By Paul Suarez
August 3, 2010

By Jeff Bertolucci
June 22, 2010

June 9, 2010

Brennon Slattery
April 16, 2010

By Rick Broida
January 10, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO – Good news! Having burned that system-repair disc, banished the crapware, bolstered your security, and imaged your hard drive, there’s only big step left in hassle-proofing your new PC.

You guessed it (probably from the headline): backups. Once again I’m going to lecture you on the computing equivalent of flossing your teeth. Bottom line: Do it now or regret it later.

Actually, I’m not going to lecture you at all, but rather steer you to a PC World feature I wrote last year: How to Prevent a Data Disaster. It has all the information you need about creating a diversified backup plan, which for my money is the only way to ensure total safety.

The one item that needs updating is the now-defunct DocSyncer, which made it possible to sync your local documents with your Google Docs account. Fortunately, a free tool called OffiSync can take its place.

Now go forth and enjoy that new PC! And let me know if you run into any other hassles that need solving.

January 2, 2009

When asked about what will happen in 2009, a rise in global epidemics was at the top of Kaspersky Lab‘s prediction list.  Kaspersky Lab,  a leading developer of Internet threat management solutions that protect against all forms of malicious software, has seen that prediction to be true —  2009 was dominated by sophisticated malicious programs with rootkit functionality, Conficker, Web attacks and botnets, SMS fraud and attacks on social networks.

With the start of 2010, researchers and analysts from Kaspersky Lab have come up with a list of six predictions for what will be the New Year’s greatest threats and newest attack vectors.

1.       A rise in attacks originating from file sharing networks.
This year, we will see a shift in the types of attacks on users, from attacks via Web sites and applications toward attacks originating from file sharing networks.

2.       An increase in mass malware epidemics via P2P networks.
In 2009 a series of mass malware epidemics has been “supported” by malicious files that are spread via file sharing networks. This method has been used to spread notorious threats such as TDSS and Virut as well as the first backdoor for Mac OS X. In 2010, we expect to see a significant increase in these types of incidents on P2P networks.

3.       Continuous competition for traffic from cybercriminals.
The modern cybercriminal world is making more and more of an effort to legalize itself and there are lots of ways to earn money online using the huge amount of traffic that can be generated by botnets. In the future, we foresee the emergence of more “grey” schemes in the botnet services market. These so-called “partner programs” enable botnet owners to make a profit from activities such as sending spam, performing denial of service (DoS) attacks or distributing malware without committing an explicit crime.

4.       A decline in fake anti-virus programs.
The decline in gaming Trojans witnessed in 2009 is likely to be repeated for fake anti-virus programs in 2010. Conficker installed a rogue anti-virus program on infected computers. The fake anti-virus market has now been saturated and the profits for cybercriminals have fallen. Additionally, this kind of activity is now being closely monitored by both IT security companies and law enforcement agencies, making it increasingly difficult to distribute fake anti-virus programs.

5.       An interest in attacking Google Wave.
When it comes to attacks on Web services, Google Wave looks like it will be making all the headlines in 2010. Attacks on this new Google service will no doubt follow the usual pattern: first, the sending of spam, followed by phishing attacks, then the exploiting of vulnerabilities and the spreading of malware.

6.       An increase in attacks on iPhone and Android mobile platforms.
The year 2010 promises to be a difficult time for iPhone and Android users. The first malicious programs for these mobile platforms appeared in 2009, a sure sign that they have aroused the interest of cybercriminals. The only iPhone users currently at risk are those with compromised devices; however the same is not true for Android users who are all vulnerable to attack. The increasing popularity of mobile phones running the Android OS combined with a lack of effective checks to ensure third-party software applications are secure, will lead to a number of high-profile malware outbreaks.

“Malware will continue to further its sophistication in 2010 with specific malware families requiring significant resources from anti-malware companies to adequately fight them,” said Roel Schouwenberg, senior malware researcher at Kaspersky Lab. “Third party program vulnerabilities will continue to be the target of choice by cybercriminals with Adobe continuing to be the main target. And finally I believe that with the introduction of real-time search, black hat SEO and social networks will become an even bigger focus of cybercriminals.”

