14.4 C
London
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Home Tags Frozen

Tag: Frozen

Turkey twizzlers, chicken drumsticks and fish fingers.

Bring back memories? These frozen dinner staples have long been used to get parents out of a squeeze at dinner time, but how many parents still resort to making these uninspired choices when it com...
Netflix and Disney are still having "active discussions."
How's the Earthrsquo;s ice system changing? Look to the active cryosphere.
The promised update block is now in effect.
Hot Logic Mini averages 4.8 out of 5 stars on Amazon from over 1,800 people (87% rate a full 5 stars: read recent reviews).  A cross between a lunch bag and an oven, this personal, portable cooker is great for the office, job site, the campsite, the car, or anywhere you have an outlet.

The Hot Logic Mini will prepare fresh-cooked hot meals, reheated meals or perfectly cooked prepackaged meals without overcooked edges or frozen centers. Whether you're cooking uncooked, frozen chicken breasts with fresh beans on top or reheating last night's pizza, HotLogic will cook it and hold its temperature until you're ready to eat.
Its typical list price of $39.95 has been reduced, for now, to $29.95.
See this deal now on Amazon.To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
Spidermind Games’ crowdfunding campaign back in business, closes Wednesday morning.
Despite early success, MD Anderson ignored IT, broke protocols, spent millions.
35 Russian intelligence operatives ejected from the US, and two of the "Cyber Most Wanted" are frozen out by Treasury Department. UPDATED 4:00 PM E.T.

THURSDAY -- The US, today, formally ejected 35 Russian intelligence operatives from the United States and imposed sanctions on nine entities and individuals: Russia's two leading intelligence services (the G.R.U. and the F.S.B.), four individual GRU officers, and three other organizations.

The actions are the Obama administration's response to a Russian hacking and disinformation campaign used to interfere in the American election process. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security also released new declassified technical information on Russian civilian and military intelligence service cyber activity, in an effort to help network defenders protect against these threats. Further, the State Department is shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes. Plus, the US Department of Treasury sanctioned two members of the FBI's Cyber Most Wanted List, Evgeniy Mikhailovich Bogachev and Aleksey Alekseyevich Belan.
Infosec pros will recognize Bogachev especially as the alleged head of the GameOver Zeus botnet.

A $3 million reward for info leading to his arrest has been available for some time. Treasury sanctioned Bogachev and Belan "for their activities related to the significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for private financial gain.

As a result of today’s action, any property or interests in property of [Bogachev and Belan] within U.S. jurisdiction must be blocked and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them." This is the first time sanctions are being issued under an Executive Order first signed by President Obama in April 2015, and expanded today.

The original executive Order, gives the president authorization to impose some sort of retribution or response to cyberattacks and also allows the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, to institute sanctions against entities behind cybercrime, cyber espionage, and other damaging cyberattacks.

That includes freezing the assets of attackers. The sanctions announced today are not expected to be the Obama administration's complete response to the Russian operations.
In a statement, the president said "These actions are not the sum total of our response to Russia’s aggressive activities. We will continue to take a variety of actions at a time and place of our choosing, some of which will not be publicized." The moves will put pressure on president-elect Donald Trump to either support or attempt to lift the sanctions on Russian officials and entities.

Trump has expressed skepticism at the validity of American intelligence agencies' assertions that such a campaign occurred at all. When asked by reporters Wednesday night about the fact that these sanctions were set to be announced, Trump said, “I think we ought to get on with our lives.
I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly.

