US army computers 'shut down by hacker'
Virus Guy
wish they could just walk away from their military obligations.]
----------------------------
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/28/nhack28.xml
US army computers 'shut down by hacker'
By Catriona Davies
(Filed: 28/07/2005)
A Briton facing extradition to America for perpetrating "the biggest
computer hack of all time" left a message criticising American foreign
policy on an army computer, a court heard yesterday.
Gary McKinnon, 39, is accused of accessing 97 US government computers,
causing damage estimated at $700,000 (£370,000).
An extradition hearing at Bow Street magistrates' court was told that
McKinnon, of Wood Green, north London, deleted files that shut down
more than 2,000 computers in the US army's military district of
Washington for 24 hours "significantly disrupting governmental
function".
It was claimed he left a note on an army computer in 2002 saying US
foreign policy was "akin to government-sponsored terrorism". The note
allegedly said: "It was not a mistake that there was a huge security
stand down on September 11 last year. I am Solo. I will continue to
disrupt at the highest levels."
[was there a security stand down on 9/11?]
McKinnon is accused of 20 counts relating to the American army, navy
and air force, Nasa and the Department of Defence.
One allegation is that he deleted files and logs from computers at the
US Naval Weapons Station Earle at a critical time after the Twin
Towers attacks, rendering the base's network of 300 computers
inoperable.
[quewl. So I guess the GI's couldn't pass around their Abu Graib
nudie pictures.]
Mark Summers, for the American government, said: "The defendant was
acting from his own computer in London. He effectively owned those
computers by virtue of the software he had transmitted.
[and by virtue of the operating systems on those computers]
His conduct was intentional and calculated to influence and affect the
US government by intimidation and coercion."
[Well someone's got to do it. I guess the intimidation and coercion
that the US gov't does is ok though.]
It is also alleged that McKinnon obtained secret passwords or
information which might become "indirectly useful to an enemy", and
interfered with maritime navigation facilities in New Jersey.
When McKinnon was indicted, Paul McNulty, the US attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, said: "Mr McKinnon is charged with the
biggest computer hack of all time."
[nope - the biggest computer hack of all time is running Macro$oft].
The hearing was adjourned until Oct 18.
[Why don't they put Gates on the stand? He's just as guilty.]
Art
>[This guy should have erased enlistment records. I bet lots of people
>wish they could just walk away from their military obligations.]
>http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/28/nhack28.xml
So you recommend Win 98 as the ultimate malware solution and you cheer
criminal activities at the felony level. You are hereby nominated for
the acv kook-of-the-month award! Whatta retard.
Art
David H. Lipman
ACERT and ANOSC were on top of this from the beginning. I don't know about the other
services or Gov. orgs.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Max Wachtel
news:jv1ie1hh0eblnsddp...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:27:36 -0400, Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>snip- rest of dribble
>
> So you recommend Win 98 as the ultimate malware solution and you
> cheer criminal activities at the felony level. You are hereby
> nominated for the acv kook-of-the-month award! Whatta retard.
>
> Art
>
> http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
motion is passed-plonk
-max
--
"VISTA" is an acronym for the top five Windows problems: Viruses,
Infections, Spyware, Trojans and Adware. -PanHandler
Virus Removal Instructions: http://home.neo.rr.com/manna4u/
Change nomail.afraid.org to yahoo.com to reply.
Registered Linux User #393236
Ant
> http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/28/nhack28.xml
> US army computers 'shut down by hacker'
[snip]
> An extradition hearing at Bow Street magistrates' court was told that
> McKinnon, of Wood Green, north London, deleted files that shut down
> more than 2,000 computers in the US army's military district of
> Washington for 24 hours "significantly disrupting governmental
> function".
[snip]
> It is also alleged that McKinnon obtained secret passwords or
> information which might become "indirectly useful to an enemy", and
> interfered with maritime navigation facilities in New Jersey.
If US military networks are so vulnerable that they can be
compromised by a lone cracker, then it boggles the mind to think
what information may already have been obtained, or what havoc
could be caused, by the efforts of foreign government intelligence
organizations. I don't suppose we would hear about that.
David H. Lipman
| Maybe the NSA should investigate the vulnerabilities.
It's not in their mission statement.
