PCNs 
February, 2008

Later, I got into computer science, and came to understand that there are actually 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Cheers -

Mark

Hi,
I recently had a nasty bout with a virus may not have yet been identified, and it was a pain.  This little bugger deleted my diagnostic tool when I went hunting for it - right off the drive!  (process explorer)

It appears someone else picked it up, and is reporting on it, so hopefully there will be more information. Well, virusses have the advantage of the previous viral programs to build upon, and improve upon (one they get on your machine).  At the time I got infected, well, it wasn't me, it was the girls and I was at work, but I had no yet installed all the protections, such as a firewall.

Speaking of which, there are firewalls, and then there are firewalls.  Peer Guardian is an interesting tool, but it is not a firewall, it is an 'IP blocker'. You can read about it and find downloads here... 
http://www.tech-faq.com/peer-guardian.shtml
I have also read Peer Guardian to not be compatible with McCafee Firewall.  'Zone Alarm' has a freeware copy of a firewall program that I use.  There was a conflict talked about with McCaffee and Outpost...
http://forums.phoenixlabs.org/showthread.php?t=1058
Some folks get by fine, it seems, with the built in Windows XP firewall.  Firewalls will protect against connecting programs on your machine that you, the user, don't know about, but they won't stop connecting programs you allow to connect from being overcome by 'back doors', or viruses that find holes in them.

Any connecting programs over TCP/IP will listen on, and be connected to, via specific port numbers.  These port numbers (sometimes arbitrary) can range from 0 to 65535.  You have programs on your machine listening on specific port numbers for people to connect to, and
you might have programs that go out and connect to other machines on specific port numbers.  So, a true firewall will give you the ability to block any and all traffic over a specified (pre-stated) program name/port number combination.

Peer Guardian blocks IP addresses.  It is open source software, and is being updated every day. Part of what is being updated is a lengthy list of government IPs, and other IP (internet address) lists, such as for the RIAA and the MPAA (recording industry and motion picture assoc).  These guys like to snoop around quite a bit and snif into people's machines.

You run across tools like this when your roomies are into things like working with file shares over the 'net.  Go figure!

Well, so it's not a firewall exactly, but it will block any and all traffic from pre-stated lists of IP addresses.  It will also show you when such agencies are poking at your machine.  As I say, the IP lists are updated regularly.

Cheers -

Mark

Since I said what I did, maybe a little elaboration on how and what to protect against. someone recently asked about assisting with this...

1) A firewall, such as built into modern-day Windows, will block any port number/program name pair. They might be called programs or services. When you open a port in a firewall, it is likened to "punching a hole" in the firewall (thus allowing a certain program to get through - you trust it). Well, you have to trust something. You want to connect, yes?

As I say, firewalls protect against programs on your machine (and ports) that you have but you don't know about. Maybe you won't want some of them to get connected at all. Firewalls will also stop any outside attackers via programs/ports that you haven't made holes for.

1b) (I would say optional) An IP Blocker does not block programs/port numbers, but it will block connections with specified IPs on the internet. This will stop connections with pre-stated IPs, regardless of program name/port number combination.

(Confusing note: Denial of Service attacks falsify or zero out their "from IP" addresses, but current Windows patches (and other peoples patches) block DoS attackers. DoS attacks initially made a big splash because Cisco and the rest never originally wrote all the code on their internet routers and such that should have stopped the routing of zeroed out "from IPs" to begin with)

IP Blockers are popular amongst, how do you say, people who like to share things over the internet, who then get into tangles with the federal government, the SPA, the RIAA or the MPAA. The RIAA and MPAA are very busy out there, and they do endeavor to hack into people's machines. These are the people who establish things like intellectual property encryption schemes, and hardware in DVD and VHS players that block copying of said property, and the advent of technology inside things such as DVRs (digital video recorders), that keeps the pure digital data locked up inside the device.

"Peer Guardian" is an example of an IP Blocker that also tells you if any of the above agencies are trying to get into your machine, to the extent of its knowledge (of said agencies), and it is updated daily.

2) Software Updates and Antivirus: What is protecting you and your machine from the stuff that you do? This makes protection more involved. For example, a firewall won't stop a virus from getting through a "back door", or a hole in system code that you have made a hole for, for its regular function. Security patches fix security holes, and antivirus software defends against such attacks, to the extent of its malware knowledge.

