- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Fwd: General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years
by Zenaan Harkness 27 Nov '15

27 Nov '15

I recommend General Wesley Clark for those who have not seen it (was new to me). Lays out American government's plans shortly after 9/11, to take down seven countries' governments; similar to Brzezinski's book of predictions similarly a year or so prior (see below). General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years (Although I paste the transcript here, I find this interview quite enjoyable to watch, and it's only 8MB, although the video does not include the last couple sentences from the transcript, and the video does add separate little section of its own, again General Wesley; enjoy.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw "General Wesley Clark: Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail." So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!" " (Looking at youtube, there appears quite a few talks by General Wesley Clark.) New Edition of Brzezinski's Book Spotlights US Strategy in Eurasia http://russia-insider.com/en/americas-hegemony-and-europes-place-chessboard… Also breaking news: Turkey Intel Chief: Putin's Intervention in Syria Is Against Islam, ISIS Is a Reality That We Accept http://russia-insider.com/en/turkish-intelligence-chief-putins-intervention… (This from October - last month.) “ISIS is a reality and we have to accept that we cannot eradicate a well-organized and popular establishment such as the Islamic State; therefore I urge my western colleagues to revise their mindset about Islamic political currents, put aside their cynical mentalité and thwart Vladimir Putin's plans to crush Syrian Islamist revolutionaries,” - Anadolu News Agency quoted Mr. Fidan as saying on Sunday.

1 0

Americans! An American to support:- Ron Paul: 'The Neocon Wolf is At the Door'
by Zenaan Harkness 27 Nov '15

27 Nov '15

Ron Paul is starting to be heard. It's a good sign. http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/ron-paul-neocon-wolf-door/ri11437 Especially when this is what the neocons currently controlling America do to the voices of reason: Former US Defense Chief Backs International Coalition Against ISIS (Chuck Hagel) http://russia-insider.com/en/chuck-hagel-backs-international-coalition-agai… (Sacked by Obama late last year.) In other news: Turkish Prime Minister declares he personally gave the order to shoot down Russian jet the other day: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/i-gave-order-myself-turkish-pm-downin… (I was initially surprised and suspect Erdogan required Davutoglu put his head on the public chopping block, but who knows ...) The German media seem to be steadily getting it: Evidence Is Mounting That Islamic State Is Offspring of the US http://russia-insider.com/en/afraid-truth-islamic-state-offspring-us/ri11408 Depending on your mindset, may bring a smile to a weary face: The Classic Rules For Combating Turkish Aggression http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/classic-rules-combatting-turkish-aggr… And a reminder once again, political discourse within Russian population is -way- ahead of Australia, USA, etc (thank God there is some discourse somewhere on a broader scale than a niche mailing list): How Ordinary Russians See the Western-Russian Stand Off http://russia-insider.com/en/ordinary-russians-ordinary-americans-were-same… Regards, Zenaan PS Not sure anyone noticed, but I am finding russia-insider.com to be quite a good aggregation site, as well putting out their own articles and opinion pieces here and there.

1 0

NATO member Turkey just shot down Russian military jet
by Zenaan Harkness 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

