The Internet of Things will host devastating, unstoppable botnets
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review to remind us all that while botnets have been around for a long time, the Internet of Things is supercharging them, thanks to insecurity by design.
Botnets are useful for denial of service attacks, but they're also an indispensable part of the spam ecosystem, clickfraud, extortion, and other bad news.
Cheap IoT gadgets are manufactured by absentee proprietors and large, respected companies who ignore urgent warnings about their defects (or punish people who complain by remote-bricking their gadgets), leading to nightmarish breaches.
Worse, IoT manufacturers use antiquated DRM laws to threaten security researchers who reveal the defects in their products with brutal lawsuits and even jail-time (and this will be a risk for any device controlled by a browser).
..... Once you know a botnet exists, you can attack its command-and-control system. When botnets were rare, this tactic was effective. As they get more common, this piecemeal defense will become less so. You can also secure yourself against the effects of botnets. For example, several companies sell defenses against denial-of-service attacks. Their effectiveness varies, depending on the severity of the attack and the type of service.
But overall, the trends favor the attacker. Expect more attacks like the one against Dyn in the coming year.
Botnets of Things [Bruce Schneier/MIT Technology Review]
Clickthru boingx2 (some other links on-page): http://boingboing.net/2017/04/12/forever-day-bugs-2.html
On 04/12/2017 05:49 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:35:24 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review
So are you parroting what the US gov't terrorist schneier says, or rightfully mocking the scumbag?
You have no fucking sense of humor. Even in turdworld the bright shiny one floats to the top of the bowl, and you ARE a dullard. Bottom of the bowl Rr
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:56:29 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:49 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:35:24 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review
So are you parroting what the US gov't terrorist schneier says, or rightfully mocking the scumbag?
You have no fucking sense of humor.
you are a psycho
On 04/12/2017 06:13 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:56:29 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:49 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:35:24 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review So are you parroting what the US gov't terrorist schneier says, or rightfully mocking the scumbag?
You have no fucking sense of humor.
you are a psycho
At least as far as NGAFFWYT. (not giving a flying fuck what you think)... yeah. Or in old skoool code: DILLIGAF Troll. Rr
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:56:29 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:49 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:35:24 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review
So are you parroting what the US gov't terrorist schneier says, or rightfully mocking the scumbag?
You have no fucking sense of humor.
by the way, looks like you don't have the balls to give a straight answer, so I'll assume you are parroting what your fellow joo criminal vomited
On 04/12/2017 06:14 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:56:29 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:49 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:35:24 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review So are you parroting what the US gov't terrorist schneier says, or rightfully mocking the scumbag?
You have no fucking sense of humor.
by the way, looks like you don't have the balls to give a straight answer, so I'll assume you are parroting what your fellow joo criminal vomited
By the way... It looks like you have no fucking sense of humor so the only thing I owe you is a ration of shit. troll. Rr
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:20:28 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/12/2017 06:14 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:56:29 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:49 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:35:24 -0700 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review So are you parroting what the US gov't terrorist schneier says, or rightfully mocking the scumbag?
You have no fucking sense of humor.
by the way, looks like you don't have the balls to give a straight answer, so I'll assume you are parroting what your fellow joo criminal vomited
By the way... It looks like you have no fucking sense of humor
I of course have a sense of humour. And obviously I don't find funny the same things that psychos like you find funny. But that doesn't really matter, since your post is just an example of a joo US gov't agent promoting another joo US gov't agent. So keep 'earning' your pay, shitbag.
I foresee a not-for-profit venture that seeks out any and all devices that aren't protected and seeks to permanently disable them. Perhaps called BrickerBot... Kurt On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review to remind us all that while botnets have been around for a long time, the Internet of Things is supercharging them, thanks to insecurity by design.
Botnets are useful for denial of service attacks, but they're also an indispensable part of the spam ecosystem, clickfraud, extortion, and other bad news.
