Crazy! Google just wants to do everything under the sun. Next we'll see GoogleGulp in stores everywhere. According to the MSNBC article, Vodafone and Google are making interactive maps for mobile phones. OOH. I can see where this is going. I can see Google's plans as such:
1) Develop Interactive Maps for Mobile Phones
2) Implement Location Based Advertising Plans for Businesses
3) Make Mobile Maps that Identify Businesses (in users area)
4) Send Advertising to Mobile Phones Based on User's Location
5) User Walks in front of Apple Store and receives daily special on mobile phone
Monday, February 12, 2007
Thursday, December 21, 2006
The Donald Bashes Back Harder
This is what Donald Trump had to say after Rosie O'Donnell bashed him for giving Miss America a second chance.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
The New ePassports: Snatched, Hacked, and Cloned
For those of you out there that have been lost in the dark for the past year or so, the United States government, as well as others, are working on adopting ePassports. An ePassport is a passport with an RFID chip in it that will replace the current passports. Alright, so let's take another step back. What is an RFID chip? RFID stands for radio frequency identification and an RFID chip can be attached or incorporated into something for the purpose of identification through radio waves. Alright, so what does this mean? Well it means that an ePassport has a chip in it that sends out a radio signal identifying the owner of the passport, you. So if you have an ePassport, instead of giving the passport to the customs official, you would just swipe it over a sensor and the sensor would read the information on the chip. So once you've done that, the customs official will see all of your information immediately on his screen. Cool, right?
Well two hackers were able to snatch the radio signal, hack the passport, and clone it in under 5 minutes. See the article here.
In the information security community, we've known that these passports have security vulnerabilities but the government is adamant about rolling it out. The problem with RFIDs is that they can be read from a short distance without the owner knowing. This means that personal information can be stolen easily, in a short period of time, without you even knowing. Sounds great if you're a thief that wants to steal identities.
Don't get me wrong, ePassports could work and they could make us safer. It's just that the current scheme for use isn't the right one. We need to bring it back to the drawing board and correct it. A wiser choice of technology could be to use near-field communications technology instead of RFIDs. Near field communications would make the passport have to be within 20 centimeters of the sensor, which means that the signal wouldn't be broadcasted far enough for a hacker to snatch it.
A new scheme should be developed with security in mind. End of story.
Well two hackers were able to snatch the radio signal, hack the passport, and clone it in under 5 minutes. See the article here.
In the information security community, we've known that these passports have security vulnerabilities but the government is adamant about rolling it out. The problem with RFIDs is that they can be read from a short distance without the owner knowing. This means that personal information can be stolen easily, in a short period of time, without you even knowing. Sounds great if you're a thief that wants to steal identities.
"It is almost like writing your pin number on the back of your cashpoint card."The irony behind this tragic comedy is that ePassports are supposed to make us safer and be more secure than the current passports.
Don't get me wrong, ePassports could work and they could make us safer. It's just that the current scheme for use isn't the right one. We need to bring it back to the drawing board and correct it. A wiser choice of technology could be to use near-field communications technology instead of RFIDs. Near field communications would make the passport have to be within 20 centimeters of the sensor, which means that the signal wouldn't be broadcasted far enough for a hacker to snatch it.
A new scheme should be developed with security in mind. End of story.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
The President Is Seeking to Expand the Military
On Tuesday, the President of the United States, George W. Bush acknowledged that we are not winning the war in Iraq and that the United States military was "stressed". Finally, the President has come to his senses that the war in Iraq is going to be a monster to tackle largely because of the sectarian violence. The Dems have been saying that we need to increase active duty troops for the past two years, but the current administration was against that. Former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld believed that we didn't need extra troops because we were going to be using billions of dollars worth of advanced technology. Someone should have told the former secretary that technology doesn't work without people to use it, atleast until we have artificial intelligence smart good enough to build an entire army of robots. We'll save that for another post.
Its my opinion that the next Presidential candidate is going to have to have an ironclad plan for how to eventually get us out of Iraq or somehow turn the situation into a beneficial one. The current administration has dug us so far into this hole, that we can't just up and leave. If leaving is the answer, we're going to have to do it gradually. Part of the problem is that we were presumptious. Our President felt that we would just go into this country and it would be real quick, "in and out". He was wrong. Now we're there and we're stuck.