David H. Lipman
| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
|
>|> Maybe the NSA should investigate the vulnerabilities.
>>
>> It's not in their mission statement.
|
| Wasn't NSA also responsible for network security a few years ago?
| Robert Morris Sr. worked for that part of the NSA back in the late 80s,
| around the time when his son created the first ever network worm...
|
| Juergen Nieveler
| --
| We now return to our regularly scheduled flame-throwing.
Not that I am aware of. The NSA surveils networks and communications and "other" agencies
are chartered to provide network security. In the case of the DoD and Services, they have
their own offices to do this. In the case of the Army it is ACERT in conjunction with the
JTF-GNO (DoD CERT) with the ANOSC at Fort Huachuca and TNOSC. The other services have
parallel organizations. NASA is another story and I don't know their structure.
simpleforestturd
One would hope that the vulnerable computers are honeytraps and the
information taken was misinformation.
However, the history of military blunders and disasters is just as
rich as the history of spycraft.
Virus Guy
> One would hope that the vulnerable computers ...
One would hope that the next hacker could materially affect the
operations of the US military to such an extent that would cause them
to abort their illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq and turn their
power on their corrupt masters (the politicians) that directed them
into Iraq, where their ill conceived plan on gaining control of Iraqi
oil has failed miserably and has led to countless thousands of
civillian iraqi deaths and now we are on the verge of YET another
islamic fundamentalist state being formed in Iraq vs what it was
becoming (a secular state) under Saddam Hussein.
I hope you're enjoying your $3 gasoline because if you hadn't invaded
Iraq then Iraq would be (by now) pumping their crude oil into world
markets and oil would still be $25/barrel and you'd still have $1
gasoline. Istead you're all paying a tax of almost $3000 per
household in the USA because oil costs ->$42 MORE<- per barrel than it
did on 9-11, and because the USA uses 21 million barrels of oil PER
DAY (for transportation, for manufacturing, plastics, fertilizer, etc)
that works out to an extra expense of $3000 per household per year for
all 112 million households in the USA.
Cheney and Bush and their Haliburton friends and their oil company
pals are laughing all the way to their private vacation homes, their
yachts, stashing money in their off-shore trusts. They treat you like
the uneducated peasants and peons that you are, the cannon fodder that
is dying in Iraq as they play Stratego.
Janus
In article <4303E6ED...@Guy.com>, Vi...@Guy.com says...
Bill
Goodbye ignorant ass.
*plonk*
Hank Sniadoch
"Virus Guy" <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in message
news:4303E6ED...@Guy.com...
Virus Guy
> Goodbye ignorant ass.
Stick to football Bill. If you feel so strongly about this topic why
don't you get on the next troop transport to Iraq and do your duty?
Get your ass over there and fight for your god damn country Bill.
Next time you're at a Dallas Cowboys game say high to that dickhead
Bush - the guy that's too stupid to be president. They even have a
web site for him: http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/
GEO
<http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1992/09/bushboys.html>
Geo
Virus Guy
> ... plonk !
Looks like quite a few of you Republican Bush supporters have
constipation - you're plonking all over the place.
Hank in particular:
-------------
Newsgroups: wny.rochester.freenet
From: "Hank Sniadoch" <snia...@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:35:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Gas prices....
So you guys are a bunch of kids looking to stur up some trouble ...
might as well plonk you .... good bye ....
From: Dick Margulis
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:42:07 -0400
Local: Mon, Aug 15 2005 9:42 pm
Subject: Re: Gas prices....
Let's see. Hank replied to his own post, which was a reply to his
own post, saying he's going to plonk "you" (presumably the plural
meaning of the word as he equated it with "a bunch of kids"). So
I guess that means Hank is going to plonk himself, because the last
two witty remarks in the thread were his, right? It's a shame that
he'll never see any of his own posts again. Next thing you know
he'll be writing angry posts about why his posts never show up.
-------------
What's the matter Hank? A little dimentia setting in in your old
age? Too old to be fighting in Iraq? I see that you are concerned
about gas prices. That's very unpatriotic of you Bill.
Gabriele Neukam
> Yes, but, Virus Guy, tell us how you *really* feel....
Enraged, probably. I can understand his anger, yet I don't think he put
it into proper words.