Antivirus software watches what programs are downloaded or installed on your machine, and checks its database for known viruses. Most of the time it can find them, but in my latest case, no such chance, since no one has identified the thing yet. From a review I read at PC World, the top antivirus programs stopped as mush as 96% of the 90,000 viruses used in experimental attacks. Do the math! A few thousand viruses found their way through the same antivirus software; viruses that you might like to download, because you didn't know what they (actually) were. Download programs from trusted sites/addresses, and maintain security updates for your browser (and separate email program if you use one) as well as you do your operating system.

Antivirus software also protects against plug-ins and add-ons and extensions and such when Windows, or your browser, or something equally clever, automatically downloads and installs them possibly without asking you (like depending on how your browser is set up). It protects against the user when the user doesn't know what their own programs are doing, which for Windows and Internet Explorer is to be expected. I use the Firefox browser, but Microsoft in my opinion works hard at securing their browser offering as well.

3) Another line of defense is to use the one built in to the true "client-server" operating system. This is when you have multiple user accounts on your machine. This is the kind of security that was a part of the original (and to date) UNIX operating system and its offspring (such as Linux), and has been adopted since, such as modern-day Windows (I do this with as old as Windows 2000, for example).

The client-server O/S model gives you the ability to set up root or administrator or all-powerful access for one user account, and restricted access for other user accounts. This is a very good defense, but it involves your making the separate user accounts. You will have at least one account with total power, and at least one with restricted access. You will have to log onto an all-powerful account to install new software, or to configure system-type stuff, such as networking settings, and you will have to then log off and back on as a restricted user to then use the machine more safely. It will also provide protection against the actions of other users who have physical access to your machine.

4) You will be hacked at some point. Most often, you'll be lucky, because they'll just pipe your private information out, such as each keystroke by way of a "keylogger", but they won't delete your personal stuff, and you likely won't know they're there. Most malware today is produced by commercial enterprises, not maladjusted geeks from Romania. These are companies that typically sell your private information for money, or sometimes who install viruses on your machine that then ask you to buy their so-called virus removal software (which is typically just another virus, a.k.a. "phishing").

The last line of defense, which they ought to consider at Diebold (for their freakin' no-paper-trail voting machines) is to back up your system. You can then restore from your backup. There is no attack that can find it's way onto your machine that can then also find its way onto a previous, read-only backup disc, right? This is the ultimate last line of defense for your data. It will also protect your data in the event of hardware failures, as well as malicious users at your keyboard. Really, anything you can think of.

For example, there is a type of attack that gets the big vendors ancy, and its called a VMA, or Virtual Machine Attack. It's the security professional's version of nasty, because its a fake operating environment that you're operating in. There is no defense against a VMA when the user is totally fooled by it. This would be a faked Operating System, a faked card reader, a faked teller machine, etc. You have to trust your "platform" (read-only Windows install disc and a clean formatted hard drive, for example).

Recommendations: the 4 points listed above...
1) A Firewall (at least where the internet connection is)
2) Antivirus and security patches (updates)
3) Restricted user access on the machine
4) Backups
That will do it.  Perhaps for VMAs (et al):
5) Trusted hardware and system software.  Trusted browser (and its settings).  Trusted sites/URLs when surfing, particularly for any kind of download.

Cheers -

Mark

http://sneezl.com/only-in-russia/

One or two remind me a little of Vermont, but, nobody
does it quite like the Russians!

Cheers -

Mark

"Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee." - Helen Keller, 1911
----
The powers that be appear to have chosen Clinton and McCain.  The CEO of Diebold was recorded at Hillary's New Hampshire victory party telling us that he would "take care of the counting", and McCain is the favorite of Dubyah and Jeb Bush, and the rest of the nazi squad, and he appears to want to bomb everything east of the Suez.  For his own reasons, of course.

"Obama scores 10th straight victory"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080220/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

I think John McCain has his integrity, in some small way, but he has not shown to me his ability to operate beyond his own gullibility and naivete'. 

Hillary, on the other hand, appears more capable as a puppet master.  She's funded campaigns from gun running (check for the Clinton involvement in Iran Contra - Nicaragua), and just like McCain, she's a hawk for war... In Iran, and beyond.

Cheers -

Mark

Someone told me (as usual) this was all just as clear as mud.  Sometimes verse appears as it should?

Knowledge Puzzle

When I know a particular thing,
surrounded by those who do not,
I will be the knower of it,
and they the ignorant lot.

Awareness of one’s own extent -
this is a gift in disguise.
By way of the knowledge I acquire
I may be less wise.

Cheers -

Mark

p.s.  You have 24 hours to figure it out, after which
your email program will alight.

