Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • August 29, 2018 8:10 AM

@ Bender,

Then again, no halfway competent admin runs unpatched Windows machines with no backup.

Every time I hear this I wince. As I have pointed out a few times hear “backups alone are insufficient” that is there are all sorts of nasties that can be hidden away in backups in a transparent way that at some point you will find to your cost is as much use as an encrypted hard drive from Ransom ware.

So you have to test your backups and to do it properly is a long process involving entirely seperate hardware.

The odd thing is that few people talk about what can be done, how, and how you detect it or mitigate it.

Clive Robinson • August 30, 2018 2:11 PM

@ Hmm, Saunterer,

They must have had some decent contingency planning ready to go to be in a position to replace 10k machines in a week.

The thought occurs as to just how many of those 10K machines were connected to the Internet and Why?

Nearly every company I’ve visited have most if not all their desktops and servers located internally where you could if you knew just a little more than “Joey the script kid” access them from a public network or access point.

When I ask people “Do you leave all the windows and doors open?” it takes a moment for them to realise I’m talking “tangible world” physical objects not “intangible world” information objects. But when they answer “no, of course not” and I ask “Then why do you do it with your ICT?” they start to get the message.

Whilst computers might be free with their favours to anyone who knocks, there is no reason why your business should be the ICT equivalent of a brothel…

And no employees in the main do not require Internet connectivity, external Email, or external Instant messaging, etc. the sooner business leaders grasp this fact the easier the job of the ICT staff will become.

Oh and based on other information going back to the hey day of short hand, office staff are likely to be somewhat more productive.

Clive Robinson • August 30, 2018 3:03 PM

@ Vesselin Bontchev, winter,

… they didn’t even bother to think about the possibility of the thing spreading outside the country. That fits the profile of stupid cyber criminals – not of serious intelligence professionals.

From what I remember stuxnet had all sorts of “serious intelligence professionals” working on it.

But it poped up in unexpected places…

In fact it was this that alerted me to the fact that stuxnet’s real target could be another country than Iran. The appearance in asia gave rise to who it could be and the “Hermit Kingdom” of North Korea so sprang to mind. Further checking improved my confidence as to why it should be both Iran and NK, and it was Pakistans Abdul Qadeer Khan and his little Swiss organisation.

I gave my reasons and got told I was wrong, then the US came out and admitted it…

As for NotPetya the most obvious perps are disefected Russian’s, but in the “Great Game” of “Smoke and Mirrors” what is “most obvious” may well be what another party wants you to think.

Attribution is hard and realy can not be done by the way many go about it. I would fully expect the likes of the NSA and GCHQ et al to only get it right less than half the time when it comes to the likes of those who can think at or near their level (which is a lot more people than you might at first guess).

It’s something you need “Human Intelligence” on, by either “methods or sources”. As we know from loose lips in the US both the Dutch and Israelis have used technical methods to gather HumInt, which are now “ashes on the floor”. The UK are known to run sources via boots on the ground which again loose US lips have “burnt”. The loose lips of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby sometime lawyer and sidekick to Dick Cheney apparently burnt one of their own. Not exactly a good record…

Oh then we get to hear all those other little US security slips that the Chinese are alleged to have benifited from greatly… But currently it’s “Russiafobia” driven by Democrat interests…

But guess what the US IC lost some tools, which also included some designed to do “False Flag” type false attribution… So the US appears to get a “low grade” on being “serious intelligence professionals”…

But once you consider “False Flag” software and similar methods, it could have been anybody running such an Op to look like who ever they wanted it to look like…

All jolly good fun, as you chase the white rabbit down it’s burrow, at the end of which is a maze of twisty little passages each nearly the same but different, which way to go, do you leap left, right, or just run ahead, or to and fro?”

Clive Robinson • August 30, 2018 7:18 PM

@ Hmm,

You just implied there was no actual basis for investigating Russian interference

Actually no I’ve not implied anything of the sort. It is you who stated,

If it were actually a ‘witch hunt’ you wouldn’t find so many witches turning state’s evidence.

I said nothing of the sort. There is are several “country miles” between a fobia and a witch hunt, which most here would say you should darn well know.

Thus you are the one making things up yet again trying to make it appear that I am saying things I am not. Something you have been repeatedly warned about and not just by @Moderator.

To make it clear I was not talking about “Trump-Russia” allegations of collusion of which there is no evidence yet presented that I am aware of. As I’ve said all along we will wait for the evidence should anything that is credible actually be produced in the near future.

As for Russia doing more or less the same as the US has done for the past sixty years, it’s rather yawn worthy old news that goes back atleast to 2014/5 and pre-Trump. So to be frank the fact the US thinks it’s got a little of what it’s been handing out to the rest of the world, yipee you finally realise what the rest of the world has been complaining about, now stay awake long enough to amend your nations behaviours.

Behaviours such as what went on with Silicon Valley billionaires, US hedge fund managers, Cambridge Analytica, and Facebook all involved with election interferance and by the sounds of it illegal financial transactions. I know it’s not “Trump is Treason” stuff but surely you must be aware of it by now?

