Mega-D Botnet Whammied

Ozdok, or the Mega-D Botnet, is estimated to have infected a quarter-million computers around the world and to have sent 1/3 of the world's spam - as many as 15,000 spam e-mails an hour! And last week, Mega-D Botnet suffered a serious blow.

Security company, FireEye, had been working with Mega-D Botnet-infected systems for two years. During this time, Atif Mushtaq learned much about the network and how it operates. The company published an analysis of the network on its blog, but noted it had numerous "fallback" measures in-place to ensure its operation went uninterrupted. Last week, Mushtaq used that information against it last week to shutdown several of Ozdok's servers and disable its security measures before they could be enacted.

A coordinated effort found several FireEye employees contacting ISPs and domain registrars, as well as registering domain names the botnet had hardcoded into its infrastructure to automatically generate. FireEye was successful: the spam stopped almost immediately, though the team reports there was a "trickle" which got through over the weekend. Thanks to FireEye's diligence and research, one security analyst estimated that Ozdok was sending out some 13 billion spam e-mails a day!

In fact, FireEye's Mega-D takedown was so successful that many bloggers are wondering why the larger security firms aren't doing more on this front...

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

The Dial-Up Issue

Tomorrow, technicians come to install the broadband services.  There are a few reasons it took so long for me to get back onto high-speed, but the main one is that I live so far-out in the middle of Nowhere.  It took a few weeks of calling around to find a provider I could afford, as well as one who services this area.  As it is, I'll be one of only two in the area on what is called their "extended network"-- which is code for, "Good luck with this!"

While the benefits to broadband are obvious, what I think you'll find interesting is how I've managed without them for all this time.  It's been nearly a year (a little over seven months, at the least) since I last had broadband, so I've been barely scraping-by for all that time.  It hasn't been easy, I haven't enjoyed it, but I have managed to make-do and I am not even sure how I did it myself, to be honest.  So, I'm going to do a little performance comparison and draw what I can from the whole experience.

The 98 box (which I'm using now and have been since July, when lightning disabled the Vista machine) will be hooked-up to the network, as well, so I'll be able to hop on here and access the same functions I've been using (albeit more quickly).  Before I change everything, I'm going to make a post or two, detailing my setup and comparing it to everything I'll be able to access on the Win7 machine on broadband.

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

The Indian Problem

You might have noticed The Cyberculturalist was offline for a few days several weeks back. Someone reported us as spam and Blogger suspended the account. I didn't request them to look into it, because we aren't spam and I figured it was always possible someone at Google might be paying attention (though I had my doubts). Luckily, someone was and the problem was rectified.

However, I was obviously disturbed and so went through the logs to see who could have possibly reported us as spam. All I found around the time of the incident were visits from India, including several from Google India. From all appearances, it seems as though someone in India, or from Google India itself, decided we were spam and had our account suspended.

I went through the site and tried to make sure everything was on the up-and-up and, to the best of my knowledge, it is. Of course, Google will not tell you what - if anything - you are doing wrong nor how to fix it (it's all "proprietary" - which makes absolutely no sense, but there it is), and the account was restored without notice, so I changed nothing. However, I also looked to see if there was something I might have said or done to offend anyone in India.

I don't know much about India, I freely admit. There are several reasons, but possibly the most important is that I don't give a shit about India. There it is. I don't live there, have no desire to travel there, and care nothing about the country, the people, nor anything else "Indian." Not in a bad way - I don't care about anything Afghanistanian or Puerto Rican or Zimbabwean, for example, and these are just the first three countries which sprung to mind; I'm just not interested in India as a country or society or political superpower or anything else, really. I DON'T LIVE THERE AND HAVE NO DESIRE TO VISIT, so why the hell would I be?

But I've always been vocal about the fact that I find it loathsome that Internet and computer companies, especially those based in America, choose to outsource so many of their jobs to India - especially call centers. It has nothing to do with the people actually doing the jobs, it has to do with the corporations who choose to outsource to foreign countries for cheaper labor, thereby overlooking qualified, American citizens who need jobs. Besides, how can you call yourself "America Online" when all of your call service techs are located in India?

Another possible problem is the URL, itself. See, India - Dubai, in particular - is a major Internet "capital," and www.cyberculturalist.com is a great URL. It is very, very possible that some start-up is trying desperately to wrestle the URL from me by devaluing it in the search engines, et.al. After we were taken offline under suspicion of "spam," almost all of the hits we've received to the general site (as opposed to any particular post[s]) have been from India. I don't find this coincidental. Further, several unpublished comments on the other blogs have been saved which say, "Hi again. And Bye." These also originated from India.

The truth is that I have no idea why someone(s) in India would want to cause me problems, though there certainly are reasons someone from India might be angry with me for something I've said or some position I hold. And, again, it's just as likely that this string of obviously related attacks are in no way "personal" - that it's simply some person(s) looking to get a highly-coveted URL for a pittance through trickery and deceit, or simply have it removed.