According to CNN last night, and I quote...

"We've just been told that al qaeda did indeed call Barack to congratulate him on winning (Wisconsin)". 

This was in the closed captioning during Anderson Cooper. "did indeed".  Sorry to all those hearing impaired people out there, but al qaeda might be backing someone else.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/20/cnn-al-qaeda-congratulates-obama-on-wi-primary-victory/

Cheers -

Mark

After reading further into the topic of my last email, I have found that closed captioning tools operate in such a way as to make Hillary Clinton change into Al Qaeda by way of a single keystroke error.  Since CC errors actually are not unusual, this could have well been the case.

CC moves at 300 words per minute, and the person doing it doesn't stop for hours at a time.  They run right through the show as well as the commercials in between. 

This is not your regular "word processor"; it is a special keypad with less keys, designed for the striking of multiple keys at a time, where many such strokes translate into whole words or names.  The case here is probably an HC-BG versus HL-BG combination, where one key was hit wrong, and "Hillary Clinton" literally became "Al Qaeda".

Then again, who knows?  I must confess, I laughed so hard when I first heard it, but that's how I sometimes feel about network news these days.  Due to the intense internet-based scrutiny of our day, I don't doubt for a minute that CNN will receive a backlash for the error, which in turn will pass along to the CC contractor who did it.  Due to the backlash, they might even change their stenography to avoid these kinds of mistakes in the future from even being possible.  I'm guessing.  In fact, I don't have the ability to say that it wasn't a mistake, either.

CC includes a censor as it so fast and furiously happens, and there are a variety of incidents I have briefly read of where the censor practiced a little more than removing just the "f" word from a sentence, such as partisan hacking (changing, for example, "democrats" into "dumrats").  Gramdma's CC may pick up more scrutiny in the future because of an incident such as this.

Also, as I say, since we'll most likely never know what was a mistake and what was not, it might help to take into consideration some of the gaffs that have occurred with Obama, on MSNBC and CNN in the past. The following link has a couple of examples of what appears to me to be dubious errors... 
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802190002?f=h_top

The apology by Chris Matthews hardly seems to fit the bill for what happened on his show, and in the case of Wolf Blitzer, I'm skeptical of the typo in the CNN Bin Laden graphic, from "Osama" to "Obama".  These days, I don't view the networks with the kind of trust that Walter Cronkite and CBS News may have once had.

Cheers -

Mark

This is a lengthy note, but a small attempt to magnify and dissect a news element.  Bill O’Reilly is a noted wordsmith in his own right.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News recently came out with a remark regarding Michelle Obama, Barack Obama’s wife. This appears to be a matter of calling, perhaps however casually, for a lynching party for Michelle Obama in the event that she is found to be an angry person.  We’ll start from the beginning.  Also note the heavy promotion of Michelle Obama as an angry person…  Some people in this world are no doubt trying to make that stick. 

From Michell Obama (C-SPAN) speech…
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html  (1 min 14 sec video)
“"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction
and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

From Bill O”Reilly’s Show, Westwood One’s “The Radio Factor”,
(The caller does not appear to be the same Maryanne as the one from Gilligan’s Island)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001?f=h_top
O'REILLY: Maryanne, Woodbury, Connecticut: What say you, Maryanne? Maryanne –

CALLER: I'm here.

O'REILLY: -- you're on the air.

CALLER: Here I am.

O'REILLY: OK.

CALLER: I just wanted to say that I think Michelle Obama is an angry woman -- is speaking, I think, with her real voice for the first time. And –

O'REILLY: But how do you -- what do you base that on?  You're basing that on what?

CALLER: Well, your representative asked me not to talk about this, but I have a friend who had knowledge of her and said to me months ago, "This is a very angry," her word was "militant woman."

O'REILLY: All right. What I want you do then, Maryanne, if -- I want you to stay on the line.

CALLER: OK.

O'REILLY: Because it's not fair to Michelle Obama for you –

CALLER: Oh no, all I'm saying is –

O'REILLY: -- because we don't know who you are, and we don't know who your friend is, but we want to know. We want to know, OK. But it's not fair at this point for you to say, "My friend said X and Y," because we just don't know. But if you would give us your information,
we would like to talk to your friend. And then whatever your friend tells us, we'll track it down. We'll do it in a fair and balanced and methodical way. That's how we're going to cover this campaign -- all of them, all of them. So stay on the line, give us your information. If indeed Michelle Obama is angry about something, if she has a history, we would like to know that, and then we can put it into some kind of context so that we can be fair to everybody.