The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on.  The NY Times reported today that immediate sanctions are being imposed on four Russian intelligence officials: Igor Valentinovich Korobov, the current chief of the G.R.U., as well as three deputies: Sergey Aleksandrovich Gizunov, the deputy chief of the G.R.U.; Igor Olegovich Kostyukov, a first deputy chief, and Vladimir Stepanovich Alekseyev, also a first deputy chief of the G.R.U. From the Times: The administration also put sanctions on three companies and organizations that it said supported the hacking operations: the Special Technologies Center, a signals intelligence operation in St. Petersburg; a firm called Zor Security that is also known as Esage Lab; and the Autonomous Non-commercial Organization Professional Association of Designers of Data Processing Systems, whose lengthy name, American officials said, was cover for a group that provided special training for the hacking. Wednesday, The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' official representative, Maria Zakharova, said in a statement on the ministry's website: "If Washington really does take new hostile steps, they will be answered ... any action against Russian diplomatic missions in the US will immediately bounce back on US diplomats in Russia." 'Proportional' response The news comes after President Obama stated in October that the US would issue a "proportional" response to Russian cyber attacks on the Democratic National Committee.  The administration has used the word "proportional" when discussing cyber attacks before.
In December 2014, while officially naming North Korea as the culprit behind the attacks at Sony Pictures Entertainment, President Obama said the US would "respond proportionately." That attack was against one entertainment company, however, and not a nation's election system, so the proportions are surely different. "We have never been here before," said security expert Cris Thomas, aka Space Rogue, in a Dark Reading interview in October. "No one really knows what is socially acceptable and what is not when it comes to cyber. We have no 'Geneva Convention' for cyber."  According to Reuters reports, "One decision that has been made, [officials] said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is to avoid any moves that exceed the Russian election hacking and risk an escalating cyber conflict." As Christopher Porter, manager of the Horizons team at FireEye explained in a Dark Reading interview in October, Russian doctrine supports escalation as a way to de-escalate tensions or conflict. "If the US administration puts in place a proportional response, Moscow could do something even worse to stop a future response … I think that is very dangerous." "The administration, fellow lawmakers and general public must understand the potentially catastrophic consequences of a digital cyber conflict escalating into a kinetic, conventional shooting-war," said Intel Security CTO Steve Grobman, in a statement. "While offensive cyber operations can be highly precise munitions, in that they can be directed to only impact specific targets, the global and interconnected nature of computing systems can lead to unintended consequences.
Impacting digital infrastructure beyond the intended target opens the door to draw additional nation states into a conflict.

This increases risk to civilian populations as countries see the need to retaliate or escalate." ORIGINAL STORY: Officials stated Wednesday that the White House will announce, as early as today, a series of measures the US will use to respond to Russian interference in the American election process.

The news comes after President Obama stated in October that the US would issue a "proportional" response to Russian cyber attacks on the Democratic National Committee.  Not all the measures will be announced publicly.

According to CNN, "The federal government plans some unannounced actions taken through covert means at a time of its choosing." Wednesday, CNN reported that as part of the public response, the administration is expected to name names -- specifically, individuals associated with a Russian disinformation operation against the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The actions announced are expected to include expanded sanctions and diplomatic actions. Reuters reported Wednesday that "targeted economic sanctions, indictments, leaking information to embarrass Russian officials or oligarchs, and restrictions on Russian diplomats in the United States are among steps that have been discussed." In April 2015, President Obama signed an Executive Order, which gives the president authorization to impose some sort of retribution or response to cyberattacks.

The EO has not yet been used.
It allows the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, to institute sanctions against entities behind cybercrime, cyber espionage, and other damaging cyberattacks.

That includes freezing the assets of attackers. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' official representative, Maria Zakharova, said in a statement on the ministry's website: "If Washington really does take new hostile steps, they will be answered ... any action against Russian diplomatic missions in the US will immediately bounce back on US diplomats in Russia." 'Proportional' response The administration has used the word "proportional" when discussing cyber attacks before.
In December 2014, while officially naming North Korea as the culprit behind the attacks at Sony Pictures Entertainment, President Obama said the US would "respond proportionately." That attack was against one entertainment company, however, and not a nation's election system, so the proportions are surely different. "We have never been here before," said security expert Cris Thomas, aka Space Rogue, in a Dark Reading interview in October. "No one really knows what is socially acceptable and what is not when it comes to cyber. We have no 'Geneva Convention' for cyber."  According to Reuters reports, "One decision that has been made, [officials] said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is to avoid any moves that exceed the Russian election hacking and risk an escalating cyber conflict." As Christopher Porter, manager of the Horizons team at FireEye explained in a Dark Reading interview in October, Russian doctrine supports escalation as a way to de-escalate tensions or conflict. "If the US administration puts in place a proportional response, Moscow could do something even worse to stop a future response … I think that is very dangerous." "The administration, fellow lawmakers and general public must understand the potentially catastrophic consequences of a digital cyber conflict escalating into a kinetic, conventional shooting-war," said Intel Security CTO Steve Grobman, in a statement. "While offensive cyber operations can be highly precise munitions, in that they can be directed to only impact specific targets, the global and interconnected nature of computing systems can lead to unintended consequences.
Impacting digital infrastructure beyond the intended target opens the door to draw additional nation states into a conflict.