"According to Putin, Russia has always treated Turkey not simply as a close neighbour, but as a friendly state." I guess that position is now officially off the table. May be not the smartest move by Turkey? I'm not getting the feeling that shooting down a Russian jet in Syria was a good idea (even if it had been in Turkish airspace minutes prior). I hope this does not escalate. --- http://tass.ru/en/politics/838825 " Putin: Russia will not tolerate such crimes as attack against its Sukhoi-24 plane November 24, 15:53 UTC+3 According to the president, the attack against Su-24 plane in Syria goes beyond normal struggle against terrorism, and it is "a stab in Russia’s back" delivered by "terrorism accomplices" SOCHI, November 24. /TASS/. Russia will not tolerate crimes like the attack on the Russian Su-24 fighter jet shot down by the Turkish Air Force in Syrian skies, President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday at a meeting with King of Jordan Abdullah II. "I understand each country has its own regional interests, and we have always respected that. But we shall never tolerate crimes like today's one," the president said. The Russian leader stressed that the downed fighter-bomber was posing no threat to Turkey. "Our pilots and jet posed no threat to the Turkish Republic. This is obvious. They were conducting an operation against ISIL," Putin said. He stressed the plane was flying above northern Lattakia where militants coming from Russia are concentrated. "The Russian bomber was shot down over Syria by an air-to-air surface fired from a Turkish F-16 plane when the bomber was at an altitude of 6,000 meters at a distance of 1 km from the Turkish bomber." Putin said. "They [the pilots] were fulfilling their task," the president stressed adding that they were delivering preventive air strikes on terrorists who can come back to Russia at any moment. Putin called the attack a crime and stressed that Russia would not tolerate it. According to the president, the Su-24 plane crash in Syria goes beyond normal struggle against terrorism, and it is "a stab in Russia’s back delivered by terrorist accomplices." "Today’s loss is linked with a stab in our back delivered by terrorism accomplices. I can’t characterize otherwise what has happened today," the Russian leader said. According to the president, Russia has long been aware of oil supplies to Turkey from Syria’s territories seized by terrorists, which provided tangible financial support for the extremists. "We’ve long exposed heavy trafficking of oil and petroleum products from Islamic State-seized territories," Putin said, adding that monetary support for the militant groups was large, indeed. Read also Czech Republic's President Milos Zeman Czech president denounces Turkey’s actions over Russian bomber crash "Now we’ve suffered stabs in the back: attacks against our planes that fight with terrorism," Putin said. He pointed out that Turkey attacked Russia’s Sukhoi-24 although "we have signed agreements with the American partners on the prevention of incidents in the air, and Turkey, as is known, is among the countries that have declared they are ostensibly fighting against terrorism within the US-led coalition.". Putin noted that Turkey’s contacts with NATO member states after the attack against the Russian aircraft look like an attempt to make the alliance serve terrorists. The Russian leader said that instead of immediately establishing contacts with Russia after the bomber incident, "the Turkish side applied to its NATO partners to discuss this issue, as far as we know." "It seems as if we have shot down a Turkish plane and not vice versa," the Russian president said. "So, does this mean that they want NATO to serve the Islamic State?" Putin noted. The president said the attack on the Russian jet will have tragic consequences to Russia-Turkey ties. "We will certainly carefully analyse what has happened and today’s tragic event will have serious consequences to Russian-Turkish relations," he said. According to Putin, Russia has always treated Turkey not simply as a close neighbour, but as a friendly state. "I have no idea who needed what has happened today, but in any case it’s not us," the Russian president said. He expressed hope "the international community will find the forces to unite in the face of this common evil (terrorism)." Turkey's military attache in Russia has been summoned to the Russian Defense Ministry. " --- http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/act-war-turkey-shoots-down-russian-mi… "ACT OF WAR: Turkey Shoots Down Russian Military Jet Turkey claims the Su-24 violated Turkish airspace, but the Russian government says it has proof that the plane was flying over Syria A NATO member just shot down a Russian military jet... Absolutely unreal news coming from Syria: Turkish F-16 fighters have shot down a Russian Su-24 tactical bomber. The details: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-shoots-down-russ… Turkey has shot down a Russian military jet which it says violated its airspace near the Syrian border. The Russian Defence Ministry and Turkish Presidency, quoted in Russian and Turkish media reports, have both described the plane as Russian, and video posted by the Haberturk TV station appeared to show the jet coming down in flames. A military official, quoted by Turkey's Dogan news agency, said the plane was shot down by Turkish F16s, and that the pilot was given prior warning. Various reports described the plane as coming down in hostile Syrian territory, and the fate of the two pilots on board was unknown. Initial reports claim that the pilots successfully ejected and are safe. But the story is developing. The Russian Ministry of Defense says that it has proof that the plane was flying in Syrian, not Turkish, airspace at the time of the attack. We cannot emphasize enough how jaw-droppingly dumb Turkey is: A NATO member just shot down a Russian military jet. UPDATE: A video has surfaced claiming to show the body of one of the pilots. The fate of the second pilot is still unknown. " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydw14n8OYdI --- http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/graphic-video-moderate-rebels-display… " Graphic Video: Terrorists Display Body of Russian Pilot Shot Down by Turkey A video has surfaced that allegedly shows “moderate rebels” celebrating over the body of a Russian pilot whose plane was shot down earlier today by Turkey An act of war. Plain and simple. In a disturbing development, it appears that at least one of the two Russian pilots who were shot down over Syria by Turkey earlier today is dead. The below video allegedly shows the west's favorite “moderate rebels” celebrating over the dead body of one of the pilots, who apparently was able to eject from the plane but did not survive. Is NATO really going to defend this barbarity? Unfortunately the answer could be “yes”. " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aryCZEKIlgs --- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-plane-shot-down-live… http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/turkey-shoots-warplane-syria-border-1… http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world/europe/turkey-syria-russia-military… http://tass.ru/en/politics/838765

