January 2010 - cypherpunks-legacy

Great watches on sale now
by Sylvester Adkins 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

We pass on our savings to our dearest consumers. http://winfork.com

1 0

Marry a gorgeous Russian girl.
by cypherpunks＠jfet.org 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

I want you now, tell me reciprocate and get me! http://HYDROTABLET.NET/index.php?idAff=136&action=3

1 0

Gorgeous looking craftsmanship
by Jerry Hall 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

Give your loved one a beautiful luxury watch at low low prices http://winfork.com

1 0

GoogleSharing is a special kind of anonymizing proxy service
by Eugen Leitl 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

http://www.googlesharing.net/ About GoogleSharing is a special kind of anonymizing proxy service, designed for a very specific threat. It ultimately aims to provide a level of anonymity that will prevent google from tracking your searches, movements, and what websites you visit. GoogleSharing is not a full proxy service designed to anonymize all your traffic, but rather something designed exclusively for your communication with Google. Our system is totally transparent, with no special "alternative" websites to visit. Your normal work flow should be exactly the same. The Basic Problem Google thrives where privacy does not. If you're like most internet users, Google knows more about you than you might be comfortable with. Whether you were logged in to a Google account or not, they know everything you've ever searched for, what search results you clicked on, what news you read, and every place you've ever gotten directions to. Most of the time, thanks to things like Google Analytics, they even know which websites you visited that you didn't reach through Google. If you use Gmail, they know the content of every email you've ever sent or received, whether you've deleted it or not. They know who your friends are, where you live, where you work, and where you spend your free time. They know about your health, your love life, and your political leanings. These days they are even branching out into collecting your realtime GPS location and your DNS lookups. In short, not only do they know a lot about what you're doing, they also have significant insight into what you're thinking. Where GoogleSharing Comes In GoogleSharing is a system that mixes the requests of many different users together, such that Google is not capable of telling what is coming from whom. GoogleSharing aims to do a few very specific things: 1. Provide a system that will prevent Google from collecting information about you from services which don't require a login. 2. Make this system completely transparent to the user. No special websites, no change to your work flow. 3. Leave your non-Google traffic completely untouched, unredirected, and unaffected. The GoogleSharing system consists of a custom proxy and a Firefox Addon. The proxy works by generating a pool of GoogleSharing "identities," each of which contains a cookie issued by Google and an arbitrary User-Agent for one of several popular browsers. The Firefox Addon watches for requests to Google services from your browser, and when enabled will transparently redirect all of them (except for things like Gmail) to a GoogleSharing proxy. There your request is stripped of all identifying information and replaced with the information from a GoogleSharing identity. This "GoogleShared" request is then forwarded on to Google, and the response is proxied back to you. Your next request will get a different identity, and the one you were using before will be assigned to someone else. By "sharing" these identities, all of our traffic gets mixed together and is very difficult to analyze. The GoogleSharing proxy even constantly injects false but plausible search requests through all the identities. The result is that you can transparently use Google search, images, maps, products, news, etc... without Google being able to track you by IP address, Cookie, or any other identifying HTTP headers. And only your Google traffic is redirected. Everything else from your browser goes directly to its destination. GoogleSharing Transport Where Google has failed to provide universal HTTPS support, we have. All requests to a GoogleSharing proxy are sent via HTTPS. These eventually have to be proxied out as HTTP from GoogleSharing to Google, but your traffic is encrypted on the first path. Running A GoogleSharing Proxy We've made the proxy code available so that anyone can run a GoogleSharing proxy instance in addition to the one that we're running.