Our oil resources are at least by 40% coming from Siberia, IIRC, yet
the gas price is rising as fast as in the US (currently reaching 1.31
EUR for the litre, that is nearly five bucks per gallon), as the stock
exchange trade rates are imitating those in the US.
We didn't even join this war, and still are punished the same way. The
only guy who is gaining from the deal, is Vladimir Putin, who snatched
Yukos Oil from Chodorkowsky just in time.
Gabriele Neukam
--
Ah, Information. A property, too valuable these days, to give it away,
just so, at no cost.
David H. Lipman
|
| Enraged, probably. I can understand his anger, yet I don't think he put
| it into proper words.
|
| Our oil resources are at least by 40% coming from Siberia, IIRC, yet
| the gas price is rising as fast as in the US (currently reaching 1.31
| EUR for the litre, that is nearly five bucks per gallon), as the stock
| exchange trade rates are imitating those in the US.
|
| We didn't even join this war, and still are punished the same way. The
| only guy who is gaining from the deal, is Vladimir Putin, who snatched
| Yukos Oil from Chodorkowsky just in time.
|
| Gabriele Neukam
|
| Gabriele.Spam...@t-online.de
|
| --
| Ah, Information. A property, too valuable these days, to give it away,
| just so, at no cost.
That problem stems from a limited supply (Megabarrels supplied per day) with increased
demand in the Asian markets (China and India for example).
David H. Lipman
I am not a US Republican but you over-smplified the problem, missed the point on the actual
global oil market and stated much opinion, not much fact.
And you expect positive feedback ???
Virus Guy
> That problem stems from a limited supply (Megabarrels supplied
> per day) with increased demand in the Asian markets (China and
> India for example).
Increased oil use by China is being used as a smoke screen to hide the
built-in "fear" premium that oil currently has (everything above
$30/barrel is the "fear factor" right now).
China is predicted to need 130 million tons (953 million barrels) of
oil this year to cover the difference between what they produce
(domestically) and what they use. This is up by only 2% compared to
last year.
http://english.people.com.cn/200508/02/eng20050802_199863.html
China's net 2005 import needs (953 million barrels, or 2.6 million
barrels per day) represents 12.4% of what the US (alone) consumes (per
year or per day).
India is projected to import 98 million tons (720 million barrels)
during fiscal year 05/06 (1.97 million barrels per day, or 9.4% of US
consumption). This is an increase of 2.5% compared to fiscal year
04/05.
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0508174043161551.htm
The amount of *extra* crude oil that India and China (combined) will
import this year compared to last year is equivalent to what the US
consumes in slightly less than 2 days.
Virus Guy
> ... you over-smplified the problem, missed the point on the actual
> global oil market and stated much opinion, not much fact.
The problem is pretty simple.
By invading Iraq, the US has helped to destabilize the oil-producing
region of the middle east. Instead of flowing into world markets,
Iraqi oil is still sitting in the ground or burning from blown up
pipelines. The US wanted to use the prospect of cheap Iraqi oil
(which it would control) as a battering ram against OPEC. Most
likely, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are behind the millitant activity
(quite litterally a "scorched earth" policy) against US occupation of
Iraq. When (or if) a significant amount of oil ever does flow from
Iraq, it will have come at a ridiculously high price.
And yes, oil is not at $60+ a barrel because it really costs that
much. Half of that is the fear premium caused by the US in Iraq and
Saudi Arabia. The stationing of 20,000 US troops within the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia since the end of the 1991 Gulf War was a constant
source of irritation to islamic fundamentalists and was the lightning
rod used by Bin Laden to foment his jihad against the US that peaked
with the WTC attack on 9/11.
--------------
http://www.thebatt.com/media/paper657/news/2004/06/02/News/fear-Premium.Pushes.Oil.Gasoline.Prices.Higher-683958.shtml
"Fear, or the "demand risk premium", accounts for perhaps $US30 a
barrel of the raging $US66 a barrel crude price. Supply and demand is
the rest."
--------------
China and India are no threat to the world's oil supply because their
societies have a tremendous ability to scale back their use if it gets
too expensive. They easily tolerate local shortages which do happen.
Their work force does not depend on individual vehicular
transportation to get to work. There is little to no "urban sprawl".