8 12

900 Embedded Devices Share Hard-Coded Certs, SSH Host Keys
by Rayzer 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

900 Embedded Devices Share Hard-Coded Certs, SSH Host Keys Posted by timothy on Thursday November 26, 2015 @03:00PM from the same-assembly-line dept. An anonymous reader writes: Embedded devices of some 50 manufacturers has been found sharing the same hard-coded X.509 certificates (for HTTPS) and SSH host keys, a fact that can be exploited by a remote, unauthenticated attacker to carry out impersonation, man-in-the-middle, or passive decryption attacks <http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=19159>. SEC Consult has analyzed firmware images of more than 4000 embedded devices of over 70 vendors — firmware of routers, IP cameras, VoIP phones, modems, etc. — and found that, in some cases, there are nearly half a million devices on the web using the same certificate. http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/15/11/26/1541216/900-embedded-devices-sh…

2 1

The (Technological) Shadows in the Cave
by Razer 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

Thought I'd throw this out there... The Archdruid Report Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society Wednesday, November 25, 2015 The Shadows in the Cave I had intended this week’s post to be the next episode in the Retrotopia narrative, chronicling Peter Carr’s meeting with the irrepressible Col. Tom Pappas of the Lakeland Republic Army, and the trip out to Defiance County for the annual drone shoot, but that will have to wait another week. No, I haven’t decided to comment instead on the recent spate of terror attacks in France. As people in a variety of other corners of the world have pointed out, identical outrages happen all over the Third World every few days. The only reason this latest horror has gotten so much air time is that it affected people in one of the world’s privileged countries instead. Nor am I going to be devoting this week’s post to the latest, extremely troubling round of news from the climate change front—though that’s going to get a post to itself down the road a bit, when I’ve had time to do a little more research. That’s a far bigger story than the terror attacks in Paris, though of course it’s not getting anything like as much attention in the media. From the beginning of serious salt water infiltration into South Florida’s aquifers, through ominously bulging sediments in Arctic Ocean shallows, to an assortment of truly frightening data points from Greenland, it’s clear that we’ve passed the threshold from “something may happen someday” to “something is happening now”—a transition that probably has quite a bit to do with the increasingly shrill tone of climate-change denialist rhetoric just now, and even more to do with the increasingly plaintive tone of those activists who still insist that everything can be fixed if we all just join hands and sing “Kum ba ya” one more time. No, this week’s post is going to explore a topic that’s far less important in the overall scheme of things, though it’s not without its relevance to the crisis of our age. I want to talk about the reaction I fielded in response to last week’s post here on The Archdruid Report, which was an exploration of our culture’s taboo against choosing not to use the latest technologies. <http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-heresy-of-technological-…> I expected that post to field its share of outraged denunciations, and it certainly did. What I didn’t expect was that it would receive more comments than any other post in the history of The Archdruid Report, and the vast majority of those comments would agree heartily with the two points of that post. The first of these points is that there’s a significant number of Americans out there who, for one good reason or another, choose not to use cell phones, televisions, automobiles, microwave ovens, and an assortment of other currently fashionable technologies. The second is that there’s an even larger number of Americans out there who get really, really freaky about people who make such choices. Some of the stories I heard from readers of my blog were absolute classics of the type. There was the couple who don’t enjoy television and so don’t own one, and had a relative ask them every single year, over and over again, if she could buy them a television for Christmas. They said no thank you every single year, and finally she went out and bought them a television anyway because she just couldn’t stand the thought that they weren’t watching one. There was the coworker who plopped a laptop playing some sitcom or other right down on the lap of one of my readers and demanded that the reader watch it, right then and there, so that they would have something to talk about. There was the person who, offended by another reader’s lack of interest in television, finally shouted, “You must be living in a dream world!” Er, which of these people was spending four to six hours a day watching paid actors playing imaginary characters act out fictional events in contrived settings? Televisions were far from the only focus of this sort of technobullying. Other readers reported getting similar reactions from other people because they didn’t