By Gregg Keizer
Computerworld
December 19, 2009

Hackers redirected Twitter.com’s traffic to a rogue Web site for more than an hour Friday by accessing its DNS records using an account assigned to Twitter, the company that manages Twitter’s DNS (Domain Name System) servers said.

Twitter initially blamed the early-Friday hour-long blackout of its site on changes made to the company’s DNS records, which act like a telephone directory to match the twitter.com domain name with the IP addresses used by its servers.

“Twitter’s DNS records were temporarily compromised, but have now been fixed,” the company said on its service status page at 2:30 a.m. ET. “We are looking into the underlying cause and will update with more information soon.” The status page has not been revised with more information since then.

Twitter uses a New Hampshire firm, Dyn Inc., to manage its DNS records, which match Twitter’s domain name (twitter.com, and numerous others) with the IP addresses of its servers.

Today, Dyn denied that its infrastructure had been hacked. Early Friday, Tom Daly, Dyn’s chief technology officer, told the Washington Post it appeared someone changed Twitter’s DNS records to point visitors to a different IP address using the proper account credentials assigned to Twitter.

“Someone logged in who purported to be a legitimate user of their [DNS] platform account and started making changes,” Daly told the Post ‘s Brian Krebs . “It was not a failing on our systems whatsoever.”

Kyle York, Dyn’s vice president of marketing, echoed that in an interview with Computerworld. “No unauthenticated e-mail address associated with the account accessed the [Twitter] account,” York maintained. “This was not an unauthorized breach of our system.”

When asked whether the Twitter account had been used by someone authorized to do so, or if those account credentials had been pilfered by hackers, York declined to answer directly. “You’ll have to read between the lines,” he said. However, he did point to a tweet on Dyn’s own Twitter feed as having the right explanation.

That tweet referenced a story on The Tech Herald , in which reporter Steve Ragan used the clues available, including Dyn’s public statements, to theorize that someone compromised a Twitter staffer’s e-mail account, presumably via malware that snuck onto the Twitter employee’s computer, or through a standard phishing-style identity theft attack.

Once in control of the e-mail account, the hackers then used it to request a password reset for Twitter’s account with Dyn, Ragan speculated. “The password reset process is completed, and at this point the person(s) posing as a Twitter staffer gets the reset password via e-mail,” Ragan wrote.

That approach makes the most sense, agreed Ray Dickenson, chief technology officer at security vendor Authentium. “That’s the most logical explanation,” said Dickenson. “If someone obtained administrator credentials for Twitter’s account with Dyn, or even if it was inside job, everything worked except the human element.”

Dickenson said Dyn’s claim that its servers had not been officially hacked is also likely true. “It’s very difficult to directly hack a top-tier DNS provider,” he said, noting that security at such firms is extremely tight. “You’ve got to believe that Twitter looked at the options, and made the right choice when it went with Dyn. Twitter’s a huge site, and a huge brand.”

Also in Dyn’s favor, said Dickenson, is the company’s contention that only Twitter’s DNS records were altered, a fact that York stressed. “The fact that virtually all of Twitter’s records were pointing to this defaced site, and that no other [Dyn] customers’ records had been altered, corroborates what Dyn’s saying.”

According to York, Twitter will post a more detailed explanation of the cause of the outage later Friday. “It will fully exonerate us, that’s one thing I can say,” York said.

Twitter has been on shaky security ground for some time. Last August, determined distributed denial-of-service attacks knocked it offline for several hours. Two months before that, a hack of a URL-shortening service redirected millions of Twitter users to an unintended destination.

By Sumner Lemon
IDG News Service
December 18, 2009

Microblogging site Twitter went offline for a while Friday after hackers calling themselves the Iranian Cyber Army apparently managed to change DNS records, redirecting traffic to another Web page.