While individually they may want to own cars, they don't need them for
commuting or any other common life activities.
Gabriele Neukam
> Most
> likely, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are behind the millitant activity
> (quite litterally a "scorched earth" policy) against US occupation of
> Iraq.
It doesn't require a governmet to commits these actions, and there are
enough disappointed angry young men in these countries, which believe
they are heroes, if they blast an oil facility, because "now I showed
these giaurs (kafurs, gavirs, unbelievers)"
optikl
You might be missing something very important here. Refinery capacity.
It's over 98% utilization right now. That is what will gate supply and
is driving the market right now (yes, speculation can be both a curse
and a blessing). There are also suspicions that not all of the oil being
refined is making it to market (read: hoarding by China).
Since only approximately 40% of a barrel of oil goes into making
gasoline, the other 60% goes to industrial usage. China can ill afford
to have their economy disrupted by the supply of oil. All that machinery
they are building and importing needs lubrication and there aren't
enough tubes of KY out there to do the trick :).
You might want to believe Bush and Cheney have something to do with
this, but I think there are better explanations out there. You're giving
them far too much credit.
optikl
> China and India are no threat to the world's oil supply because their
> societies have a tremendous ability to scale back their use if it gets
> too expensive. They easily tolerate local shortages which do happen.
> Their work force does not depend on individual vehicular
> transportation to get to work. There is little to no "urban sprawl".
> While individually they may want to own cars, they don't need them for
> commuting or any other common life activities.
Again, you're missing something very important here. China and India
need oil for reasons other than transportation. Their future demand will
absolutely have an impact on world oil supply. Only 40% of crude oil
goes into gasoline. That's not what China and India need oil for.
GEO
>> "David H. Lipman" wrote:
>>>That problem stems from a limited supply (Megabarrels supplied
>>>per day) with increased demand in the Asian markets (China and
>>>India for example).
>Virus Guy wrote:
>> China is predicted to need 130 million tons (953 million barrels) of
>> oil this year to cover the difference between what they produce
>> (domestically) and what they use. This is up by only 2% compared to
>> last year.
>> http://english.people.com.cn/200508/02/eng20050802_199863.html
<snip>
>You might be missing something very important here. Refinery capacity.
>It's over 98% utilization right now. That is what will gate supply and
>is driving the market right now ...
<snip>
What was the refinery utilization in previous years, otherwise we
cannot compare. It might be almost the same as before.
Geo
optikl
>
>
>>You might be missing something very important here. Refinery capacity.
>>It's over 98% utilization right now. That is what will gate supply and
>>is driving the market right now ...
>
> <snip>
>
> What was the refinery utilization in previous years, otherwise we
> cannot compare. It might be almost the same as before.
>
> Geo
>
>
You conveniently snipped the other important points I was making :).
http://www.grinzo.com/energy/stats/regional_refinery_utilization_1980_2004_gr.html
GEO
>"GEO" M...@home.here wrote:
>>>You might be missing something very important here. Refinery capacity.
>>>It's over 98% utilization right now. That is what will gate supply and
>>>is driving the market right now ...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> What was the refinery utilization in previous years, otherwise we
>> cannot compare. It might be almost the same as before.
>You conveniently snipped the other important points I was making :).
>http://www.grinzo.com/energy/stats/regional_refinery_utilization_1980_2004_gr.html
I asked you a question on a very specific assertion you had made.
Why would you want me to quote what was not related to this point?
Geo
Virus Guy
> > Refinery capacity.
>
> WJS had an article on the impact of refineries on prices.
If there aren't enough refineries to process crude oil, then logically
crude oil is backing up at the front door of refineries creating a
"glut" of crude that has no where to go to be refined. The stuff
that's processed from crude oil (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, etc)
will naturally go up in price - but the raw crude oil that's backing
up at the refinery front-door should *go down* in price.
Refinery logistics and capacity is largely a local situation (local as
in a country-by-country thing). I don't think you find something like
gasoline being traded on world markets (as opposed to, say, the
Chicago merchantile exchange).
Virus Guy
> > If there aren't enough refineries to process crude oil,
> > then logically crude oil is backing up at the front door of
> > refineries creating a "glut" of crude that has no where to
> > go to be refined.