1 0

Make it Thicker & Longer with Free trial
by Pearlie Eason 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

Pack more power in your shots with an extra 2 inches http://knifesecure.com

1 0

Закон о банкротстве √ способы взыскания задолженности
by Становимся банкротами 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

С начала 2009 г. в ФЗ "О несостоятельности (банкротстве)" 4-мя законами внесены изменения, причем последним ФЗ ╧73 от 28 апреля 2009 г (вступил в силу 5 июня) внесены самые значительные изменения. НОВЕЛЛЫ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА О БАНКРОТСТВЕ. Долги компании Ответственность собственника и руководителя. Методы ухода от ответственности. Дvadцatь pятoго яnвaря 2O1O г.   (Моск. код) 742/9/1/9/8,\495/ 445-4О95   Обучение посвящено анализу нововведений и разъяснению таких вопросов как: 1. Как собственнику и директору защититься от возможных претензий по долгам компании. 2. Как построить структуру управления и собственности, чтобы претензий можно было избежать. Что даст оффшор и т.п. 3. Каким образом заключать сделки, чтобы их затруднительно было оспорить Как объяснить почему сделки заключались на невыгодных условиях. 4. На каком основании налоговый орган сможет предъявить претензии, что для этого необходимо. 5. Как кредиторам воспользоваться изменениями в законе чтобы в полной мере взыскать свои долги. Программа: Основания признания должника несостоятельным (банкротом). Основания для обязательного добровольного обращения в суд. Презумпция вины и неплатежеспособности, введенные Федеральным законом от 28 апреля 2009 г. N 73-ФЗ. Ответственность директора Гражданско-правовая ответственность (субсидиарная ответственность по долгам организации и т.п.), уголовная ответственность, административная ответственность. Ответственность директора при отсутствии документов. Обоснование распространения обязанности ведения бухучета на все компании, вне зависимости от указаний в законе о бухучете. Ответственность директора компании применяющей УСН. Обоснование ухода от ответственности в данном случае. Ответственность контролирующих должника лиц (собственников организаций владеющих более 50 % долей/акций, иных лиц которые могли давать обязательные для должника указания).   Способы ухода директора от ответственности. Как обосновать отсутствие вины директора при заключении договоров. Типичные легенды, позволяющие объяснить заключение договоров на невыгодных для должника условиях. Способы заключение договоров, исключающие претензии кредиторов/суда. Как проявить разумную осмотрительность при выборе контрагента как условие отсутствия вины директора. Как уйти от обвинения в умысле при заключении сделки с компанией заведомо не исполняющей налоговые обязательства.   Способы ухода контролирующего должника лица от ответственности: владение компанией через нерезидента в том числе оффшор. владение компанией через доверенных лиц (порядок оформления отношений, риски); формирование полномочий директора и исключение ответственности собственников посредством изменения уставных документов и др. Сокрытие структуры собственности с помощью оффшора/нерезидента. Трасты (на примере Кипра): понятие, механизмы контроля за действиями трастового управляющего; процедура принудительного раскрытия информации о бенефициаре, проблемы вывода имущества и оспаривания сделок и др.   Порядок взыскания долгов кредиторов с директора/контролирующих лиц организации должника. Специальные условия оспаривания сделок по основаниям, предусмотренные ФЗ "О несостоятельности (банкротстве). Круг сделок, которые могут оспариваться. Проблемы оспаривания сделок на основании пунктов 2 и 3 статьи 103 ФЗ "О несостоятельности (банкротстве)" др.   Квалификация и установление размера требований по обязательным платежам. Ответственность за правонарушения. Когда, по каким требованиям и на основании каких документов налоговый орган имеет право предъявить требования о банкротстве и др.   Стоимость участия в семинаре 7 900 руб.   За более подробной информацuей обpащайтеcь по тел: (Ч95) 7Ч2-91 98,4Ч5 4095

1 0

Недобросовестные поставщики. Как сохранить вычеты, уйти от ответственности
by Признаки недобросовестных поставщиков 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

