Conficker virus begins to attack computers

[yunowu]

A malicious software program known as Conficker is slowly being activated, weeks after being dismissed as a false alarm, according to computer security experts.


Conficker, also known as Downadup or Kido, was expected to wreak havoc on April 1 when it was due to be activated, but it failed to cause many problems.

Internet virus experts, however, claim it is now quietly turning thousands of personal computers into servers of e-mail spam and installing spyware.

The worm started spreading late last year, infecting millions of computers and turning them into "slaves" that respond to commands sent from a remote server that effectively controls an army of computers known as a botnet.

Vincent Weafer, a vice president with Symantec Security Response, the research arm of one of the world's largest security software maker, Symantec Corp, said the unidentified creators of the worm were now beginning to use it for criminal purposes by loading more malicious software onto computers under their control.

"Expect this to be long-term, slowly changing," he said of the worm. "It's not going to be fast, aggressive."

Conficker installs a second virus, known as Waledac, that sends out e-mail spam without knowledge of the PC's owner, along with a fake anti-spyware program, Weafer said.

The Waledac virus recruits the PCs into a second botnet that has existed for several years and specializes in distributing e-mail spam.

Paul Ferguson, a senior researcher with Trend Micro Inc, the world's third-largest security software maker, said: "This is probably one of the most sophisticated botnets on the planet.

"The guys behind this are very professional. They absolutely know what they are doing," said

He said Conficker's authors likely installed a spam engine and another malicious software program on tens of thousands of computers since April 7.

He said the worm will stop distributing the software on infected PCs on May 3 but more attacks will likely follow.

"We expect to see a different component or a whole new twist to the way this botnet does business," said Ferguson, a member of The Conficker Working Group, an international alliance of companies fighting the worm.

Researchers had feared the network controlled by the Conficker worm might be deployed on April 1 since the worm surfaced last year because it was programmed to increase communication attempts from that date.

The security industry formed the task force to fight the worm, bringing widespread attention that experts said probably scared off the criminals who command the slave computers.

The task force initially thwarted the worm using the Internet's traffic control system to block access to servers that control the slave computers.

Viruses that turn PCs into slaves exploit weaknesses in Microsoft's Windows operating system.

The Conficker worm is especially tricky because it can evade corporate firewalls by passing from an infected machine onto a USB memory stick, then onto another PC.

The Conficker botnet is one of many such networks controlled by syndicates that authorities believe are based in eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, China and Latin America.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5219208/Conficker-virus-begins-to-attack-computers.html

[yunowu]

2009-04-27
RealNetworks and the major movie studios are gathering in San Francisco's U.S. District Court on Friday to, possibly, determine the fate of DVD copying.


RealNetworks would like to sell its $30 RealDVD application--an application that allows consumers to back up commercial DVDs to their computers' hard drive for archival purposes. (These back up copies are still protected and can't be burned to DVD.) The movie industry wants to maintain control of its content and argues that RealNetworks has breached a license to use CSS encryption (the form of copy-protection found on commercial DVDs) and is in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) won a temporary injunction in October that prevents RealNetworks from selling RealDVD.)

While this may result in a narrow ruling--RealNetworks did or did not breach its CSS license--it has broad implications for the future of media distribution and copyright. The movie industry, like the music industry before it, wants complete control over its content and, therefore, hopes RealNetworks takes the fall. If digital copies must be made, they will be provided, at extra expense, by the movie companies in the form of special edition DVDs that contain bonus digital copies which can be played on computers and portable media devices such as the iPod. Or, of course, consumers are welcome to purchase digital copies directly from online retailers such as Amazon.com and the iTunes Store.

Unfortunately for the movie industry, that wall has already been breached. California-based Kaleidescape, makers of high-end media players, were sued by the DVD Copy Control Association (DCCA) over the company's high-end media systems that can archive commercial DVDs to a hard drive. After a seven-day trial in 2007, Kaleidescape was judged to be in full compliance with the DCCA's encryption license. RealNetworks is suggesting that if Kaleidescape can do it, why not them?

