Read this for a very interesting (and kind of frightening) account of the DDoS attack against grc.com. I especially liked the transcript between Steve Gibson (grc.com owner) and ^b0ss^ after Gibson reverse-engineered the zombie program and spied on the hackers. :-)

(http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,1870,48097,00.html)

But a recent bomb scare leads police to discover the gadgets concealed all over Taipei, ending the puzzle of why so few have been caught speeding

By Lawrence Chung
STRAITS TIMES TAIWAN BUREAU

TAIPEI – A device hidden illegally on a tree to warn motorists of anti-speeding traps was mistaken for a bomb, which led police to uncover even more of such gadgets in all sorts of concealments, including street lamps and cracks in the walls.

The discovery had unravelled the puzzle as to why so few offenders were being booked for speeding recently.

If not for the bomb scare, the traffic police of Taiwan would have remained in the dark when it toughened the traffic law today to inflict more severe punishments on the island's legion number of errant motorists. In the past week, armed with high-tech electromagnetic wave tracers, police have left no stone unturned at major roads where speed detectors are installed to ferret out the illegal transmitters.

Read More …

The Internet Engineering Task Force has a new draft RFC that explores how the Internet will work across the solar system — Interplanetary Internet (IPN): Architectural Definition.

Since space is so big, the Internet can't quite work the same way it does here on little old Earth. In fact, the delay of bouncing signals off of satellites (that are only a several thousand miles a way) already causes some problems with our terrestrial Internet.

Unlike the draft itself, one of the authors, S. Burleigh, has waxed poetic to summarize the differences between the Internet on Earth and the Internet that will span the planets:

Read More …

There is an email circulating claiming that sulfnbk.exe is a virus that has infected windows computers, and that you should delete this file (as reported at Vmyths.com). But the file is actually part of the MS Windows operating system.

So now computer viruses have come full circle: just like a "real" virus, this email virus is completely inert until it infects a biological host — in this case a human being. For the record, it does not appear that this email was an intentional piece of social engineering.

like SlippyToad's post in a 22 May 2001 post (#33) on this Slashdot thread regarding the book "Digital Copyright":

---

Time once again to post my "black hole" meme, which I hope will propagate up to the people who need to hear it the most, and encourage them to vote with their work for the system that benefits them the most: I speak to the artists, authors, and creators of copyrighted material.

Current copyright laws are, in my opinion, going to put the 20th century's greatest artistic outpourings into a legally mandated black hole. Most artists and authors have an expectation that their work will immortalize them. Otherwise we wouldn't have such things as the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame (as biased and political an organization as it is) or the Grammys, or the Oscars, or any other prizes and awards for great contributions to the field.

The problem with this expectation is that in order for your work to be immortalized, it has to survive beyond the first generation of its fans. Just because the Baby Boomers put down in their book that Bob Dylan was somebody fuckin' great, doesn't mean that I will. And it is my generation that will be responsible for ensuring the longevity of art created by my parents' generation. In order for a work to survive past a generation, copies have to be made. Lots of them. Vinyl albums are incredibly fragile, and are easily scratched by careless children, and left on radiators or in attics and warp. CD's get dropped behind the sofa. Cassette tapes are left on the dashboard and melt. Boo.

Read More …

This is the first paper I've read about ad-hoc wireless networks that talks about managing security settings for devices without GUI's (like a Bluetooth headset). Basically, the idea presented is for a new device to "imprint" on the first device presented to them via a physical connection (kind of like a duckling with it's parent). From then on the device will look only to that first device for security issues. If the device owner want to sell it, or transfer it to another parent, the owner can kill and resurrect the device so that it can imprint again.

Bluetooth and other short-range wireless proponents tout capabillities where devices "automatically" connect when in range. But what if I don't want my device to connect? And what happens when I walk onto a crowded train or airplane? The "resurrecting duckling" is an encouraging model for dealing with these situations.

Summarized from the 15 May 2001 issue of Crypto-Gram by Bruce Schneier:

---

None of these are perfect; none of these are foolproof. If the secret police wants to target your data or your communications, none of these will stop them. But they're all good network hygiene, and they'll make you a more difficult target than the computer next door.

