For those who remain Immortal or leave something of themselves to posterity!
Me, I will be leaving behind only my children!
Facebook profile.
‘Nobody knows exactly when the 39-year-old, who went by the online moniker “Dare Dellcan,” took his life. Nobody knows why the normally cheery creative director and design company owner did it. And for the first couple of days, few people besides the police officers who found his body on July 16 knew he was dead.
The day after the discovery, a message appeared on Dowdell’s Facebook wall.
“I am a friend of Anthony’s. I wish I could call you all to inform you personally and this is probably a crappy way to find this out but our dear friend Anthony aka Ant aka Dare Dellcan has passed away. It is confirmed. I live around the corner and I have spoken with authorities this evening … I am only sharing this because if I was Anthony’s friend, I would want to know too. And I know that Anthony had friends all over the place.”
Dowdell had 692 friends on the social network. They were in New Jersey, where he lived, New York City, where he was raised, and spread from Los Angeles to Miami. A few were in Brazil and Italy. As with most people on Facebook, they were former girlfriends and dates-turned-friends, high school and college classmates, co-workers. Many hadn’t seen him in years. Most didn’t know each other.
The message on Facebook, linked to a newspaper article about an unnamed manfound dead in a truck in the store’s parking lot, is how nearly all learned of Dowdell’s death.
Find here below the Communication from Virginia Tech College of Engineering,US to The Department of Commerce,US.
You can take down anyLTE network with a simple $650 piece of gear.
LTE Network..
“Every cellphone grid is vulnerable to this technique, including FirstNet, the emergency communications network designed after 9/11. According to the authors, “it’s relatively easy to do” by anyone. In fact, if a terrorist group spent just a bit more on a cheap, readily available power amplifier, it could take down a region as large as New York State.
The paper, by Jeff Reed—director of the wireless research group at Virginia Tech—and research assistant Marc Lichtman, says that it would be hard to defend against such an attack. The problem, they say, relates to structural, intrinsic vulnerabilities to the LTE architecture…
Your phone is constantly syncing with the base station. If you can disrupt that synchronization, you will not be able to send or receive data. There are multiple weak spots-about eight different attacks are possible. The LTE signal is very complex, made up of many subsystems, and in each case, if you take out one subsystem, you take out the entire base station. Any communications engineer would be able to figure this stuff out.”
November 8, 2012
Lawrence Strickling Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue NW
HCHB Room 7324 Washington DC 20230 Att: FirstNet Conceptual Network NOI
Enclosed we provide a brief response to the FirstNet NOI regarding the conceptual network
architecture. The focus on our comments is on the information assurance aspects of LTE and
contains a summary of some of our preliminary analysis. This work is still in progress and we
would be pleased to share details of our current and future findings on this issue.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jeffrey H. Reed
Director, Wireless@ Virginia Tech.
Conclusion
These comments describe extremely effective attacks can be realized, using fairly low
complexity. It would be in the interest of public safety to take measures to reduce the
vulnerability of Public Safety LTE, and lower the likelihood of an effective jamming attack.
Certainly there are important cost advantage of keeping the public safety LTE system compatible
with commercial devices and systems. Seeking solutions that achieve this compatibility while
providing protection are desirable. We thank you for considering our views, and are eager to
address any subsequent questions.
I have blogged on the Media ownership in India,US aware of the fact that, in a Democracy who controls information decides power equation.
This morning it struck me that I never bothered to check on the ownership pattern of Google.
While Googling, the information I obtained was very meager and sanitized.
I did a search with Bing, with slightly better results.
After going through the material, I feel that if you r to be secretiveness, you have something to hide.
You try talking to some one in Google office India, you would be surprised that how people can refuse to part with any information without being offensive-even if the information you ask for is very mundane.
Standard answer ‘Google it’
Now Read on .
Google search: seen by a smaller proportion of UK desktop users in October 2012.
‘That being said, I have noticed how little users actually know about Google. We all use it everyday, but when it comes to who owns it or what the company does own-people are sometimes clueless. With the recent merger talk of Yahoo and Microsoft, I saw countless questions as to if Google already owned Yahoo. The answer of course is no, but Google does own so much more. The company is said to own over 500 domain names some bought by Google themselves, others bought by companies that were bought by Google.