I've wondered about the possibilities of establishing a presence there. Potentially, making Iraq the American influence of the Middle East. The problem with that idea is that there is still sectarian violence that would have to be controlled, which means losing many more American lives. It's just too risky. The other option is to leave. I'm not sure how we could carry this one out. The original thought when we first went to war was that we'd establish an Iraqi government, train them, and leave them. That's proven to be an incredibly utopian idea. When I first heard that, I remember thinking, "why would the Iraqi sect leaders listen to an American made government in their country". It just didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now.
If the Iraq war were a stock that I'd invested in, I'd say its way past time to cut the loses and sell. Many investors use the rule that if you've lost over 8% of the initial investment in one stock, sell it. If that were the case, we'd have been smart enough to sell this clunker a long time ago. But, it may be too late.
"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines..." - President George W. BushAccording to the Washington Post, "the Army has already temporarily increased its force level from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the Army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then add between 20,000 and 40,000 more on top of that". Does this mean that the draft may be reinstated? I'm not sure, but I have no idea where we're going to find another 30,000 to 60,000 readily available recruits. Back in 2003, Rep. Charles Rangel (D - New York) proposed a bill that would reinstate a draft that "would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve." Rangel's bill was rejected by Donald Rumsfeld, who felt that the draft was unnecessary. Now with Rumsfeld gone, the President is singing a different song.
"...the active Army is about broken." - former Secretary of State Colin L. PowellIt seems to me that this war has become a lot more than we bargained. According to the Congressional Research Service, the war in Iraq is costing almost as much as the Vietnam War which was $549 billion. Currently, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan stands at $500 billion. Not only that but according to the Washington Post, every additional 10,000 soldiers would cost about $1.2 billion a year. Army officials say that because recruitment and training take time, we won't even feel the boost in troops until 2008.
Its my opinion that the next Presidential candidate is going to have to have an ironclad plan for how to eventually get us out of Iraq or somehow turn the situation into a beneficial one. The current administration has dug us so far into this hole, that we can't just up and leave. If leaving is the answer, we're going to have to do it gradually. Part of the problem is that we were presumptious. Our President felt that we would just go into this country and it would be real quick, "in and out". He was wrong. Now we're there and we're stuck.
I've wondered about the possibilities of establishing a presence there. Potentially, making Iraq the American influence of the Middle East. The problem with that idea is that there is still sectarian violence that would have to be controlled, which means losing many more American lives. It's just too risky. The other option is to leave. I'm not sure how we could carry this one out. The original thought when we first went to war was that we'd establish an Iraqi government, train them, and leave them. That's proven to be an incredibly utopian idea. When I first heard that, I remember thinking, "why would the Iraqi sect leaders listen to an American made government in their country". It just didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now.
If the Iraq war were a stock that I'd invested in, I'd say its way past time to cut the loses and sell. Many investors use the rule that if you've lost over 8% of the initial investment in one stock, sell it. If that were the case, we'd have been smart enough to sell this clunker a long time ago. But, it may be too late.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Homeland Security: The Perspective of One Information Security Student
Earlier this year I attended the Presidential dinner in Washington D.C. and there were many people talking about homeland security and how we must protect our country from terrorists, but no one had any real solutions. Now, I'm not saying that I have the answers either; however, I do know one thing and it's that information security plays a more important role than most people realize.
When most people talk about homeland security, they think of training and deploying more border patrol or having TSA hold people up longer in the airport. Sure, all of that is important stuff, don't get me wrong. We should have ironclad border patrol and thorough checkpoints at the airport. We should also focus more on protecting our information. Not just government information but the information about everyday citizens. Protecting the homeland isn't just about protecting this big rock we call the United States, it's about protecting our assets - American citizens.
When terrorists or foreigners come into this country illegally, to preserve their secrecy, they steal the identities of real citizens and in some cases, children. When a hacker wants to attack the FAA, they take control of the computers owned by respectable citizens. In the security field, we have a saying, "you're only as secure as your weakest link." In this chain, the citizens are the weakest link. The point of all of this is that in order for us to truly protect the homeland, we must inform the people.
