do you have a killswitch? No. Do ISPs? Yes. Can the Government organise an internet shutdown? Evidently.

So as much as we might like to believe the internet is the one place where the people really have the power, they don’t. Non-virtual trends have filtered into the web, and this is a now irreversible shift.

Just as governments can brutally suppress protest on the streets, they can take attempt to take control of the internet as well. We’ve seen in China how successful the authorities have been in quashing minor online uprisings.

In fact, governments could have more success in virtual environments than in the real world. You can turn the internet off, sure. But suppressing millions of individuals with a purpose is a little trickier.

It seems the internet can help kick protests off, but to finish them, you need real people power.

Has Anonymous really targeted Westboro Baptist Church?

Monday, February 21st, 2011

Anonymous has drawn a new organisation into its crosshairs – the highly controversial Westboro Baptist Church.

Actually, nope, scrap that… it seems it’s all just a hoax. But not one organised by Anonymous, but by the anti-gay church itself.

According to an Anonymous release the whole thing was designed to give the church, which was the subject of an excellent Louis Theroux documentary not so long ago, some limelight, as well as trick the hacker group.

“You thought you could play with Anonymous. You observed our rising notoriety and thought you would exploit our paradigm for your own gain. And then you thought you could lure some idiots into a honeypot for more IPs to sue,” the message to Westboro Baptist Church read.

Anonymous warned its members not to launch a DDoS attack, claiming that the church had its “ports wide open to harvest IPs to sue.”

But this is where the whole concept of Anonymous becomes a troubling one – if it has no accountability then the group opens itself up to such dirty tricks (if it was a trick…) and even somewhat destabilises its credibility, even if its causes are thought to be morally right.

How do we know the aforementioned post was really from Anonymous? And how do we know the original message calling for attacks on the church was a hoax? Who writes the releases? Who is running the show, if anyone?

For its backers, the great thing about WikiLeaks is that it is accountable – it has a face in the form of Julian Assange. This means people have something to hold onto and can really get behind. Indeed, Anonymous itself became famous through its support of Assange and his cause.

Of course, Anonymity can have its benefits – most notably that things can be said that need to be said, without any comments having to be attached to a certain individual or organisation.

But what I would say is that accountability can create martyrs, and martyrs can aid a cause, just as targets give you something to shoot at.

Whether you agree with the way Anonymous goes about its business or not, the fact is it will always have to cope with fakers. It’s an easy model to hijack.

And what if another organisation tries to pull what Westboro Baptist Church supposedly did with IP harvesting, but succeeds? Anonymous members could find themselves in handcuffs. Just earlier this year, arrests were made as part of investigations into the group, so law enforcement are clearly after them.

Oh and then there’s the issue with being a protest organisation, and yet staunchly in favour of free speech. Anonymous will also have to cope with the paradox that when fighting against certain causes, you risk going against advocacy of freedom of speech. Admittedly, the group has tread this line carefully and avoided any hypocrisy from this respect thus far.

Expect to see more twists in 2011 – another big year for Anonymous and hacktivism in general.

Facebook + friends = STRESS

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

Apparently the more Facebook friends you have the more stressed you’ll be when using the site.

In research that some may question the validity/point of, Scottish psychologists quizzed a bunch of students (why just students?!) about how they use Zuckerberg’s baby (I’m referring to Facebook here, not any offspring of the young billionaire).

Edinburgh Napier University researchers found those users who spent the most time on the site and had more contacts than anyone else were likely to be the most stressed. It’s hard being young and popular – haven’t you seen teen not-actually-real documentary The Hills?

I’d like to add a little of my own psychoanalysis here that the researchers didn’t appear to comment on: the people with the most friends on Facebook and who spend the most time on it are more than likely lonely, insecure and in need of real human contact.

When these anti-outside air people go on Facebook, their unconscious is reminded that they aren’t actually making real contact with actual friends, but instead interacting with basically imaginary friends whose online personas are as detached from their genuine personalities as Apple and Adobe are in their outlook on openness. This only places additional stress on the Facebook users’ already fragile state without them appreciating why.

The more virtual friends they acquire, the more they are reminded how alienated they are from real-world and human interaction, making them even more depressed. No doubt stress levels for the Facebook-obsessed went up a notch on Valentine’s Day. It’s little wonder there weren’t any reports of people inexplicably imploding when February 14th hit, with love hearts and adoring messages splattered all over the social network to remind the lonely just how lonely they were.

There’s plenty of papers and research out there raising concerns about how people are becoming increasingly virtual in their social experiences, as well as what pejorative consequences this might entail. But no one really listens.

And who cares? I’m on Facebook right now, blissfully ignorant in the land of quasi-make believe where I’m a really fascinating, loquacious chap who has a startling amount of friends who I get on with all very well and converse with every day… God, I’m depressed.

P.S. To the 32 per cent of students who said rejecting friend requests led to feelings of guilt and discomfort, try doing it in real life to someone sleazing all over you like a sex-starved B-list celebrity on Viagra… it’s actually quite rewarding.

Stuxnet and Iran: Forming a link

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

You have to hand it to the research community for its work on Stuxnet and linking the now notorious piece of malicious kit to organisations in Iran.

OK, it may have been a little embarrassing for some that it took over a year to detect the most impressive piece of malware ever created, but since it was identified, security professionals have surpassed expectations in their investigations into Stuxnet.

Towards the end of last week, Symantec put out an updated paper on Stuxnet with some valuable new findings, most notably that five different organisations with a presence in Iran had been targeted.

It seems this fresh information was largely attainable thanks to a big group effort in drawing infection samples together. A total of 3,280 unique samples were gathered, representing approximately 12,000 infections, all of which could be linked back to the five Iranian organisations.

ESET, F-Secure, Kaspersky Labs, Microsoft, McAfee and Trend Micro all shared information with Symantec to figure out what Stuxnet was going after. Given the occasional animosity that sparks up between some of these firms, it’s refreshing to see them working together towards a common goal.

I remember when Stuxnet first broke out as a major development and spoke to some in the industry who said it was likely the provenance of Stuxnet would never be discovered. It doesn’t seem figuring out who created the malware is so unfeasible anymore, largely thanks to the IT sec industry’s willingness to share information.

You’ll be hard pushed to find an area of the wider tech sector that is so collaborative. In fact, you’d be hard pushed to find such collective intelligence being leveraged in any industry.

In recent times there have been a few too many spats in the tech industry, some even escalating into billion-dollar court cases. Industry in-fighting often only brings pejorative consequences and can be particularly detrimental to innovation as creative people get scared of treading on others’ feet.

What the Stuxnet investigation has shown is that you can get pretty darn far if you’re willing to work with competitors, perhaps further than you’d ever imagined. To all patent hogging, close-minded firms seeking total hegemony: take the hint.