But no not a word out of you about how shocked and appaled you are and how it must be at the behest of the US President…

But anything even quite tangential to your “Trump Fixation” and you launch right in, hurling fake accusations, strawmen and accusing others of bad debating skill when your own fail to convince anybody.

For your information “Russiafobia” is way way wider than “Trump” and has all the hallmarks of a political campaign about to backfire on some of it’s originators, because it’s become an endless puffery of nothing. Muller and his team have had 15months which is many man years, and sofar nothing other than criminal convictions for financial misconduct that long predates the Trump Campaign and was apparently nothing to do with it either…

The stupid thing is that it’s not Putin you have to thank for giving you the Doh-gnarled but the distinctly odd non democratic voting system peculiar to the US you were given several hundred years ago and the various amendments since. It would appear it was designed to keep stray popular outsiders out of the political club, but now has had the exact opposit effect. Congratulations one for the home team not…

As for,

Don’t take my word for it, but if you want to refute the “entire” media, you’ll need evidence. Not a conspiracy theory, not a trotted-out trope that is provably false.

It’s funny you should say that, when the first sentance of your supposed evidence says,

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election is ongoing – and secret.

So you have no evidence to present because “it’s secret”, and likewise can not demonstrate anything let alone act as a witness against what you claim air fairily with attendent hand waving is “Not a conspiracy theory, not a trotted-out trope that is provably false.”..

But hang on let’s not dismiss it on just it’s opening sentance. It next goes on about four of Trumps campaign circle who have been charged BUT,

… though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president’s campaign.

It witters on a bit and then goes on about charges brought against Manafort by Muller which were financial and in a different country and long long preceding any work he did for Trump and allegations relating to Russian interference. BUT it then admits,

Manafort was found guilty of eight financial crimes on Aug. 21 in the first trial victory of the special counsel investigation into the president’s associates. A judge declared a mistrial on 10 other counts

Because the jury decided the Russian interferance charges had no merit as well as some of the financial charges. Sounds like Muller has been trying on significant “prosecutorial over reach” with over 55% of his charges had no merit. So your evidence so far appears to be the opposit of supporting your Trump Fixation.

As for Rick Gates the article notes two things,

A superseding criminal complaint says Gates was charged with conspiracy against the United States between 2006 and 2017.

Like Manafort, Gates was initially indicted in October in connection with foreign lobbying work; he pleaded not guilty at the time. His charges were similar to Manafort’s – ranging from conspiracy against the U.S. to conspiracy to launder money.

So Gates like Manafort, has been charged with behaviour that long precedes his involvment with Mr Trump. But this time around Muller is trying less prosecutial over reach…

So old crimes maybe, but not evidence against Mr Trump even if you belive in time travel.

Because what it does show is that those charged and convicted were upto dirty tricks one way or another long prior to Mr Trump. What the Doh-gnarled knew or did not know at the time about their activities there is currently no evidence even suggested let alone refrenced or supplied.

As I noted the other day this sort of financial misconduct behaviour appears to be quite common place in politics. So if most other “high office” politicians were subjected to the same microscopic examination I suspect you would find the same or similar behaviour going on in the background and consequent charges. It’s the nature of the dirty game politics is and the “fixers” involved across the political spectrum.

What I suggest you do is rather than tell others to present evidence, you actually provide actuall evidence that supports your previous claims that Mr Trump has committed Treason. With one proviso it has to have been provably available openly in the public domain that is the US MSM prior to 25th Aug 2018.

But come the 6th of September 2018 I hope you are prepared to acknowledge what I have said so far as being factual and that you accept it.

Clive Robinson • September 1, 2018 6:28 PM

@ hmm,

Arguing the factual record with someone who doesn’t want to acknowledge it faithfully is pointless.

Yes it is when you present an article as “factual evidence” and you get comments back solely on what you “claimed” as “factual evidence” that you do not like, then throw a hissy fit.

I quoted directly from your alleged “factual evidence”, if you now want to say it was not “factual evidence” that you provided to debate then by all means do so, it matters not a jot, because as I pointed out I was replying on what you claimed was “factual evidence” and I was pointing out it was not as you claimed (go read it again if you think otherwise).

Again I will repeat the points I’ve made before, which you so frequently ignore.

Firstly I do not give a stuff one way or another if President Trump did or did not know what was going on, or was even involved, you obviously do to the point of mania. You also do incomprehensible things like claim Trump is guilty of “Treason” when that realy won’t fly under US legislation at present. Then you get upset when told that. Both the mania and behaviour have caused you to be censured by @Moderator more than once, and have your offending comments deleated.

Yet despite acknowledging your behaviour was wrong you are back at your old habits. What does this say about you and your intentions now and in the future?

But as you’ve already compounded the issue it begs the question “Do you understand Einstein’s alledged definition of insanity?

Personally I don’t care about your very partisan political views, except when you repeatedly try and involve me in any which way you can, usually by false statment, and you have had more than fair warning I have no choice but to rebut, as I find myself having to do yet again.