Homeland security is something that should start from the inside out and not the other way around. We shouldn't be protecting our borders before we protect our people. It's worse to have insider threats than to have a threat coming at you in plain daylight. It is my belief that if we were just as focused on protecting our information as we are about protecting everything else, we'd have fewer incidents. I haven't seen the government doing anything out of the ordinary to protect the information of it's citizens. However, I have seen private companies claim to care and work day and night to protect us from all kinds of misfortunes. It's not the job of private companies to protect the people, that's the government's job.
I suppose I'm rambling on and on, but I think my point is made. If not, I'll sum it up really quick. Instead of focusing on homeland security, we should be talking about information security. For those of you that don't know what they means, information security is about the protection of data. All types of data: personal, financial, governmental, etc. Most of the time it just gets clumped into each organization and they write some lame duck policies about it. It deserves more time and more thought.
I think that there should be an initiative backed by the federal government that influences American citizens to pay more attention to protecting themselves and their families. There should also be a committee or even a department that forms public private partnerships with private companies to address these issues. We've got to address the fact that every minute 19 people have fallen victim to identity theft. Most of these identities are stolen by foreign organized crime units such as, the Nigerian Mafia, various groups from Russia, and China, just to name a few.
The U.S. Government Reform Committee reported that all 19 government departments and agencies reported at least one loss of personally identifiable information since January 2003. Additionally, they reported that only a small number of the data breaches were caused by hackers. The vast majority of them were from physical thefts or portable computers, drives and disks, or unauthorized use of data by employees. This is the type of incompetence that weakens the homeland that we're constantly talk about protecting.
Unless we inform the people, we're just like a dog chasing his own tail, we're going nowhere.
When most people talk about homeland security, they think of training and deploying more border patrol or having TSA hold people up longer in the airport. Sure, all of that is important stuff, don't get me wrong. We should have ironclad border patrol and thorough checkpoints at the airport. We should also focus more on protecting our information. Not just government information but the information about everyday citizens. Protecting the homeland isn't just about protecting this big rock we call the United States, it's about protecting our assets - American citizens.
When terrorists or foreigners come into this country illegally, to preserve their secrecy, they steal the identities of real citizens and in some cases, children. When a hacker wants to attack the FAA, they take control of the computers owned by respectable citizens. In the security field, we have a saying, "you're only as secure as your weakest link." In this chain, the citizens are the weakest link. The point of all of this is that in order for us to truly protect the homeland, we must inform the people.
Homeland security is something that should start from the inside out and not the other way around. We shouldn't be protecting our borders before we protect our people. It's worse to have insider threats than to have a threat coming at you in plain daylight. It is my belief that if we were just as focused on protecting our information as we are about protecting everything else, we'd have fewer incidents. I haven't seen the government doing anything out of the ordinary to protect the information of it's citizens. However, I have seen private companies claim to care and work day and night to protect us from all kinds of misfortunes. It's not the job of private companies to protect the people, that's the government's job.
I suppose I'm rambling on and on, but I think my point is made. If not, I'll sum it up really quick. Instead of focusing on homeland security, we should be talking about information security. For those of you that don't know what they means, information security is about the protection of data. All types of data: personal, financial, governmental, etc. Most of the time it just gets clumped into each organization and they write some lame duck policies about it. It deserves more time and more thought.
I think that there should be an initiative backed by the federal government that influences American citizens to pay more attention to protecting themselves and their families. There should also be a committee or even a department that forms public private partnerships with private companies to address these issues. We've got to address the fact that every minute 19 people have fallen victim to identity theft. Most of these identities are stolen by foreign organized crime units such as, the Nigerian Mafia, various groups from Russia, and China, just to name a few.
The U.S. Government Reform Committee reported that all 19 government departments and agencies reported at least one loss of personally identifiable information since January 2003. Additionally, they reported that only a small number of the data breaches were caused by hackers. The vast majority of them were from physical thefts or portable computers, drives and disks, or unauthorized use of data by employees. This is the type of incompetence that weakens the homeland that we're constantly talk about protecting.
Unless we inform the people, we're just like a dog chasing his own tail, we're going nowhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)