Tag Archive for Feds

A History of Encryption

A History of EncryptionYour personal information is under attack from the Feds, Target, Neiman Marcus, and who knows else. One of the keys to keeping your personal information personal are secure passwords. But what makes a password secure? America Online (AOL), (rb- Yes they are still around) explains the concept of encryption (converting information into code) is not new.

In fact, as you can see below, encryption started with the Spartans in 500 B.C.  Yhey would rearrange the position of letters within a text. Through the years, this process has become more sophisticated, which brings us to Advanced Encryption Standard, or AES, which is what we use today. This standard is based on computing bits, basic units of information. The bits in passwords are what help to keep your data secure. Check out the infographic to see how encryption has evolved from 500 B.C. to the present day and their tips for keeping your passwords safe.

 

A history of encryption Infographic

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

What’s in Your Cup of Coffee?

What's in Your Cup of Coffee?Have you ever wondered what gives coffee its distinctive odor? Mental Floss asks what about those chemicals in coffee that aren’t caffeine — what are they, and what do they do? They pointed us to this video from Wired, which provides a breakdown of what’s in a typical cup of coffee…and why good things sometimes come in small doses.

compounds in coffeeApparently, the water used to brew coffee makes up more than 98 percent of each cup. It is the other 2% of your morning brew where things get interesting. According to the video, “some of the compounds in coffee would be pretty repulsive if they were present in higher concentrations.” These include:

  • 2-ethylphenol, which also happens to be a pheromone in cockroaches,
  • Trigonelline, which helps fend off the bacteria that create cavities
  • 3,5 dicaffeoylquinic acid, the antioxidant that helps your brain stay healthy.

Click on the video from Wired for more info…

rb-

The cockroach pheromone is kind of creepy, but the Feds say it’s OK for the buggers to be in everything. Just like reading all my emails is OK.

Knowing what is in my coffee is not going to change my morning ritual too much.

Related articles

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Son of SOPA

Son of SOPAThere is a secret treaty that has wound its way through global governments. The secret treaty is called TPP. What is TPP? TPP is short for the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, or the evil Son of SOPA. The TPP agreement is between Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Japan, Vietnam, and the United States.

The secret treaty was even kept from the U.S. Congress. However, the Washington Post reports that Verizon (VZ) and Cisco (CSCO) have had access to the secret treaty and they seem to be supporters. Many argue that a number of the terms that the U.S. inserted are unreasonable.

Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement

InfoSecurity-Magazine.com explains that a detailed analysis of the intellectual property chapter of the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is similar or worse than SOPA or ACTA. SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) were halted largely by popular activism.

Copyright owners

The author says the common factor in both was the potential for copyright owners to force their will on the internet. Two of the key issues were to make ISPs liable for infringing content, and the ability to suspend the internet accounts of repeat infringers. A further criticism of ACTA is that it was negotiated in secret, and both the public and the national parliaments expected to simply accept the deal.

The article goes on to analyze the TPP IP chapter provided by WikiLeaks. The analysis shows that TPP is following a similar, but potentially more severe, path to that of ACTA or SOPA. Dr. Monica Horten, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics & Political Science says the secret treaty, is the Holy Grail for big content.

Hoolywood's Holy Grail…the Holy Grail for Hollywood and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).’ “It’s what they tried to do with the EU Telecoms Package, as well as in ACTA and in SOPA. It is Hollywood’s Holy Grail for online copyright enforcement”

Secret proposal

The blog reports that the U.S. and Australian government’s secret proposal supports efforts to make ISPs primarily responsible for removing copyrighted content from the internet. But the secret proposal also includes search engines, linking sites, and possibly even cloud computing services. Dr. Horten says TPP enforcement would be carried out by,

…disconnection of users (termination of Internet accounts), blocking and disabling of content, and even some level of monitoring obligation.

The US proposals also include a demand, that upon request, (rb- not surprisingly) any ISP would be obligated to provide details on their customers. Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor at the University of Ottawa told the author, “would require an overhaul of Canadian copyright law and potential changes to privacy law.”

Extending corporate copyrights

120 years oldThe U.S. is also planning to change copyright laws to benefit big pharma. TPP would extend corporate copyrights up to 120 years. Through manipulation of the process, big pharma could prevent affordable medications from ever being available to treat cancer, AIDS/HIV, or the common cold.