Cheap IoT gadgets are manufactured by absentee proprietors and large, respected companies who ignore urgent warnings about their defects (or punish people who complain by remote-bricking their gadgets), leading to nightmarish breaches.
Worse, IoT manufacturers use antiquated DRM laws to threaten security researchers who reveal the defects in their products with brutal lawsuits and even jail-time (and this will be a risk for any device controlled by a browser).
..... Once you know a botnet exists, you can attack its command-and-control system. When botnets were rare, this tactic was effective. As they get more common, this piecemeal defense will become less so. You can also secure yourself against the effects of botnets. For example, several companies sell defenses against denial-of-service attacks. Their effectiveness varies, depending on the severity of the attack and the type of service.
But overall, the trends favor the attacker. Expect more attacks like the one against Dyn in the coming year.
Botnets of Things [Bruce Schneier/MIT Technology Review]
Clickthru boingx2 (some other links on-page): http://boingboing.net/2017/04/12/forever-day-bugs-2.html
I foresee a not-for-profit venture that seeks out any and all devices that aren't protected and seeks to permanently disable them.
Pointless when you can write the maker and get them to pay you in anon VC's to brick the gear of their competitor. While you arrange the same deal with said competitor. Profit x 2.
I foresee a not-for-profit venture that seeks out any and all devices that aren't protected and seeks to permanently disable them.
Would also break every tort, damaging, conspiracy to commit, and computer crime law on the books, and get itself shutdown, prosecuted, and sued for loss of and so on.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:20 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
I foresee a not-for-profit venture that seeks out any and all devices that aren't protected and seeks to permanently disable them.
Would also break every tort, damaging, conspiracy to commit, and computer crime law on the books, and get itself shutdown, prosecuted, and sued for loss of and so on.
Since when has that stopped those who believe they are the righteous?
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 23:46:10 -0700 Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:20 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
I foresee a not-for-profit venture that seeks out any and all devices that aren't protected and seeks to permanently disable them.
Would also break every tort, damaging, conspiracy to commit, and computer crime law on the books, and get itself shutdown, prosecuted, and sued for loss of and so on.
Since when has that stopped those who believe they are the righteous?
I'm not following. By "not-for-profit venture" you mean the cunts from the state?
On 04/12/2017 11:11 PM, grarpamp wrote:
I foresee a not-for-profit venture that seeks out any and all devices that aren't protected and seeks to permanently disable them. Pointless when you can write the maker and get them to pay you in anon VC's to brick the gear of their competitor. While you arrange the same deal with said competitor. Profit x 2.
Some makers don't respond. Notably and recently the people who made the dildo with the camera that 'went live'. People make these things, grab what bucks they can from them, and vanish. Rr
Who said anything about state authorization? On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:32 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Some makers don't respond.
Then brick their products till they pay or fix their gear. No need for any state authorized "nonprofit" doing the exact same thing.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
Who said anything about state authorization?
As everyone has said, the only way for your "not-for-profit venture" (registered corp or not) to break the law is for it to be a state authorized criminal itself. Otherwise it must operate anonymously, for which there is zero chance such anons will trend "not-for-profit" when there's clearly profit to be made.
On 04/13/2017 10:55 AM, grarpamp wrote:
Who said anything about state authorization? As everyone has said, the only way for your "not-for-profit venture" (registered corp or not) to break the law is for it to be a state authorized criminal itself. Otherwise it must operate anonymously, for which
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote: there is zero chance such anons will trend "not-for-profit" when there's clearly profit to be made.
If the device's creator in incommunicado that means avenues of legal redress are gone. If their device is defective... doesn't perform as advertised or violates the law (your right to privacy), you aren't 'breaking the law' by modifying the device because they've voided their own contract with the consumer. Fly-by-nights have no patent (copyright/etc) protection. SOMEONE has to own up to 'proprietorship', and if 'owning up' means they get sued by a million people, or go to prison, or get lynched, they are NOT going to claim any rights. Rr
the people who made the dildo with the camera that 'went live'. People make these things, grab what bucks they can from them, and vanish.