happen to have, and weren’t interested in having, microwave ovens, smartphones, and so on down the list of currently fashionable trinkets. The stories are really quite eye-opening, and not in a good way. Forget about all the popular cant that insists that you’re free in the USA to make your own choices and have whatever lifestyle you want. According to a significant fraction of Americans—and to judge from what my readers reported, that fraction isn’t limited to any one class, income level, or region of the country—the only freedom you’re supposed to exercise, when it comes to technology, is that of choosing which brand label will be slapped on each item in the officially approved list of devices you’re expected to own. The prevalence of technobullying and technoshaming in today’s America is a fascinating point, and one we’ll explore in a few moments, with the able assistance of the denunciations flung at last week’s post by the minority of readers who reacted that way. What I want to consider first is the fact that so many people responded to last week’s post so positively. One blog in an uncrowded corner of the internet, written by an author whose day job as an archdruid locates him squarely on the outer fringes of contemporary American life, is very nearly the opposite of a statistically valid poll. Still, the sheer volume of the response makes me suspect that something significant is going on here. By that I don’t mean that there’s some sort of groundswell of renunciation, leading people to walk away from technologies in the same spirit that led medieval ascetics to don hair shirts and flog themselves for the good of their souls. That’s one of the common stereotypes directed at those of us who aren’t interested in the latest technotrash, and it completely misses what’s actually going on. I’ll use myself as an example here. I don’t own a television—I haven’t owned one in my adult life—and it’s not because I have some moral or political objection to televisions, or because I’m into self-denial, or what have you. I don’t own a television because I find watching television about as enticing as eating a bowl of warm snot. It’s not the programming, either—that’s another of the standard stereotypes, that the only thing one can find objectionable about television is the programming, and it’s as inaccurate as the rest. To me, quite simply, the activity of watching little colored shapes jerk around on a screen is boring and irritating, not relaxing and enjoyable, no matter what the little colored shapes are supposed to be doing. Yes, I grew up with a television in the house. I experienced plenty of it back in the day, and I have zero interest in experiencing any more, because I don’t like it. It really is that simple. It’s that simple for others as well: they don’t find this or that technology enjoyable, useful, or relevant to their lifestyles, and so they’ve chosen to do something else with their money and time. Shouldn’t so simple and personal a choice be their own business, and nobody else’s? To judge by the reactions that those who make such choices routinely field, apparently not. The pushbacks discussed in the comments page last week range from the sort of in-your-face confrontations discussed above to a much-forwarded article in I forget which online rag, where somebody was airily announcing that he wasn’t interested in being friends with somebody unless he could text some vacuous comment about lunch to the other person at 2:15 and get a response by 2:30. (My readers and I are good with that—somebody who insists on getting immediate feedback for their random outbursts of mental flatulence isn’t somebody we want as a friend, either.) Then there were the indignant responses to last week’s post, which belong in a category by themselves. I’m sorry to say that my favorite diatribe didn’t show up in the comment queue for The Archdruid Report. It appeared instead on one of the many other websites that carry my weekly posts, and it insisted, among several other less juicy bits, that my lack of enthusiasm for television obviously meant that I was conspiring to deprive everyone else of their teevees. You’ve got to admit that for sheer giddy delirium, that one’s hard to beat. By the same logic, if I dislike peanuts—as in fact I do—I must be committed to some kind of anti-peanut crusade devoted to eradicating the entire species. Not so; Arachis hypogaea is welcome to live and thrive, for all I care, and my fellow hominids are equally welcome to eat as much of its produce as they happen to desire. In fact, they can divide my share among them. The only thing I ask in return is that nobody expect me to eat the things myself. The same rule applies equally to television, as it does to a great many other things. Like most human beings, I enjoy some things and don’t enjoy others, and in the vast majority of these cases, nobody feels particularly threatened by the fact that I don’t like something they do, and avoid it for that sensible reason. For this one commenter, at least, that obviously wasn’t the case, and it’s worth reflecting on the vast personal insecurities that must have driven such a bizarre reaction. Still, that was one of a kind, so we’ll pass on to the others. A theme that showed up rather more