I don't know exactly what the problem is, but I do know this:

I once saw a movie where an Indian blew on and stroked a cow's genitals for upwards of five minutes straight. True story.

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

HMA Public Access, Nashville, TN

The Heritage Medical Association on State St. near 22^nd Ave in Nashville offers public broadband access. I are typing to you now.

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

WTF?

Sorry, guys. I had to try something:

I've noticed with the other blogs that if I abstain from posting for a few days, I actually get hits. Why this is, I haven't the faintest notion, but there it is. I have a lot of stuff going on and all, but there are like four stories I've sat on this week just to see if it would make a difference. It has.

Of course, wtf is the point in running a blog if you can't, you know, post anything on it? And, since I'll be away for a couple weeks right after the first of the year, I figure I can go ahead and post a couple things... still, it's pretty disheartening.

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

AOL/Time-Warner Now AOL......... Time-Warner

When this merger occurred, many experts scoffed; according to them, even then, Time-Warner (TW) was making a huge mistake, as AOL was expected to be left behind in the coming years. As dial-up faded from view, AOL was - but let's not discount their overly aggressive, thoroughly shady, customer service either! A number of factors led to AOL's demise, but as one expert said in a late-1990's Forbes issue, "AOL is the only company that can treat their customers like shit and still make money."

That was, until about 2006, when their customer service foibles were splashed across national news outlets.

Time-Warner couldn't wait to drop the AOLbatross around its neck, yet it took them several years to do so. As of today, AOL and Time-Warner are once again two, separate entities. AOL is back on the stock market, and even has the same little symbol it had before the merger (making it that much easier to avoid). Tomorrow, in fact, AOL's CEO will ring the opening bell at the stock market.

In 2002, AOL had over 25 million dial-up subscribers; today, it has just over 5 million.

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

Facebook Improves Privacy Options

Facebook's CEO recently posted an "open letter" on the site, detailing some of the changes users can look forward to, as the site has more than 350 million users now and changes are afoot. One of these changes concerns the privacy options and is currently being implemented.

Users will now be able to adjust the privacy settings per post, meaning you can decide on whom gets to see your individual posts. Status updates will remain open to the general, browsing public. However, users will now be forced to go through their privacy settings, which they have never had to deal with before if they didn't want to do so. Of course, this is where a lot of problems have arisen.

Users will now decide on the privacy settings for each piece of content they post, including pictures, et.al. The settings are the same as before: "Friends," "Friends of Friends," and "Everybody."

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

Disney-ABC Join Portable TV

Disney-ABC has joined the Qualcomm FLO TV roster, making FLO the only portable broadcasting service to offer programming from all four, major networks. The deal also includes the Disney Channel, bringing FLO TV's entire package to a total fo 17 channels.

FLO TV premiered in 2007 and is now available on many carriers from under $10/month. ESPN, also a part of the Disney-ABC family, was already in the package.

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

Online Responsibility - An Interesting Post-Script

So, you will not believe what happened maybe a whole business day after I posted my little missive about online responsibility (which was actually a response to a freaking episode of Dr. Phil!): A guy with whom I went to highschool, who is now the mayor of the small town in which I grew up, got his Facebook comments plastered all over the regional news!  No shit -- absolutely none.

I didn't do it; I wasn't even aware he'd posted anything until I heard about it online a few hours before it went nuclear (well, he's a Republican, so "newclar").  Still, I wouldn't have tipped anyone off as to anything he says on his profile because... well, for one thing, it never would have crossed my mind and, for another, given the thrust of what he said and the fact that he went to my highschool, I would have thought it him being humorous (or attempting to be -- again, public highschool).

Today brings us another fantastic slip of the thumbs from another "great leader," this one up to Massachusetts (where they paak their caas in the yaads).  Yea-h.

So, let me see if I can clear-up one thing really quickly:

You are not a "private citizen" if you are a politician.  You are a very public figure and there are probably entire leagues of people looking to fuck you up for any number of slights, real or imagined.  Technically speaking, you should already know that you have to watch what you say, with whom you speak, how you look, and basically every, single, other aspect of every waking moment of your life. 

Of course, as a Cyberculturalist -- ahem, THE motherfucking Cyberculturalist (read the URL) -- I also understand how easy it is to "forget" that others can read the things you say and that not everyone is actually your "friend" just because they are on your "Friends List."  And that nowhere near as many of these people have been online as long as I.

If you are a politician, or hoping to one day become one, or anything like that... don't post "nakies," don't post off-color jokes, don't be yourself -- basically do what you do all day long, anyway:

Fucking lie.