However what I do care about, which you apparently fail to understand on all occasions, is real evidence of the sort a court will accept as such and put before a jury.

So to put it another way, I care not about the idiot box quotes the US MSM is full off –which you confuse with evidence– along with it’s Russiafobia.

But like “fake news” I do care about the effect it has on others (Russiafobia for instance handily masks the fact that US-China trade relations “Have gone to hell in a handcart” which is starting to hurt most people outside of China but they don’t yet realise it as it has not yet worked down the supply chain enough to be blatantly obvious to many).

That is I actually believe in the basic principles of justice one of which is the right not to have any future case prejudiced by press speculation, innuendo, and all other shady methods that others claim goes into Fake News. Which you appear to be quite happy to over actively promulgate. To the point in fact, as you have with your opening attack on me above, interpret an unrelated comment as being against your chosen highly partisan political windmill tilting. Thus use it to rudely jump in with both clod feet as you did at 3:39PM on August 30, 2018. I most certainly did not mention “witch hunts” or anything what so ever to do with the sitting president, his campaign team, or any action against them, it was all you and you alone. They were in no way relevant to what I was talking about as anybody can see (but you). But you had to jump in clod feet first and hijack the thread.

Worse though you made a compleatly unjustified claim of “Your political bent”, which is very clearly a personal attack yet again.

My view on politics I suspect is fairly well known here, I regard them all as “Monkeys in suits” acting as though at “a chimps tea party” and more dishonest than average, and I’ve said so here on several occasions. I likewise regard them as uninformed and unacceptably crass especially when they, like the camel of alleged legend, stick their nose in the tent. I only mention “party politics” when I have to and within a context to do with security.

As for,

Your calls to censor those who you disagree with are in my opinion very childish.

Another falsehood from you, I’ve not called for you to be censored in fact if you look back up this page I’ve actually done the opposit. What I have also done, as in the past, is warn you of the likely outcome of you pushing your pet peeve, which has on more than one occasion in the past resulted in your comments being deleated.

So whilst you might blithely carry on with your false accusations arising from your pet peeve I’m aware the @Moderator may well behave as they have in the past. I realy hope not because if your comments remain here, there will be a permanent record of your behaviour, which will be to every one elses benifit as a refrence in future.

Now I was quite happy to not have to go and point out yet again why things are not as you think, but you don’t actually want to stop do you?

Whilst you might claim to in each such post, you make other detrimental comments that even you should know are inflamatory and need rebuting. Especially when you say as you have done,

In fact you lied and doubled down, deliberately.

So your claim I guess is at best false and a way to excuse your behaviour to avoid other potential sanctions from @Moderator or our host @Bruce.

Well as I’ve said I realy hope they don’t delete what you have written here, I doubt any reasonable person would doubt your true intent on reading the above.

But on a more basic level, if you actually understood the debate process, You would have known what I wrote, about the supposed “factual evidence” you supplied to support your continued attack on me, was quite correctly about that document and it’s contents alone.

Debates have rules, one of which is about the supporting evidence supplied by an opponent. I stuck within those rules and treated it as your only independent supporting argument (which it was). You picked it, so your bad when it gets ripped for what it says (I even supplied quotes from it as part of the process).

Now having realised your mistake in supplying such bad independent supporting argument as your “factual evidence” for your attack you are back tracking and trying again, this time with statments of your own.

But you stil don’t get it do you?

You appear to not understand that when a jury does not find a person guilty on a charge then the jury does not find the charge of merit.

It matters not a jot if all but one jury member do think the defendent is guilty when the burden of proof the prosecution has to meet is for the jury vote to be unanimous on guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutors would have known the risks before presenting to that jury.

That as they say “are the rules of the game” just like the rules that will alow the prosecution to try to convince another jury unanimously that the charges have merit. But that will in no way change the fact that this jury did not unanimously find for the prosecution.

Like it or not it’s also the US presidential election rules that put Mr Trump in the Presidential Palace as President, and likewise there are rules by which people debate.

The fact you do not like these sets of rules or find them inconvenient is not relevant to the outcome, get over it, or more usefully use your real name not a “Nom de Plume” and start campaigning for change.

Railing against me when I say the rules are the rules and I realy don’t care as I’m not a US Citizen and have no intention of ever visiting the USA again –for very sound reasons– only makes you look at best impotent at worst, well I’ll leave it for others to judge, which is why I hope @Moderator does leave your comments up.

But your allegation I lied is unforgivable as I said I was using the supposed independent “factual evidence” you supplied and that alone as the rules prescribe. Go back and read your “factual evidence” again, you will find everything I said was justified on what was in it. You might not like it but it was your choice and your choice alone. Go argue with the author, you never know they might actually respond.

But you claim not to wish to continue the debate, so stand by it… do your reading and analysis in private.

After all as you so aptly put it,

Have a great day, but do try to admit mistakes instead of making them worse.
Your issue has nothing to do with me.

It never did, right from the get go, as anyone can see from the above.