often in the hate mail responding to last week’s post was the insistence that if I don’t have a television, a microwave, or a cell phone, I’m a hypocrite if I have an internet connection. I encourage my readers to think about that claim for a moment. I suppose a case could be made that if my lack of interest in having a television, a microwave, or a cell phone was motivated by the kind of passion for hair-shirt asceticism mentioned above, and I had an internet connection, I could be accused of the kind of slacking that used to get you thrown out of the really top-notch hermitages. From any other perspective, it’s a triumph of absurdity. If people are in fact allowed to choose, from among the currently available technologies, those that make them happiest—as the cheerleaders of the consumer economy delight to insist—what could possibly be wrong with choosing some old technologies and some newer ones, if that’s the mix you prefer? Then there are the people whose response to the technology of an older time is to yammer endlessly about whatever bad things happened in those days, even when the bad things in question had nothing to do with the technology and vice versa. People like the couple I discussed in last week’s post, who prefer Victorian furnishings and clothing to their modern equivalents, get this sort of bizarre non sequitur all the time, but variants of it turned up in my inbox last week as well. Here again, there’s some heavy-duty illogic involved. If a technology that was invented and used in the 1850s, say, is permanently tarred with the various social evils of that era, and ought to be rejected because those evils happened, wouldn’t that also mean that the internet is just as indelibly tarred with the social evils of the modern era, and ought to be discarded because bad things are happening in the world today? What’s sauce for the goose, after all, is sauce for the gander... Finally, there’s the capstone of the whole edifice of unreason, the insistence that anybody who doesn’t use the latest, hottest technotrash wants to go “back to the caves,” or to even take all of humanity to that much-denounced destination. “The caves” have a bizarre gravitational effect on the imagination of a certain class of modern thinkers. Everything that’s not part of the latest assortment of glitzy technogimmicks, in their minds, somehow morphs into the bearskin kilts and wooden clubs that so many of us still, despite well over a century of detailed archeological evidence, insist on pushing onto our prehistoric ancestors. When people of this kind archly dismiss people like the Chrismans, the neo-Victorian couple just mentioned, as going “back to the caves,” they’re engaged in a very interesting kind of absurdity. Do cavemen and Victorians belong on the same level? Sure, cavemen had flush toilets and central heating, daily newspapers and public libraries, not to mention factories, railways, global maritime trade, a telegraph network covering much of the planet’s land surface, and a great deal more of the same kind! That’s absurd, of course. It’s even more absurd to insist that people who simply don’t enjoy using this or that technology, and so don’t use it, are going back to “the caves”—but I can promise you, dear reader, from my own personal experience, that if you show a lack of interest in any piece of fashionable technology, you’ll have this phrase thrown at you. That happens because “the caves” aren’t real. They aren’t, for example, the actual cave-shrines of the Magdalenian people who lived fifteen thousand years ago, whose lifestyles were quite similar to those of Native Americans before Columbus, and who used to go deep into the caves of Europe to paint sacred images that still stun the viewer today by their beauty and artistry. “The caves” of contemporary rhetoric, rather, are thoughtstopping abstractions, bits of verbal noise that people have been taught to use so they don’t ask inconvenient questions about where this thing called “progress” is taking us and whether any sane person would actually want to go there. Flattening out the entire complex richness of the human past into a single cardboard bogeyman labeled “the caves” is one way to do that. So is papering over the distinctly ugly future we’re making for ourselves with a screen shot or two from a Jetsons cartoon and a gaudy banner saying “We’re headed for the stars!” It’s really rather fascinating, all things considered, that the image of the cave should have been picked up for that dubious purpose. Not that long ago, most literate people in the Western world tended to have a very different image come to mind when someone mentioned caves. That was courtesy of a man named Aristocles of Athens, who lived a little more than 2300 years ago and whose very broad shoulders got him the nickname Plato. In the longest, most influential, and most problematic of his works, usually called The Republic—a bad choice, as this word nowadays has connotations of rights under law that the Greek title Politeia lacks—he framed his discussion of the gap between perception and reality with an arresting image. Imagine, Plato says, that we are all shackled in a cave, unable to turn our heads to either side. All we can see are dark shapes that move this way and that