22.01 Практические рекомендации как отвечать налоговой инспекции в случае проверки недобросовестных контрагентов и как можно уйти от НДС без последствий (Моск. код) 742/9/1/9/8,(495) 792-двадцать один-двадцать два Цель обучения: Семинар даст слушателям ответ на то, как правильно заключать договоры и что делать, если он ошибся, но при этом хотел бы сохранить свои налоговые обязательства без изменений. Слушатели будут точно знать что и как отвечать налоговой инспекции в случае проверки таких контрагентов. Поймут как можно уйти от НДС без последствий. Практика свидетельствует, что практически все проверки налогоплательщиков применяющих ОСН затрагивают данный вопрос с негативными для налогоплательщика последствиями. При этом налоговый орган исключает из состава затрат НП и вычетов по НДС суммы по контрагентам, которые, например, просто не отвечают на запрос в рамках встречных проверок, либо не заплатили налоги и т.п. Подчас очень тяжело отстоять свою правоту в спорах с налоговым органом. Семинар посвящен вопросу защиты налогоплательщика, призван помочь ему как не погрязнуть в тотальных проверках своих контрагентов, так и в последствии защитить свои права по взаимоотношениям я такими компаниями. На семинаре не только будут показаны способы противодействия придиркам налоговой, но и будут разобраны способы заключения договоров, которые в принципе исключают возможность признания лица недобросовестным, а также законные способы снижение налоговой нагрузки по НДС в том случае, если налогоплательщик в этом заинтересован. Программа мероприятия: 1.Методические указания Минфина о назначении выездных налоговых проверок. 2.Методические указания Минфина по поиску недобросовестных контрагентов. 3.Основания признания налоговой выгоды необоснованной (на основании судебной практики, писем Минфина, практики проверок). 4.Что необходимо сделать, чтобы проявить разумную осмотрительность. Какие документы и какую информацию о контрагенте необходимо собрать. 5.Как защититься от претензий налогового органа о том, что контрагент: -не платит налоги и не сдает отчетность; -не отвечает на встречные проверки; -не находиться по месту регистрации, либо зарегистрирован по адресу массовой регистрации; -директор БОМЖ, ничего не подписывал, его подпись подделали и т.п. -директор является "массовым", в отношении руководителя проводятся розыскные мероприятия; -проведенный осмотр показал, что компания не могла отгрузить товар с адреса, указанного в накладной, счете-фактуре; -коды ОКВЭД контрагента не позволяют ему произвести действия, которые он якобы произвел по отношению к налогоплательщику (не может выполнять работы, поставлять товар и т.п, так как создан для иных целей); -иные претензии. 6.Способ ухода от признания налоговой выгоды необоснованной при заключении договоров с поставщиками при помощи посредника. Как построить договор, чтобы претензии по поставщикам нельзя было предъявить. 7.Уход от признания налоговой выгоды необоснованной путем особого способа заключения договоров. 8.Уход от уплаты НДС с наценки путем: -заключения договора с дополнительной выгодой; -заключение договора с предварительной куплей-продажей опциона; -включение условий о неустойки. 9.Кто отвечает за работу с недобросовестными контрагентами (директор или бухгалтер) и в какой части. 10.Потеря документов по недобросовестным поставщикам. Налоговые последствия. Указания Минфина по привлечению к ответственности в таком случае. Способ защиты от налоговых претензий. Является ли потеря документов защитой от претензий правоохранительных органов. Cтоимоcть: 7900 руб. Информацию можно получить по телефонам: (Ч95) 7Ч2-91 98, (495) 792 2l 22 86P0LEJWA5