1. Passwords. You can't memorize good enough passwords any more, so don't bother. Create long random passwords, and write them down. Store them in your wallet, or in a program like Password Safe. Guard them as you would your cash. Don't let Web browsers store passwords for you. Don't transmit passwords (or PINs) in unencrypted e-mail and Web forms. Assume that all PINs can be easily broken, and plan accordingly.
2. Antivirus software. Use it.
3. Personal firewall software. Use it.
4. E-mail. Delete spam without reading it. Don't open, and immediately delete, messages with file attachments unless you know what they contain. Turn off HTML mail. Don't use Outlook or Outlook Express. If you're using Windows, turn off the "hide file extensions for known file types" option; it lets Trojan horses masquerade as other types of files. Uninstall the Windows Scripting Host if you can get along without it.
5. Web sites. SSL does not provide any assurance that the vendor is trustworthy or that their database of customer information is secure. Limit financial and personal data you send to Web sites; don't give out information unless you see a value to you. If you don't want to give out personal information, lie.
6. Browsing. Limit use of cookies and applets to those few sites that provide services you need. Regularly clean out your cookie and temp folders (I have a batch file that does this every time I boot.) If at all possible, don't use Microsoft Internet Explorer.
7. Applications. Limit the applications on your machine. If you don't need it, don't install it. If you no longer need it, uninstall it. If you need it, regularly check for updates and install them.
8. Backups. Back up regularly. Remember to destroy old backups; physically destroy CD-R disks.
9. Laptop security. Keep your laptop with you at all times when not at home; think of it as you would a wallet or purse.
10. Encryption. Install an e-mail and file encrypt or (like PGP). Encrypting all your e-mail is unrealistic, but some mail is too sensitive to send in the clear. Similarly, some files on your hard drive are too sensitive to leave unencrypted.
11. General. Turn off the computer when you're not using it, especially if you have an "always on" Internet connection. If possible, don't use Microsoft Windows.

Honestly, this is hard work. Even I can't say that I diligently follow my own advice. But I do mostly, and that's probably good enough. And "probably good enough" is about the best you can do these days.

Warp Drive Underwater in the May 2001 issue of Scientific American talks about the use of "supercavitation" technologies that make it possible for vehicles underwater (initially torpedoes) to go a few hundred miles per hour.

I thought the most interesting speculation was the effect of this technology on missile defense shields (e.g.. U.S. "Star Wars" initiative). Simply put a nuclear warhead on a missile that travels the first couple of hundred miles underwater very quickly, then pops up at the last minute to hit a coastal target.

Slashdot is discussing the legality of DeCSS in this thread. DeCSS allows DVD owners to bypass the CSS copy-control mechanisms in DVDs. One of the issues is whether software can be considered "speech". If so, then the software is subject to First Amendment protections. In that case, banning a program (like DeCSS) would be like banning speech; it's something that courts can do, but there has to be very good evidence that the banned speech will directly cause a lot of harm.

jamus has an intersting point regarding software as "speech" in this post:

---

If computer programs aren't expressive speach, then according to the Copyright office's website, it won't be covered under copyright law. See Circular 1, which lists Copyrightable works. They don't have a category for compute programs, but make this recommendation:

For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"

It goes further by saying that "works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression" "are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection".

So, if programs aren't expressive speach, then where does that leave the copyright status of the million of computer programs out there? Is that a Pandora's box that the court wants to open?

Now, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I'm not sure where or if this is in actual law. If anybody else knows, I'll be interested in hearing Slashdot is discussing the legality of DeCSS in this thread. DeCSS allows DVD owners to bypass the CSS copy-control mechanisms in DVDs. One of the issues is whether software can be considered "speech". If so, then the software is subject to First Amendment protections. In that case, banning a program (like DeCSS) would be like banning speech; it's something that courts can do, but there has to be very good evidence that the banned speech will directly cause a lot of harm.

jamus has an intersting point regarding software as "speech" in this post:

---

If computer programs aren't expressive speach, then according to the Copyright office's website, it won't be covered under copyright law. See Circular 1, which lists Copyrightable works. They don't have a category for compute programs, but make this recommendation:

For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"

It goes further by saying that "works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression" "are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection".

So, if programs aren't expressive speach, then where does that leave the copyright status of the million of computer programs out there? Is that a Pandora's box that the court wants to open?

Now, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I'm not sure where or if this is in actual law. If anybody else knows, I'll be interested in hearing

In this article in the May 2001 issue of Scientific American, Tim Berners-Lee (the "father" of the Web) discusses what comes next: First we had ftp, gopher, etc. Now we have the World Wide Web. Next comes the Semantic Web in which software can exchange "meaningful" content without the need sophisticated artificial intelligence.