This increases risk to civilian populations as countries see the need to retaliate or escalate." Related Content:   Sara Peters is Senior Editor at Dark Reading and formerly the editor-in-chief of Enterprise Efficiency. Prior that she was senior editor for the Computer Security Institute, writing and speaking about virtualization, identity management, cybersecurity law, and a myriad ...
View Full Bio More Insights
EnlargeDawn Endico reader comments 64 Share this story Police in Mountain View, California, told Ars on Tuesday that they are set to formally present the results of their months-long investigation of an online nude photo exchange of high school girls. The presentation will go to county prosecutors before the end of the year. “No arrests or charges filed yet in this case,” Katie Nelson, a spokeswoman for the Mountain View Police Department, told Ars by e-mail. “We are presenting the case to the [district attorney] by year's end, and they will ultimately decide what direction this goes.” As has happened in similar cases in other parts of the country for years now, ringleaders could be prosecuted with child pornography, among other felony charges. Over the weekend, the San Francisco Chronicle broke the story of the investigation. The newspaper reported that the investigation involves a “handful of individuals,” both male and female minors, who are believed to be at the “center of the investigation.” There were photos of at least two girls on a private Dropbox account that was circulated among some students at that school and others as well. The Dropbox account was immediately frozen by police, and no one has since been able to view, access, share, download, or upload anything. The San Jose Mercury News reported Tuesday that the existence of the photos was a “relatively open secret among students” for months. It wasn’t until Monday that the Mountain View Los Altos school district formally acknowledged the investigation to families. In a joint letter by the district and the police, the agencies wrote: MVLA first learned of this incident in August and immediately referred the matter to the Mountain View Police Department. The police department, which has been meticulously investigating this case over the past few months, immediately disabled the Dropbox account when they began their investigation to prevent any further access. Additionally, Mountain View detectives instructed MVLA administrators to maintain confidentiality in order to ensure that no evidence was compromised. More than a year ago, a high school in nearby San Jose was hit with a similar scandal when a student was found to have been distributing nude photos of students via Instagram. As Ars reported previously, a 2014 Drexel University survey found that while the majority of teens sext with each other, an even higher percentage was unaware that engaging in such behavior could be prosecuted as child pornography. The National Conference of State Legislatures began tracking sexting legislation in 2009 and reported that at least 20 states and Guam have enacted bills to address youth sexting.
IETF Security director Stephen Farrell offers a report card on evolving defences FEATURE After three years of work on making the Internet more secure, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) still faces bottlenecks: ordinary peoples' perception of risk, sysadmins worried about how to manage encrypted networks, and – more even than state snooping – an advertising-heavy 'net business model that relies on collecting as much information as possible. In a wide-ranging 45-minute, 4,000-word interview (full transcript in this PDF), IETF Security Area Director Stephen Farrell gave a report card of what's happened since the Internet Architecture Board declared that “pervasive monitoring is an attack”, in RFC 7258. Much of the discussion used Farrell's presentation to the NORDUnet conference in September, and the slides are here. Let's boil the ocean, so we can cook an elephant.

And eat it. Given the sheer scale of the effort involved – the IETF's list of RFCs passed the 8,000 mark in November – nobody expected the world to get a private Internet quickly, but Farrell told The Register some of the key in-IETF efforts have progressed well: its UTA (Using TLS in Applications), DPRIVE (DNS Privacy), and TCPINC (TCP INCreased security, which among other things is working to revive the tcpcrypt proposal rejected earlier in the decade). UTA: The idea is to get rid of the nasty surprises that happen when someone realises a standard (and therefore code written to that standard) still references a “laggard” protocol – so, for example, nobody gets burned complying with a standard that happens to reference a deprecated SSL or TLS standard. “The UTA working group produced RFC 7525 (Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS), https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7525 here).