A less compelling argument, but one RealNetworks representatives might want to mention when it's the company's turn to stand before the judge, is that this train left the station long ago. Software to remove copy protection from commercial DVDs has been around for more than five years. A Google search (or search of Macworld.com, for that matter) will provide links to such software that's free and not terribly difficult to use. And, unlike RealDVD, these applications completely strip copy-protection from DVDs. If someone were really interested in pirating and distributing the contents of commercial DVDs, RealDVD would not be the way to do it.

Fair Use advocates might also argue that there are certain conditions under which archival copies are allowed and, therefore, technology must exist to create such copies. Those supporting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act might counter that the DMCA trumps Fair Use.

And that's what makes this case so important and interesting--once you purchase a hunk of media, is it or is it not yours to do with as you legally please? I fear, however, that we won't learn the answer from this trial. I suspect that one reason we continue to see cases that focus on narrow issues such as whether Company X breached License Y is that no one really wants a final judgment on Fair Use versus the DMCA. There's a lot at stake.

If Fair Use triumphs, the media companies fear they'll go out of business because their wares will be pirated from one end of the world to the other. And if the DMCA wins the day, the Fair Use crowd believes they'll be ground under The Man's heel.

Will one San Francisco judge be willing to dip a toe in this legal morass?

In the case of Kaleidescape v. DCCA it's happened before. I, for one, hope to see it happen again. My archived copy of Mary Poppins depends on it.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/163821/dvd_copying_case_why_you_should_care.html

[yunowu]

2009-04-28
The hackers of 4Chan have succeeded in completely gaming Time Magazine’s online poll for its Time 100 list of the most influential people on the planet. At the top of the list is Christopher Poole, aka Moot, the founder of the 4Chan online forum, whose members used some coding to get his name to the top of the list. Not only did they help moot win the poll, but they also arranged the next 20 names to spell out “Marblecake, also the game.” Marblecake is a lewd sexual reference, but is also supposedly the name of the chat room where one of 4Chan’s online collective actions, Project Chanology, originated.

This is just the “people’s choice” list, not the official list picked by Time’s editors, but still it makes you wonder whether the editors at Time bother to read anything on the Internet. It is pretty well-documented that the 4Chan community was trying to manipulate the poll results. Nevertheless, Time just threw up its hands and named Moot the winner. Time is obviously aware of the controversy, but tries to justify the choice nonetheless by writing that:

"Moot denies knowing about any concerted plan by his followers to influence the poll, though TIME.com’s technical team did detect and extinguish several attempts to hack the vote."

Except Time.com’s technical team didn’t do a very good job, because the top 21 names still spell out the Marblecake sentence. Time knows it was pwned by 4Chan, but simply throws up its hands. Time.com’s managing editor Josh Tyrangiel tries to defuse criticism by admitting that the poll is meaningless. He says, “I would remind anyone who doubts the results that this is an Internet poll. Doubting the results is kind of the point.” Or maybe the point is to name an Internet celebrity and create a controversy so that people click through to read the results. Well played.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/27/time-magazine-throws-up-its-hands-as-it-gets-pwned-by-4chan/

[yunowu]

2009-04-26
In 2005, the average American consumed 64kg of added sugar, a sizeable proportion of which came through drinking soft drinks. Now, in a 10-week study, Peter Havel and colleagues, at the University of California at Davis, Davis, have provided evidence that human consumption of fructose-sweetened but not glucose-sweetened beverages can adversely affect both sensitivity to the hormone insulin and how the body handles fats, creating medical conditions that increase susceptibility to heart attack and stroke.
See also:

In the study, overweight and obese individuals consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages that provided 25% of their energy requirements for 10 weeks. During this period, individuals in both groups put on about the same amount of weight, but only those consuming fructose-sweetened beverages exhibited an increase in intraabdominal fat.

Further, only these individuals became less sensitive to the hormone insulin (which controls glucose levels in the blood) and showed signs of dyslipidemia (increased levels of fat-soluble molecules known as lipids in the blood).

As discussed in an accompanying commentary by Susanna Hofmann and Matthias Tschöp, although these are signs of the metabolic syndrome, which increases an individual's risk of heart attack, the long-term affects of fructose over-consumption on susceptibility to heart attack remain unknown.

Journal reference:

1. Stanhope et al. Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2009; DOI: 10.1172/JCI37385
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420182151.htm