I got e-mail the other day from Turbotax saying someone had filed my taxes for me. Obviously a cause for concern, right? Here’s how I determined the message was fake in about three minutes.
Some people will tell you not to even open a message like this, but if you’re a computer professional, at some point someone is going to want you to prove the message was fake. I think this is something every e-mail administrator, desktop support professional, security professional, and frankly, every helpdesk professional ought to be able to do.
So here’s how you can get the proof. And generally speaking, Outlook 2010’s default configuration is paranoid enough that this procedure will be safe to do. If you want an extra layer of protection, make sure you have EMET installed and protecting Outlook.
According to David Pogue, since hacking a car is “nearly impossible,” we shouldn’t talk about it anymore.
That, my friends, is precisely what’s wrong with security and security awareness today. Flying to the moon is nearly impossible, after all, and you could easily kill yourself trying. David Pogue has never done it. But Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did.
A former journalist whose track record includes being fired from the Tribune Co. and from Reuters is facing two decades in prison for giving the hacking group Anonymous credentials to log into a Tribune web site and change stuff.
Anonymous changed one headline, and it took about 40 minutes for someone at Tribune Co. to notice and change it back.
It reminds me of something that happened at the newspaper where I used to work.
I found this collection of hacking e-zines a while back. Some are new, some are old. Some are series and some were one-offs. If you’re interested in the early days of hacking, or the undercurrents of today, it’s not a bad place to peruse.
The question of why people hack is a common one, but increasingly, it’s to fuel a vast, immensely profitable underground economy. Google researchers suggest the best way to slow or stop it is to undermine that economy, rather than the conventional methods which try to make hacking harder.
I’ve talked before about the infamous Jeep hack, but there’s more to learn from it than just that cars are vulnerable. The way Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek hacked the Jeep has implications for any computer network.
St. Louis-based security researcher Charlie Miller and his collaborator Chris Valasek got themselves in the news this week by hacking a Jeep driven by Wired journalist Andy Greenberg on I-64.
The reaction was mixed, but one common theme was, why I-64, where lives could have been at risk, rather than an abandoned parking lot?
I don’t know Miller or Valasek, so it goes without saying I don’t speak for either one of them, but I think I have a pretty good idea why they did it that way.
Adobe has patched Flash twice in two weeks now. The reason for this was due to Hacking Team, an Italian company that sells hacking tools to government agencies, getting hacked. Hacking Team, it turns out, knew of at least three unpatched vulnerabilities (also known as “zero-days” or “0days”) in Flash, and exploits for these vulnerabilities were among the things that got breached.
That’s why Adobe is having a bad month.
One of my college buddies (Hi Christian!) shared my previous post on Facebook, pointing out that I’m a long-suffering Royals fan in Cardinals country, and adding that what I said was balanced and dispassionate.
I’m normally anything but dispassionate. But in this case, it’s not a baseball matter–it’s a business matter, and neither my employer nor any past employer is involved, so it’s easy to be detached and dispassionate. I guess you can say my take on hacking has changed. I was going to say “evolved,” but “changed” is more dispassionate.
So, about a year ago, the Houston Astros announced their internal player database had been breached. This week, more details emerged, pointing right at the St. Louis Cardinals.
It wasn’t a terribly sophisticated attack. You knew I’d write about this, but I’ll explore it from an IT security perspective more than from a baseball perspective.