You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.

That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.
----end text---

So it appears that O’Reilly is keeping Maryanne on the phone, because it’s important to find out if Michelle Obama is “angry about something, if she has a history, we would like to know that”, and in defense of Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton to say, “every time (Bill Clinton) turns around, there’s another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate
him because they’re rooting for (Barack) Obama”, and, “That’s wrong, and I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.”

Watch out for VDARE (White Nationalist site – Virginia Dare), and the Washington Times, who like to share authors and material, and Slate.com for the same reason.  Even the USA Today has quoted such material.

From Slate.com…
“Is that an S-Chip on Your Shoulder or Are You Just Glad to See Me?”
http://www.slate.com/id/2184672/#mchip
From Sailer’s Feb 19th Blog Post
(Slate – cached – http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210006 )…
“Newsweek has a long article on the wonderfulness of Mrs. Obama, but she sounds like she's got a log-sized chip on her shoulder from lucking into Princeton due to affirmative action. For predictable reasons, being admitted into one of the Big Four super colleges and being given lots of financial aid didn't instill in her a feeling of gratitude toward the benevolence of white people. Instead, it just fed her adolescent self-consciousness and racial paranoia. The bad news is that she doesn't seem to have gotten over it yet. (She's 44).”

At portfolio.com the producer of the O’Reilly Factor wanted to justify O’Reilly’s remark, but I don’t understand how they do it, here…
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2008/02/20/oreilly-producer-defends-lynching-remark
"Okay, so "lynching party" may not be the best choice of words to use when discussing a black Presidential candidate and his wife. But don't expect Bill O'Reilly to apologize, a la David "Pimped" Shuster and Mark "Pussy" Halperin.

"In fact, O'Reilly was defending Michelle Obama, who's taking some heat herself over comments she made to Newsweek, when he used that term -- a fact his executive producer, David Tabacoff, made when I contact Fox News for a comment.

"What Bill said was an obvious repudiation of anyone attacking Michelle Obama," he said, via email. "As he has said more than ten times, he is giving her the benefit of the doubt."
---end text---

The reactions from the right pile up in various blogs and publications, regarding Mrs. Obama’s comment where she says, "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country".  Tucker Carlson of MSNBC and Britt Hume of Fox are calling this an angry woman as well, or a woman with a chip on her shoulder, quoting the white nationalist publication above.  When the bit about lynching comes up, do you suppose it will just be a boy crying wolf?  Perhaps that is food for thought. 

To me, it looks like emphasis is placed upon “really”… “For the first time in my life, I am “really” proud of my country.”, she says. And no, I’m not proud of my country when we’re talking about the things that I think are seriously broken, such as the brightest stars; JFK, Martin Luther and Bobby Kennedy, are assassinated by what appears to be mob-government
collusion, or for the unjust wars that litter the latter half of the 20th Century, such as the creation of the El Salvadorian Death Squads, or the White House running its own wars illegally, or when guns and cocaine are being run in and out of Mena, AK by our top people, or when congress is looking like a wholly owned subsidiary of more corporations than I can shake a stick at, or when Dick Cheney so much as farts.  I think that pride by itself is blindly stupid, because the person in question thinks that everything is fine just the way it is.  These are the people who vote for Mickey Mouse because he’s the party candidate.  I recall the notion, “a lover’s quarrel with my country”.

William Sloan Coffin: “A Lover’s Quarrel with America”…
http://www.olddogdocumentaries.com/vid_wsc.html

Moving back to topic, we should probably put into a good light what exactly a lynching is.  It is not a hanging.  It is often by way of state or law enforcement officials, but often without their direct participation, and it is directed specifically at African Americans.  I would have said blacks, but Hindus are black, so we’ll have to go with African American on this.  It is a form of terrorism, and generally state sponsored.  Thousands of lives have been claimed by lynching, but we only have estimates based upon what records are available. I’ll keep an eye out if I find something, but I am not yet aware of Bill O’Reilly using the term elsewhere. 

That’s enough nasty crap for one day for me.  Avoid the noid – feel the love.

An excellent article in her defense...
Kieth Olberman "Countdown" with Robinson of the WaPo...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210001?f=h_top

Got to love the title on this one...
NY Magazine: "Bill O’Reilly Doesn’t Want to Lynch Michelle Obama Until He Is 100 Percent Positive She Hates America"
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/02/bill_oreilly_doesnt_want_to_ly.html

Cheers –

Mark