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

Surgery Lets You See in HD

Surgeons in the UK are perfecting a procedure which allows people to see in high-definition (HD). The procedure starts-off the same way it does for patients with cataracts. Once the lenses are in place, they can actually be fine-tuned using ultraviolet lights which affect the curvature of the lens, up to several days after the initial operation. Finally, a blast adheres the lenses and affixes them permanently.

According to experts, it restores vision to that of one's youth. Further, few people over 40 are able to appreciate HD TV because of macular degeneration and this surgery fixes that.

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

Online Responsibility

Dr. Phil had an episode today about litigation and the WWW was mentioned - Twitter, specifically. During the episode, both Dr. Phil and the lawyers warned viewers to watch what you say online, etc., and so on, and so forth.

This is an important point, of course, but the larger point is the law and the Web. Few active netizens want the federal law involved in the online world for all sorts of reasons, not least of which being the fact that any country could decide to pursue any law much further (and farther) than would eve be allowed IRL. Yet, the double-sided issue here is pretty clear-cut: we don't want to be left wide open to damages, and we don't want to be censored by fear of litigation.

Largely, it also works both ways:

Truth is a defense and regardless of what people tell you, things you say on a personal blog or personal profile are not "just like taking out a billboard in Times Square." That's fucking ridiculous! That's precisely tantamount to suggesting a sign you place in your yard is "a billboard in Times Square." However, the smaller truth is that both are public spaces, so unless access is somehow restricted to these areas, the public (at-large, meaning "passersby" and, legally speaking, potential "innocents") can stumble upon these items without necessarily meaning to do so. Obviously, this can cause a lot more than "hurt feelings"...

Except that it really can't.

"Words can hit hard as a fist" and all that aside, it's a general rule that only asshole will find something inflammatory which isn't. Take other people's feelings into consideration, certainly, but don't buy into the idea that you're broadcasting your innermost thoughts to the world when you Tweet something like, "So-and-so is a jerk!"

It is society's willingness to consider these things legally harmful which makes them so!

(That said, The Cyberculturalist is not a legal resource and cannot be held liable for legal advice. This is not legal advice, BTW; this is an opinion. Which should be made fact, and can be, if enough people decide to make it so.)

© C Harris Lynn, 2009

Protecting the Public Domain

Major Web companies oppose Britain's proposed Digital Copyright bill because of a provision which would allow lawmakers to change the copyright laws in the future. Some people, both online and off-, don't appreciate how artists and creators use works in the public domain and, as a creator who employs both free-license works and those in the public domain, I wanted to explain this a bit:

As a creator, I certainly believe we should be allowed to profit from our work. While others, particularly young creators, don't fully appreciate this, it's largely due to a lack of understanding. Being paid for your work does not necessarily invalidate the work - in fact, in other industries, being paid more for your work actually indicates you do it better than those who get paid less! Of course, it goes without saying that some artists will farm-out their work (hire "ringers" to "fill-in" for them), allow the quality of their product to slip, and so on - basically lose their integrity, or simply sell it.

The law of public domain basically says that a work is protected by copyright for 50-70 years from the creator's death. This allows his family, estate, et.al., to continue to reap the benefits of that work after his death. In a country which holds families responsible for dead peoples' debts, this can be important! But more importantly, all fathers and families want to provide for their friends and loved ones, and this allows them a chance to do so - consider how many artists/creators, and/or their works, become posthumously famous!

But there are all sorts of impediments which cause setbacks and can even kill projects. Material in the public domain can often alleviate these problems. For instance, many of the pictures on the site are from free-licensed works or works in the public domain. Creating similar works from scratch would take far longer than it does to modify free ones - when it is even possible! This is not necessarily an "easy way out." Actually, some of the works I modified for use took hours - even days! - and I specifically chose to go that route because something about those original works inspired the finished products.

Further, there are some images that are really more about the content than the execution: if I want to include the image of a castle in ruins, a drawing is less powerful - not to mention removing it from context - it also may not be that important. The picture of Eastgate (Chill) is neither completely representative of that section of Vincent nor modified; it was only included to suggest - to hopefully inspire the correct imagery in players' minds - and because of this, there was no need to waste much-needed resources on creating an original work to accomplish this. This is one of the best reasons for public domain!

We've all seen documentaries which include public domain film to illustrate something - such as the mindset of the time, or to simply show the subject. Probably the best, and most oft-used (to my mind and taste), is the use of scenes from Nosferatu whenever the subject of vampires, and especially films about vampires, is discussed. While the title vampire bears no resemblance to modern-day pop-fiction vampires, the imagery is striking and resonant, and communicates volumes about the subject without words. Literally showing a few frames of this film allows the narrator to conserve hundreds, even thousands, of words and move forward in the discussion - it saves time, it communicates effectively, and on this level, it makes for better work!

So while I am completely for rewarding the creator/artist for his work, I am also for protecting the public domain for these, and many other, reasons. Last, but far from least, many of these works would have already disappeared, were they not in the public domain!

© C Harris Lynn, 2009