As for the acquisitions Google has-the list is endless. According to mydigmedia.com, Google owns:
As you can see, Google does not own Yahoo. That can of course change in the upcoming months. Google has a lot of initiatives still to come. They recently released what they refer to as Android operating system, which very well could take over the Iphone market as well.
Sergey Brin and Larry Page both started Google while in their twenties. The two met in the science program at Stanford. They dropped out of school and started Google from a friends’ garage in 1998. Brin currently serves as president of technology at Google and Page heads product division. The two are said to be worth $18 billion.
Google controls the majority of the Internet. I happen to think this is not a bad thing. They seem to be innovative, responsible, generous and just plain brilliant. I think if anyone can keep moving technology forward, it is Google. I would not mind them controlling the net. They seem to be doing an excellent job so far. Only time will tell though as far as the future is concerned. I, for one, look forward to seeing what Google controls or comes up with next!”
Read this apt comment.
“Anything this powerful is a threat to liberty. They can do what they like, and are intruding more and more into our personal information. Now I’m told by Google that the ad I was running with Adwords is not being allowed because my site lacks enough content and too many ads! The site is a business site and provides the information to visitors I wish it to. It has pages of content and only two small square box ads apart from the Google adsense skyscraper! Yet they claim it ‘violates’ Googles policy of too many ads to content as if it’s just an ad farm which it isn’t.
It is no business of Google’s to judge sites. It’s arrogance, and it’s what you get from the too-powerful. Forget governments, Google could become the police state all on its own, it is gathering vast amnounts of information, holds archives not just of websites but of our searches. It is inherently dangerous and I don’t share the writer#s sanguinity or optimism. Facebook is showing the same tendency to megalomania.”
Will some body from the IT Industry send me information on Google ownership?
‘The first funding for Google as a company was secured on August 1998 in the form of a $100,000USD contribution from Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, given to a corporation which did not yet exist.[24](wiki)
Look at the above-‘ given to a corporation which did not yet exist”
Cyber-security experts turned the tables on an alleged hacker by using his own malware to film him through his own laptop webcam.
Specialists from Georgia’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-Georgia) tricked a man they claim has been targeting their networks by hiding the virus inside a file titled ‘Georgian-Nato Agreement’.
After the attacker stole that archive from an infected PC in their lab, they were able to seize control of his computer and capture video of him at work.
The team also claim to have found out his home city, internet service provider and email addresses, as well as information that links him to Russian security agencies and other hackers in Germany.
CERT-Georgia’s experts had been investigating a botnet which had infiltrated the computers of politicians, civil servants, banks and NGOs in Georgia, the U.S., Canada, Ukraine and several other countries.
They found that the attackers had planted malicious links to install the malware on specific news-site webpages that would be of interest to the kinds of people they wanted to target.
‘[The] threat was highly encrypted and used contemporary stealthy techniques, so that none of security tools could identify it,’ the team said in a 27-page report into their investigation.
Once installed, the virus seized control of the targeted computer, rifling its hard drives to search for Word and .pdf documents containing sensitive words like ‘USA‘, ‘NATO‘, ‘Russia’ and ‘CIA’.
A botnet is a collection of internet-connected computers over which a hacker has seized control.
Each compromised machine – known as a ‘bot’ – is created when a computer is infected with malicious software (malware) which allows the hacker to direct its activities remotely.
These infections can be accomplished by luring users into making a drive-by download, exploiting web browser vulnerabilities, or by tricking the user into running a Trojan horse program, which may come from via email.
This malware will typically install modules that allow the computer to be commanded and controlled by the botnet’s operator.
Depending on how it is written, a Trojan may then delete itself, or may remain present to update and maintain the modules.
The malware also scanned the computer’s local network for find other hosts to infect, took screenshots, and took control of embedded webcams and microphones on machines to eavesdrop on targets.
The investigation found the infiltration began as early as March 2011, with the virus undergoing a series of modifications as hackers tried to stay one step ahead of whatever security measures were used against it.
CERT-Georgia’s experts found that whenever they were able to trace the botnet’s command and control servers, to which files were being uploaded, the hackers would switch the destination country and IP address.
To fight the infections, the team blocked these IP addresses as soon as they were detected then cooperated with anti-virus software companies and foreign intelligence agencies to develop countermeasures.
You must be logged in to post a comment.