The last time I looked, there were something like 50 RFCs that are referencing that [The Register checked this list, provided by Farrell – it seems to be close to 70 already].” The idea of UTA is that a protocol written 10 or 15 years ago should be updated so it no longer references the then-current version of TLS, he said. “That's being used in order to provide a common reference: as people update their implementations, they'll reference a more modern version of TLS, currently TLS 1.2, and as TLS 1.3 is finished, we have an automated-ish way of getting those updates percolating through to the documentation sets. “That's quite successful, I think, because it normalises and updates and modernises a bunch of recommendations.” DNSPRIV: Readers will recall that IETF 97 was the venue for the launch of Stubby, a demonstrator for securing DNS queries from the user to their DNS responder. Stubby, a demonstrator of DNS privacy work That, Farrell said, is a good example of where DNSPRIV is at – on the user side, it's ready for experimental code to go into service. “DNS privacy is something that is ready to experiment with.

The current work in DPRIVE was how to [secure] the hop between and the next DNS provider you talk to. “That's an easy problem to tackle – you talk to that DNS resolver a lot, and you have some shared space, so the overhead of doing the crypto stuff is nowhere.” Getting upstream to where DNS queries become recursive – your ISP can't answer, so they pass the query upwards – is much harder, he said. “Assuming that [the ISP] needs to find “where is theregister.co.uk?”, he'll eventually talk to the UK ccTLD, and then he'll go talk to .co.uk and then he'll go talk to theregister.co.uk – it's forking the communications a lot more, and it's a little harder to see how to efficiently amortise the crypto. “The DPRIVE working group are now examining whether they think they can produce some technology that will work for that part of the problem.” TCPINC: Some of the questions in this working group may never be seen by ordinary Internet users, but they're still important, Farrell said. “I think we're close to having some TCP-crypt-based RFCs issued, there's been code for that all along. Whether or not we'll get much deployment of that, we'll see.” “I think there are a bunch of applications that maybe wouldn't be visible to the general public. Let's say you have an application server that has to run over a socket – an application that runs on top of the Linux kernel, say, where you have to use the kernel because of the interfaces involved, and you can't provide the security above the kernel because you need it inside. “That's where TCPINC fits in.
Storage – they have really complex interfaces between the network-available storage server and the kernel, and there's lots of complex distributed processing going on.” That's important to “the likes of NetApp and EMC and so on”, he said: “For some of those folks, being able to slot in security inside the kernel, with TCPINC, is attractive.
Some, I might expect, will adopt that sort of thing – but it may never be seen on the public Internet.” Security and the end-to-end model Farrell said more encryption is changing the Internet in ways the general public probably doesn't think about – but which they'll appreciate. The old end-to-end model – the “neutral Internet” – has been under both overt and covert attack for years: carriers want to be more than passive bit-pipes, so they look for ways that traffic management can become a revenue stream; while advertisers want access to traffic in transit so they can capture information and inject advertisements. Ubiquitous encryption changes both of these models, by re-empowering the endpoints.

Along the way, perhaps surprisingly, Farrell sees this as something that can make innovation on the Internet more democratic. He cited HTML2 and QUIC as important non-IETF examples: “there's a whole bunch of people motivated to use TLS almost ubiquitously, not only because they care about privacy, but because of performance: it moves the point of control back towards the endpoint, not the middle of the network. “One of the interesting and fun things of trying to improve the security properties and privacy properties of the network is that it changes who controls what. “If you encrypt a session, nobody in the middle can do something like inject advertising. “It reasserts the end-to-end argument in a pretty strong way.
If you do the crypto right, then the middlebox can't jump in and modify things – at least not without being detectable.” He argues that the carrier's / network operators' “middleboxes” became an innovation roadblock. “The real downside of having middleboxes doing things is that they kind of freeze what you're doing, and prevent you innovating. “One of the reasons people did HTTP2 implementations, that only ever talk ciphertext, is because they found a lot of middleboxes would break the connection if they saw anything that wasn't HTTP 1.1. “In other words, the cleartext had the effect that the middleboxes, that were frozen in time, would prevent the edges from innovating. Once they encrypted the HTTP2 traffic, the middleboxes were willing to say 'it's TLS so I won't go near it', and the innovation can kick off again at the edges.” Won't somebody think of the sysadmin? Systems administrators – in enterprises as well as in carriers – are less in love with crypto. “Network management people have been used to managing cleartext networks,” he said. For more than 20 years, for perfectly legitimate reasons – and without betraying their users – sysadmins would look into packets, see what they contained, and when sensible do something about them. “Not for nefarious reasons – in order to detect attacks, in order to optimise traffic, and so on. We're changing that, and that also means the technology they're using will be undergoing change, to deal with much more ciphertext than plaintext. “We need to learn better ways of how to fulfil those same functions on the network,” he said. “If you had some security mechanism in your network for detecting some malware attack traffic, instead of being able to operate that from the middle of the network, it pushes a requirement on you to move that to the edge.” Commercial services are starting to understand how this can work, he said: “If you look at some of the commercial instant messaging providers, that have introduced end-to-end encryption of their messaging – they have found they can move those functions in their networks to new places to do what they need to do. “It means change, but it doesn't make network management impossible.” Advertising models will change Companies collaborating to collect advertising data remains a big challenge, he said.