Opposition to TPP

Thankfully InfoSecurity Magazine says the secret TPP is not yet a done deal. Dr. Horton points out a brewing Internet cold war between the US and Canada. “The Canadians oppose it,” she added. “… Canada seems to be joined at least partially by an assortment that includes Mexico and Malaysia.

Canadian flagMeanwhile, 80 U.S. law professors sent a letter to President Obama, Congress, and Ambassador Michael Froman to object to the secrecy of the TPP. The lawyers warn that the “TPP is following a process even more secretive than ACTA, which is amplifying public distrust and creating an environment conducive to an unbalanced and indefensible final product.

Internet freedom advocacy group The EFF analyzed the TPP also. The EFF’s review of the “temporary copies” language found the U.S. proposal would make anyone who ever views content on their device could potentially be found liable of infringement. The TPP language follows:

EFFEach Party shall provide that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms have the right to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form).

The Free Press said, The chief negotiators are congregating in Utah on Nov. 19–24 to hammer out key details — and President Obama has signaled his intention to move the treaty forward.

rb-

Click here to tell Congress and the White House to reject the TPP.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Feds Still Want to Federalize Internet

Feds Still Want to Federalize InternetSenator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has released a revised version of his bill that would federalize the Internet (I covered this topic earlier here). The current draft would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” on “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat.

Feds Still Want to Federalize NetSection 3 (2) (B) Defines “Cyber” as any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks. Section 201 (2) (B), permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.”

I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” Larry Clinton told CNETIt is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill,” said Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board.

 Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV)A Senate source familiar with the bill told CNET that the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet is comparable to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

Section 201 (5) the bill requires the White House to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco told CNET. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.

Rb-

If your network is determined to be “critical” by the Feds, there is likely a new set of regulations coming from the same people who are giving themselves failing grades for their own cyber-security.

These new rules could impact staffing decisions, disclosure policies and open the door to a government can take over your IT systems. This bill requires watching by anybody that uses or manages computers, a private network, or the Internet. It is likely they will sweep it in as pork on another unrelated bill, to limit public discussion.

Contact your representatives in DC.

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Feds to Test IPv6

Feds to Test IPv6NetworkWord is reporting that the U.S. government has reportedly launched a comprehensive product testing program for IPv6. The new program, USGv6 Test Program, will be run by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will require all network hardware and software vendors to pass IPv6 compliance and interoperability tests before they can sell their products to the U.S. federal government market.

NIST logo

The NIST IPv6 test plan covers basic IPv6 functionality as well as related standards such as IP Security (IPsec), Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2 ), Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv6), Open Shortest Path First (OSPFv3), Border Gateway Protocol (BGP4+) and multicast requirements in MLDv2.

The USGv6 program will allow vendors to run IPv6 compliance tests in their own labs as long as it is accredited by NIST, but they must run IPv6 interoperability testing in someone else’s lab. Erica Johnson, Director of the University of New Hampshire InterOperability Laboratory told NetworkWorld, “The way that the NIST profile is going to work is that conformance testing can be done in an accredited first-party [vendor], second-party [buyer] or third-party [independent] lab…But the interoperability testing must be done in a second-party or third-party lab.”

The time frame for the USGv6 Test Program is tight. NIST is expected to publish this week [July 31] the final version of its IPv6 test specifications aka Special Publication 500-273 and to finalize its test plan in November 2009. Testing labs are to be accredited before the end of the calendar year. Network vendors will have six months to get their routers, operating systems, firewalls and other security systems through IPv6 testing before the federal government’s July 2010 acquisition deadline.

By July 2010, federal agencies will be required to buy only hosts, routers, and network security systems that have been tested for IPv6 compliance. Vendors must issue a “Suppliers’ Declaration of Conformity” that states host and router products have been tested for IPv6 compliance and interoperability, while security products must undergo functional IPv6 testing. All of the testings must be done in NIST-accredited labs.

rb-

It’s about time – I have included IPv6 requirements in RFP’s for over 6 years. It is amazing to watch the vendors tap-dance around what IPv6 compatibility means. Only some of these products from Cisco or Foundry Brocade are IPv6 compatible depending on the image you buy. I guess the real trick will be to get a “Suppliers’ Declaration of Conformity” if you are not a Fed.

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.