Would you say they... grabbed them by the pussy? Hmm... Corporate digital voyeurism / rape? CEO's whacking off in the boardroom, helpdesk sliming their keyboards? Cloud stored, swiss cheese privacy policy full of data sharing with their "service partners" and 2257 distro? Fake crypto?
On 04/12/2017 06:35 PM, Razer wrote:
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
| Abstract: Within the next few years, billions of IoT devices | will densely populate our cities. In this paper we describe a | new type of threat in which adjacent IoT devices will infect | each other with a worm that will spread explosively over large | areas in a kind of nuclear chain reaction, provided that the | density of compatible IoT devices exceeds a certain critical | mass. In particular, we developed and verified such an | infection using the popular Philips Hue smart lamps as a | platform. The worm spreads by jumping directly from one lamp | to its neighbors, using only their built-in ZigBee wireless | connectivity and their physical proximity. The attack can | start by plugging in a single infected bulb anywhere in the | city, and then catastrophically spread everywhere within | minutes, enabling the attacker to turn all the city lights | on or off, permanently brick them, or exploit them in a | massive DDOS attack. To demonstrate the risks involved, we | use results from percolation theory to estimate the critical | mass of installed devices for a typical city such as Paris | whose area is about 105 square kilometers: The chain reaction | will fizzle if there are fewer than about 15,000 randomly | located smart lights in the whole city, but will spread | everywhere when the number exceeds this critical mass | (which had almost certainly been surpassed already). https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1047
Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review to remind us all that while botnets have been around for a long time, the Internet of Things is supercharging them, thanks to insecurity by design.
Botnets are useful for denial of service attacks, but they're also an indispensable part of the spam ecosystem, clickfraud, extortion, and other bad news.
Cheap IoT gadgets are manufactured by absentee proprietors and large, respected companies who ignore urgent warnings about their defects (or punish people who complain by remote-bricking their gadgets), leading to nightmarish breaches.
Worse, IoT manufacturers use antiquated DRM laws to threaten security researchers who reveal the defects in their products with brutal lawsuits and even jail-time (and this will be a risk for any device controlled by a browser).
..... Once you know a botnet exists, you can attack its command-and-control system. When botnets were rare, this tactic was effective. As they get more common, this piecemeal defense will become less so. You can also secure yourself against the effects of botnets. For example, several companies sell defenses against denial-of-service attacks. Their effectiveness varies, depending on the severity of the attack and the type of service.
But overall, the trends favor the attacker. Expect more attacks like the one against Dyn in the coming year.
Botnets of Things [Bruce Schneier/MIT Technology Review]
Clickthru boingx2 (some other links on-page): http://boingboing.net/2017/04/12/forever-day-bugs-2.html
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 04:18:10 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/12/2017 06:35 PM, Razer wrote:
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
| Abstract: Within the next few years, billions of IoT devices | will densely populate our cities. In this paper we describe a | new type of threat in which adjacent IoT devices will infect | each other with a worm that will spread explosively over large | areas in a kind of nuclear chain reaction,
so mirimir posts the same kind of pentagon garbage that rayzer-schneier post. Just what one would expect from tor-bots
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 06:38 Subject: Re: The Internet of Things will host devastating, unstoppable botnets To: <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 04:18:10 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/12/2017 06:35 PM, Razer wrote:
Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!
| Abstract: Within the next few years, billions of IoT devices | will densely populate our cities. In this paper we describe a | new type of threat in which adjacent IoT devices will infect | each other with a worm that will spread explosively over large | areas in a kind of nuclear chain reaction,
so mirimir posts the same kind of pentagon garbage that rayzer-schneier post. Just what one would expect from tor-bots You're a broken record.
participants (6)
-
grarpamp -
J.R. Jones -
juan -
Kurt Buff -
Mirimir -
Razer