1 0

UK company law is terrorism's friend
by R.A. Hettinga 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/20/uk-company-law-terrorism /print> The Guardian UK company law is terrorism's friend By prioritising laissez-faire ideology over public safety, Britain is helping al-Qaida et al to move cash through the banking network Prem Sikka guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 January 2010 08.00 GMT US security officials claim that the growing presence of terrorist networks operated by al-Qaida and others in the UK poses a major security threat. The UK fights wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but its domestic laws can enable Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida and others to own and operate companies and move resources. For less than #100 almost anyone can buy a ready-made off-the-shelf company. Armed with the certificate of incorporation, the controllers can open bank accounts and be in a position to move cash through the banking network. The UK laws on formation of companies are very permissive. Almost anyone over the age of 16, with the exception of undischarged bankrupts and those specifically disqualified by the UK courts, can become a company director. Under the Companies Act 2006, directors of companies are required to register a service and a residential address with Companies House, which could be the UK address of an agent or a nominee. All companies must have at least one natural person as a director but she or he does not have to be a UK citizen or permanently resident in the UK. So in the absence of extradition treaties, the UK law is powerless to do anything if the company directors leave the country to escape criminal inquiries. In principle, Companies House is supposed to check on the eligibility of individuals to be company directors, but it can't cope. Last year, a study revealed that nearly 4,000 individuals suspected of terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud and illicit trading were running UK companies. Banned company directors manage to set up new businesses without great difficulty. The UK law also allows companies to become directors of other companies. These companies can be registered in secretive tax havens. Over the years, I have conducted many investigations into dubious corporate practices for newspapers, radio and television programmes and the trail always leads to tax havens, which hold no public information about the individuals behind those companies. The registered address is about the only publicly available information. One building in the Cayman Islands, a UK overseas territory, is the registered address of 18,857 corporations. British Virgin Islands, another UK overseas territory, with a population of 23,000 has more than 813,000 registered companies, the highest number per capita in the world. These companies rarely carry out any trade in their locales, but facilitate secrecy to their owners. Over the years, US regulators have complained that many of the anonymously controlled companies are behind terrorist funding, money laundering and organised financial crime. US Senate inquiries show that offshore companies are behind organised tax abuses and the jurisdictions rarely co-operate with investigations. Indeed, the whole idea of control through tax havens is to pitch one country's legal system against another's and thus obstruct and slow down any investigation. The anonymously controlled companies registered in tax havens control and direct UK companies. The public has no idea who the real owners are and who they are really dealing with. As part of the money laundering regulations banks subscribe to the doctrine of "know your customer" (KYC), but without knowing the details of directors they are happy to open bank accounts for companies controlled by anonymous companies from tax havens. They may be providing banking and credit facilities to criminals and terrorists. Accountants and lawyers frequently act as the UK postboxes for the tax haven companies and are often the brains behind the secrecy structures. The accounts of the UK companies controlled by companies from tax havens carry a clean bill of health even though there is no public information about the individuals behind these companies. The current UK company law prioritises laissez-faire ideologies over concerns about public safety, security and accountability. It is perfectly possible for Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida and others to be operating UK companies and shifting funds through the established banking network. A first step towards reform should to ban companies from acting as directors of other companies. Only natural persons who are UK residents and citizens should be allowed to become directors of companies.

1 0

Glittering selection available
by Cheap R0lex & Breitling 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