on the flat wall of the cave in front of us. Those dark shapes are all we know. They are our reality. Now imagine that one of these prisoners manages to get loose from his shackles, and turns away from the cave wall and the dark shapes on it. He’s in for a shock, because what he sees when he turns around is a bonfire, and people moving objects in front of the flames so that the objects cast shadows on the cave wall. Everything he thought was reality is simply a shadow cast by these moving objects. If the prisoner who’s gotten loose pays attention, furthermore, he might just notice that the cave isn’t limited to the bonfire, the prisoners, the objects casting the shadows and the people who manipulate those objects. Off past the bonfire, on one side of the cave, the floor slopes upwards, and in the distance is a faint light that doesn’t seem to come from the fire at all. If our escaped prisoner is brave enough, he might decide to go investigate that light. As he does so, the bonfire and the shadows slip into the darkness behind him, and the light ahead grows brighter and clearer. Then, if he’s brave enough and keeps going, he steps out of the cave and into the sunlight. That’s not an easy thing, either, because the light is so much more intense than the dim red glow in the cave that for a while, he can’t see a thing. He stumbles, rubs his eyes, tries to find his bearings, and discovers that the detailed knowledge he had of the way shadows moved on the cave wall won’t help him at all in this new, blazingly bright realm. He has to discard everything he thinks he knows, and learn the rules of an unfamiliar world. Bit by bit, though, he accomplishes this. His eyes adapt to the sunlight, he learns to recognize objects and to sense things—color, for example, and depth—which didn’t exist in the shadow-world he thought he inhabited when he was still a prisoner in the cave. Eventually he can even see the sun, and know where the light that illumines the real world actually comes from. Now, Plato says, imagine that he decides to go back into the cave to tell the remaining prisoners what he’s seen. To begin with, it’s going to be rough going, because his eyes have adapted to the brilliant daylight and so he’s going to trip and stumble on the way down. Once he gets there, anything he says to the prisoners is going to be dismissed as the most consummate rubbish: what is this nonsense about color and depth, and a big bright glowing thing that crosses something called the sky? What’s more, the people to whom he’s addressing his words are going to misunderstand them, thinking that they’re about the shadow-world in front of their eyes—after all, that’s the only reality they know—and they’re going to decide that he must be an idiot because nothing he says has anything to do with the shadow-world. Plato didn’t mention that the prisoners might respond by trying to drag the escapee back into line with them and bully him into putting his shackles back on, though that’s generally the way such things work out in practice. Plato also never saw a television, which is unfortunate in a way—if he had, he could have skipped the complicated setup with the bonfire and the people waving around objects that cast shadows, and simply said, “Imagine that we’re all watching television in a dark room.” Now of course Plato had his own reasons for using the cave metaphor, and developed it in directions that aren’t relevant to this week’s post. The point I want to make here is that every technology is a filter that shapes the way we experience and interact with the world. In some cases, such as television, the filtering effect is so drastic it’s hard not to see—unless, that is, you don’t want to see it. In other cases, it’s subtle. There are valid reasons people might want to use one filter rather than another, or to set aside an assortment of filters in order to get a clearer view of some part of the world or their lives. There are also, as already noted, matters of personal choice. Some of us prefer sun and wind and depth and color to the play of shadows on the walls of the cave. That doesn’t mean that we’re going to drag those who don’t share that preference out into the blinding light, or that we’re going to turn ourselves into the Throg the Cave Man shadow that’s being waved around so enthusiastically on one corner of the cave wall. It does mean—or so the response to last week’s post suggests—that a significant number of people are losing interest in the shadow-play and clambering up the awkward but rewarding journey into the sunlight and the clean cool air, and it may just mean as well that those who try to bully them into staying put and staring at shadows may have less success than they expect. ****************** On an entirely personal note, I’m pleased to report that Founders House Publishing has just brought out a new edition of my first science fiction novel, The Fires of Shalsha. It’s closer to mainstream SF than anything else I’ve written—it’s even set on another planet—but fans of my subsequent novels, Star’s Reach and Twilight’s Last Gleaming, will find it an enjoyable read. Copies can be ordered here. Posted by John Michael Greer at 5:01 PM http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-shadows-in-cave.html