Instead of the usual Twitter Web site design, visitors to the site instead saw a black screen with an image of a green flag and Arabic writing. The defaced site also included a message that said, “This site has been hacked by Iranian Cyber Army,” and an e-mail address.

Whether or not Iranian hackers are responsible for the attack wasn’t immediately clear. However, Twitter and other Internet sites have been used by Iranian opposition groups and protestors to share details of anti-government protests in that country.

Twitter blamed the outage on changes made to the company’s DNS (Domain Name System) records, which match the company’s domain name with the IP addresses of its servers.

“Twitter’s DNS records were temporarily compromised but have now been fixed. We are looking into the underlying cause and will update with more information soon,” Twitter said on its Twitter Status page.

Based on Twitter’s account of the attack, it’s possible that the company’s servers were never compromised. The actual attack may have instead targeted Dyn, the DNS service provider that manages Twitter’s DNS records, according to whois records.

While the outage left Twitter users cut off from the service for about an hour, the type of attack wasn’t serious, according to Dhillon Andrew Kannabhiran , founder and CEO of Hack In The Box, a Malaysian company that runs security conferences in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

“Yawn, is my comment. It was a simple defacement. So what?” Kannabhiran said.

By Tony Bradley
December 15, 2009

The headlines recently have been dominated with news of online privacy. Facebook has implemented changes that affect the privacy of status updates, and Google made headlines for its apparent disregard for privacy.

The difference between how Facebook and Google have addressed privacy issues offers a stark contrast. While Facebook has quickly responded to criticism and backlash, and has implemented additional changes to try and accommodate concerns, Google CEO Eric Schmidt dismissed privacy concerns entirely.

Facebook has faced challenges with privacy and what sorts of controls it has in place to ensure that users can exert some control over who is able to view their status updates, photos, events, and other Facebook entries. The Canadian government pressed the issue and succeeded in pressuring Facebook into changing a handful of practices to address privacy concerns.

As Facebook implemented changes this week, which were previously announced and anticipated–a change of pace for Facebook changes, there was immediate backlash. Facebook is struggling to figure out how to capitalize on member status updates for real-time search to be more like Twitter, and it is going through some growing pains to establish the right mix of sharing and security.

Google is also faced with constant criticism and concern from privacy advocates. Google is the monolithic Big Brother of the Internet, crawling and indexing every last byte of data that exists and presenting it to the general public in a matter of milliseconds through its various search offerings.

The difference between Facebook and Google as it relates to privacy is that Facebook appears to listen to concerns and respond by implementing changes to try and address issues, while Google seems to be dismissive. The Google response is to just stress why you should trust it, or why you shouldn’t care about privacy.

In a CNBC interview, Google CEO Eric Schmidt explained his stance on online privacy “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines –including Google –do retain this information for some time and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.”

The problem with that point of view is that it assumes you can only be concerned about privacy when you are doing something illegal or unethical. It doesn’t take into consideration the myriad ways that data can be inadvertently leaked or compromised by search engines like Google.

Just because executives and managers want information to be private, it doesn’t mean that they are trying to hide anything like shady accounting a’ la Enron, or illegal pyramid schemes a’ la Madoff. It simply means that some information is sensitive or confidential for a reason.

For businesses that rely on Google Docs or Gmail, there is a level of trust there that Google will respect the privacy of that data and protect it from unauthorized access. Comments like those made by Schmidt provide a reason to think twice about using Google for any sensitive or confidential communications.

As Google plants cookies on PC’s to expand the scope of personalized search, or becomes the focal point for Internet traffic with its public DNS, it is privy to a great deal of information which could be used to reach conclusions. It is important for Google to take privacy seriously.

Facebook and Google are facing many of the same challenges. Whether you like the changes introduced by Facebook or not, its hard not to appreciate its attempts to respond to concerns rather than taking the Google approach that unless you wear a tinfoil hat or have terrorist connections you have no right to be concerned about privacy.