Glittering selection available http://www.treepop.net

1 0

Creative Winners in Hardware Trojan Contest
by Eugen Leitl 20 Jan '10

20 Jan '10

http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/creative-winners-in-hardware… Creative Winners in Hardware Trojan Contest Simple attacks and creative defenses Photo: Polytechnic Institute of New York University BY Mark Anderson // January 2010 5 January 2010bIn November, engineering students from five top universities gathered at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU, in Brooklyn, N.Y., for the Embedded Systems Challenge. The aim was to test new attacks and defenses against an underappreciated breed of Trojan horsebembedded malware built into integrated circuits. The winning teambs results, set to appear in journals and at conference proceedings in 2010, reveal how vulnerable many systems are to "chip attacks" The contest also demonstrated the high degree of technical sophistication required for these attacks, making it more likely that attackers will pursue specialized applications, such as sensitive military equipment or high-security financial computers. Attacking Dadbs new Windows 7 PC probably isnbt worth the extreme investment of time and moneybespecially when cheaper and quicker phishing and software-based malware attacks still work all too well. "Itbs something that people arenbt really much aware of," says contest judge Jim Howard, director and chief engineer of information assurance at Camden, N.J.bbased L-3 Communications, which designs application-specific integrated circuits for high-security applications, such as military communications systems. "The majority of application-specific integrated circuits are manufactured outside the United States....People could be putting flaws in these chips that they can activate. Howard imagines that "people are probably trying to do this kind of stuff" in chips destined for military systems. It seems militaries around the world are also imagining the possibilities, including Pakistan, whose defense ministers refused American efforts to help secure the countrybs nuclear arsenal out of fear that U.S. contractors might insert a software or hardware Trojan horse that could later disable the weapons. The contest centered around blueprints for a simple cryptography chip built on a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) that had just one input and one output. "Secret" text went in, while encrypted text emerged from the chipbs output terminal. First, teams had to harden their own chip design against other teamsb anticipated Trojan horses. Then, when the teams received the blueprints for their opponentsb hardened chips, they had to devise attacks on their opponentsb chip designs that would output either the cipher key or the unencrypted secret text. As a result, each face-off in the competition consisted of an integrated circuit that contained both a defending teambs add-on circuits as well as the corresponding opposing teambs Trojan horse circuitry. The first-place team in this yearbs Embedded Systems Challenge used one of the most deceptively simple attacks imaginable, Howard says. Led by NYU-Poly graduate student Jeyavijayan Rajendran, the team devised attacks that, when activated, simply connected the input wire to the output wire and bypassed the encryption circuitry altogether. b Itbs the most obvious approach," says Rajendranbs faculty advisor, Ramesh Karri, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at NYU-Poly. But itbs not foolproof. Bypassing all the encryption logic means that the output signal appears suspiciously soon after the input. So "if somebodybs taking a fingerprint of the [chipbs] delay, then this may not even work. It depends on the defense, too." Karri, who organized this yearbs contest along with NYU-Poly computer science graduate student Kurt Rosenfeld, says that they intentionally weighted the competition to favor a strong defense. Photo: Polytechnic Institute of New York University bSince defending is much harder than attacking usually, we tilted the scoring in favor of defenders," Rosenfeld says. Every successful defense of a chip against an attack earned a team two points while a failed defense didnbt affect a teambs score at all. On the other hand, a successful attack on a chip earned a team one point, while a thwarted attack took one point away from the attacking team. Such a playing field led to the surprise second-place finish of Vanderbilt University. Electrical engineering graduate student Trey Reecebthe only Vanderbilt team memberbmounted no attacks at all. But the fact that his chip design caught four out of the five attacks against it still netted him the silver medal. Reece says his line of defense depended on an oscillator in the chipbs circuitry that consisted of three NAND gates. "I also tossed in another 10 gates just to disguise what I was doing,b he says. When activated during the competitionbs testing phase, Reecebs oscillator coursed with a harmonically shifting current, giving off a distinct output pattern. Any tampering with the internal logic in the cryptography engine would result in a different output pattern and thus detection of the Trojan horse. The only team that defeated Reecebs chip was NYU-Polybwhich used the simple input-connected-to-output approach. The third-place team, from Yale, avoided oscillators as its defense mechanism because in any bulk-chip fabrication process, faculty advisor Yiorgos Makris says, oscillators would yield a lot of false alarms due simply to the varying material properties of different silicon wafers. Instead, he says, his teambconsisting of grad students Yier Jin and Nathan Kuppbopted for a sly scheme that hid its chip in plain sight. Rather than giving their opponents high-level blueprints for their chip, the Yale team buried their chip's details deep in the the design description, making it much more difficult for an adversary to understand. Moreover, they embedded additional registers in the design to give them a view to the inner workings of the chip that might reveal an attack. (This strategy, Makris says, would be equivalent in a software competition to handing over .exe files as opposed to source code.) Yalebs strategy was so successful, in fact, that no team attacked its chip. Howard says that obfuscating onebs design and intent is certainly an important strategy in real-world chip design techniques. "I thought what they did was very creative," Howard says. But because the competition awarded successful defenses against actual attacks and no one attacked, "they also outsmarted themselves," he says. About the Author Mark Anderson writes about science and technology from Northampton, Mass. In the January 2010 issue of IEEE Spectrum, he described Intrinsitybs Hummingbird a hot-rodded smartphone chip with the power of a PC processor.

1 0