3 2

oldspeak
by juan 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism?s=t " noun : the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." Oops. That just happen to be a description of the way *all* governments operate.

3 2

France - sadly not a friend of principle or truth
by Zenaan Harkness 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

So France again demonstrates they are America's lapdogs: "[US president Obama and French president Hollande] criticised Russia for hitting moderate Syrian opposition forces, which they said only bolster President Bashar al-Assad’s government. Hollande would not provide a date for Assad’s transition from power but said it must be “as soon as possible.” " http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/24/russian-jet-downed-by-tur… Perhaps France would like to name, identify and locate the "moderate" terrorists/ "rebels" (as Putin has asked for on multiple occasions) and explain to the world how beheadings, and a machine gun shooting of a pilot parachuting for his life, somehow constitute "moderate" behaviour? France - sadly no friend of principle or truth these days. Again, almost all prominent politicians these days appear to be utterly compromised, -and- beholden to USA's interests - France no less than anyone else. Again I say, Russian president Putin is close to the only true statesmen on the world stage today. He has brought Russia back from the absolute brink of total collapse after Yeltsin and Gorbachev, and consistently matches his and Russia's actions with his words and vice versa - the very definition of integrity (for those who have yet to do so, I recommend reading his actual speeches from the last couple years). It is so sad to me that most of the Western world today is, evidently, so utterly compromised (whether by money, sex or blackmail I can only postulate, but this is a self evident fact based on the behaviour of said politicians directly against the interests of their nations and the people they supposedly represent - we can only put down to stupidity a small proportion of all such compromised behaviour). I am grateful that there is at least one leader of a major nation who is not so compromised - this today is Vladimir Putin; I can only hope that future Russian presidents sustain such a level of integrity and commitment to national interests and his/her own people, as he does. He is rightfully popular, and we ought be rightfully proud to have such an example in front of us. Too many things today brings tears to this advocate for sanity, Zenaan

2 1

DOSIR
by Michael Best 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

I'm looking for old copies of the Daily Open Source Infrastructure Reports, the copies I have only go back to late July. If anyone has previous editions and is willing to share, it can help reduce future FOIA requests. --Mike

3 2

Countdown to SHA-3 Collisions
by Michael Best 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