That's likely to change – “there's no reason why a particular business model has to last forever”, but in the meantime, “it's hard to see how we make a dramatic improvement in privacy. “We can make some improvements, but how we make it dramatically better – it's hard.

The incentives are aligned to make all the service providers want to be privacy-unfriendly, from the point of “me”, but not perhaps the point of view of 99 per cent of people who use the Internet, and seem happy enough with it.” Breaches and leaks are frightening the service providers, which helps, because providers “realise that storing everything, forever, is toxic, and in the end they'll get caught by it.” About the cough NSA coughThe Register also asked: what protects future standards against security organisations polluting standards, as they did with DUAL-EC? “As an open organisation, we need to be open to technical contributions from anywhere,” Farrell said, “be that an employee of the NSA, or be that – as we've had in one case – a teenager from the Ukraine who was commenting on RFCs five or six years ago.” It has to be handled socially, rather than by process, he argued, citing the IETF's creation of the Crypto Forum Research Group, chaired by Alexey Melnikov and Kenny Paterson and designed to bring together IETF standards authors and the academic crypto community. He described it as a “lightweight process” designed to assess crypto proposals – have they been reviewed? Is the proposal novel and maybe not ready for prime time? “The number of NSA employees that attend IETF [meetings] – I don't think it's a useful metric at all.
I think how well peoples' contributions are examined is a much more useful metric, and there, things like having the CFRG, having academic cryptographers interacting much more with the standards community – those are more effective ways of doing that. “We've set up a thing called the Advanced Networking Research Prize, which is a prize for already-published academic work.
It pays for the academic come to an IETF meeting, give us a talk, get them involved” (Paterson first became involved in the CRFG as an invited academic who won the prize). Spooks want to monitor everyone because they believe everyone might be guilty, he added, and that's a mistake. “We should not think people are guilty by association.

That's a fallacy – if you believe that NSA employees are not allowed to contribute, you're making the same mistake they're making.” ®
Tesco Bank, a U.K. retail bank, today put a halt to online transactions from current accounts after some customers reported over the weekend money missing from their accounts. The bank, which has more than seven million customers, told the BBC that 40,000 accounts were accessed and half of which reported missing money. “While online transactions will not be available, current account customers will still be able to use their cards for cash withdrawals, chip and pin payments, and all existing bill payments and direct debits will continue as normal,” chief executive Benny Higgins said in a statement this morning. “We are working hard to resume normal service on current accounts as soon as possible.” Higgins said that law enforcement and regulators are investigating; no further details on the attack were released, though Higgins told the BBC he knew what the attack was. “We can reassure customers that any financial loss as a result of this activity will be resolved fully by Tesco Bank, and we are working to refund accounts that have been subject to fraud as soon as possible,” Higgins said. Tesco Bank is co-owned by U.K.’s largest supermarket and the Royal Bank of Scotland. “We apologise for the worry and inconvenience that this has caused for customers, and can only stress that we are taking every step to protect our customers’ accounts,” Higgins said. Customers, meanwhile, complained loudly on social media about the bank’s responsiveness to the situation. @tescobankhelp why is money still being taken out of my account fraudulently ?? My supposedly FROZEN bank account that I can't access???? — Kirsty Brown (@kirstyktweet) November 6, 2016 This getting more and more farcical.
Still no money still no way for my kids to eat in school tomorrow Tesco are beyond a joke — SamAllenAVFC (@samallen72) November 7, 2016