>
> Nice try but no cigar.
>
> Read the article (here it is, again), i.e., get the facts.
Where in that article do they explain how something that's being
stockpiled (because it can't be processed) can go UP in price.
When ever crude stockpile numbers in the US are released, and it's
found to be a large number, you see crude prices go down. Problem is,
there isin't enough transparency or clarity for that number to be more
accurately known in a more real-time or frequent manner.
But again, the article doesn't explain how something being stockpiled
can go up in price.
optikl
Think about it. You're paying for what makes it to the marketplace. If
refining is the bottle-neck, then it doesn't matter what's in queue
behind it. But, as I stated previously, much of that crude may not even
make it to a refinery, as there discrepancies in the number of barrels
being pumped and those actually making it to market. This would lead
most observes to suspect hoarding.
optikl
> Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in
>
>>Where in that article do they explain how something that's
>>being stockpiled (because it can't be processed) can go UP
>>in price.
>>
>>When ever crude stockpile numbers in the US are released,
>>and it's found to be a large number, you see crude prices
>>go down. Problem is, there isin't enough transparency or
>>clarity for that number to be more accurately known in a
>>more real-time or frequent manner.
>>
>>But again, the article doesn't explain how something being
>>stockpiled can go up in price.
>>
>
>
> So refiners bid up the price ... The buying activity in turn
> leads to more buying by heavy energy users and speculators who
> rush to secure oil on futures market ... Oil producers also play
> a role ... When a refinery experiences an outage, producers know
> other refineries will pay a higher price for oil, so they tend
> to charge one. The upshot: record high oil prices ...
> [ /quot ]
>
> I give up.
>
> J
No. You got it.
Virus Guy
> [ quot ]
> When a refinery experiences an outage, producers know
> other refineries will pay a higher price for oil,
That makes no sense - if by "outage" they mean the refinery is down or
otherwise not functioning.
A refinery that is not functioning is by definition not consuming
oil. That means the demand for crude oil is that much less. When
demand goes down, then prices (for crude oil) should go down.
On the other hand, if "outage" means a lack of oil (for that or any
refinery) then that's not what we're talking about because the general
observation is that (a) no new refineries have been built in the USA
for the past 30 years, (b) several refineries have been dammaged in
the past few years (meaning they are not consuming oil at present),
and (c) we are told that refineries that are operating are functioning
at basically 100%. If refineries have been, and currently are,
operating at 100%, then any new demand for crude oil will not come
from them.
There is no logical reason why crude oil prices should rise *in
response* to rising gasoline prices (the reverse is not true). A real
(or perceived) lack of refining capacity should have a negative effect
on crude prices (because of the glut or stock-piling effect). If the
market perceives there is more oil around then can be used, it
*should* react by driving down oil prices.
And again, the main point about high crude prices is that at least $30
of the current price is the "fear factor" over middle-east turmoil and
uncertainty about the near-term stability of Saudi Arabia. At the
pump, about 1/3 of the price you pay reflects the true cost of
gasoline, another 1/3 is taxes, and the last 1/3 is the fear factor.
GEO
>"GEO" M...@home.here wrote:
>>>You might be missing something very important here. Refinery capacity.
>>>It's over 98% utilization right now. That is what will gate supply and
>>>is driving the market right now ...
>> What was the refinery utilization in previous years, otherwise we
>> cannot compare. It might be almost the same as before.
>http://www.grinzo.com/energy/stats/regional_refinery_utilization_1980_2004_gr.html
I don't see a mention of a current 98% utilization.
Geo
GEO
>> Read the article (here it is, again), i.e., get the facts.
>
>Where in that article do they explain how something that's being
>stockpiled (because it can't be processed) can go UP in price.
<snip>
>But again, the article doesn't explain how something being stockpiled
>can go up in price.
'Refinery outages are increasingly playing a role... some analysts
say that...'
'So refiners bid up the price of light, sweet crude, ... for which
there is excess refining capacity.'
Some analysts? I wonder who are they, and what do the other
analysts say?
The article mentions 'light, sweet crude'. I don't know what
porcentage of the total production it is.
I see that 'the analysts' got wrong the forecast made 'as recently
as a month ago'.
Geo