The SHA-3 standard was released by NIST in August of this year. I'm wondering if anyone has done the math on how long until we should no longer consider it pretty secure enough-ish. For comparison, here's the 2012 maths for SHA-1: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/when_will_we_se.html > On a NIST-sponsored hash function mailing list > <http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/email_list.html>, Jesse Walker (from > Intel; also a member of the Skein <http://www.schneier.com/skein.html>team) > did some back-of-the-envelope calculations to estimate how long it will be > before we see a practical collision attack against SHA-1. I'm reprinting > his analysis here, so it reaches a broader audience. > According to E-BASH <http://bench.cr.yp.to/ebash.html>, the cost of one > block of a SHA-1 operation on already deployed commodity microprocessors is > about 214 cycles. If Stevens' attack > <http://2012.sharcs.org/slides/stevens.pdf> of 260 SHA-1 operations > serves as the baseline, then finding a collision costs about 214 * 260 ~ 2 > 74cycles. > A core today provides about 231 cycles/sec; the state of the art is 8 = 23 cores > per processor for a total of 23 * 231 = 234 cycles/sec. A server > typically has 4 processors, increasing the total to 22 * 234 = 236 cycles/sec. > Since there are about 225 sec/year, this means one server delivers about 2 > 25 * 236 = 261 cycles per year, which we can call a "server year." > There is ample evidence that Moore's law will continue through the mid > 2020s. Hence the number of doublings in processor power we can expect > between now and 2021 is: > 3/1.5 = 2 times by 2015 (3 = 2015 - 2012) > 6/1.5 = 4 times by 2018 (6 = 2018 - 2012) > 9/1.5 = 6 times by 2021 (9 = 2021 - 2012) > So a commodity server year should be about: > 261 cycles/year in 2012 > 22 * 261 = 263 cycles/year by 2015 > 24 * 261 = 265 cycles/year by 2018 > 26 * 261 = 267 cycles/year by 2021 > Therefore, on commodity hardware, Stevens' attack should cost > approximately: > 274 / 261 = 213 server years in 2012 > 274 / 263 = 211 server years by 2015 > 274 / 265 = 29 server years by 2018 > 274 / 267 = 27 server years by 2021 > Today Amazon rents compute time on commodity servers for about $0.04 / > hour ~ $350 /year. Assume compute rental fees remain fixed while server > capacity keeps pace with Moore's law. Then, since log2(350) ~ 8.4 the > cost of the attack will be approximately: > 213 * 28.4 = 221.4 ~ $2.77M in 2012 > 211 * 28.4 = 219.4 ~ $700K by 2015 > 29 * 28.4 = 217.4 ~ $173K by 2018 > 27 * 28.4 = 215.4 ~ $43K by 2021 > A collision attack is therefore well within the range of what an organized > crime syndicate can practically budget by 2018, and a university research > project by 2021. > Since this argument only takes into account commodity hardware and not > instruction set improvements (e.g., ARM 8 specifies a SHA-1 instruction), > other commodity computing devices with even greater processing power (e.g., > GPUs), and custom hardware, the need to transition from SHA-1 for collision > resistance functions is probably more urgent than this back-of-the-envelope > analysis suggests. > Any increase in the number of cores per CPU, or the number of CPUs per > server, also affects these calculations. Also, any improvements in > cryptanalysis will further reduce the complexity of this attack. > The point is that we in the community need to start the migration away > from SHA-1 and to SHA-2/SHA-3 now.

3 2

FBI PSA: Hacktivists Threaten Law Enforcement
by Ryan Carboni 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

http://www.ic3.gov/media/2015/151118.aspx Law enforcement personnel and public officials may be at increased risk of being targeted by hacktivists. Hacking collectives are effective at leveraging open source, publicly available information identifying officers and public officials, their employers or associates, and their families. With this in mind, officers and public officials should be highly aware of their email account security and their online presence and exposure. For example, posting images wearing uniforms displaying name tags or listing their police department on social media sites can increase an officer's risk of being targeted or attacked. Many legitimate online posts are linked directly to personal social media accounts. Law enforcement personnel and public officials need to maintain an enhanced awareness of the content they post and how it may reflect on themselves, their family, and their employer, or how it could be used against them in court or during online attacks.

2 1