Re: Possible Password Generator to recover files etc
Useful if it works but AIUI that was for the original Petya. If that's the payload then fine but current reports say it isn't.
40559 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"someone talking about it attacking the MFT of NTFS - that's a more severe attack than the MBR."
Providing the files themselves aren't corrupted something like photorec reads the sectors, tries to work out what they are and copies the results out to fresh media. Obviously it depends on the extent to which the files are fragmented. If the files are encrypted then it depends on whether they're overwritten. The only experience I had with this was with ransomware that wrote out the encrypts as new files and deleted the old ones which, of course, just marked the files' sectors as free but didn't do anything to the contents. The only problem was sorting out real images from junk heap of odds & sods from the browser cache.
"They should be jointly and severably liable. SBS and Sopra Steria cocked this up. Just send them the bill and leave it to them to sort out who pays what."
From TFA The NHS Shared Business Services is a joint venture between the Department of Health and Sopra Steria set up in 2004 to provide support services to the NHS.
It's not SBS & Spora Steria, it's DoH & Sopra Steria so any costs involved in working out how to split the costs will be at public expense, as will the cost of fixing it.
"I presume the suggestion is that there should be new US legislation allowing them to retrieve things held overseas without bothering to consult with that nation's government/law enforcement."
Given the attitude they've taken I'd have thought they'd want US legislation that makes it quite clear that the US's jurisdiction is limited to the US and that the appropriate treaty arrangements must be used.
" Even if there were anything in Irish law to prevent Microsoft's US employees handing that data over if they have access then there's no way to enforce it."
1. Big fines - and even bigger if it gets strung out until next May.
2. Privacy Figleaf completely shrivelled out of existence.
"The issue, overall, is fairly complex"
It shouldn't be. There are treaties in place which lay out due processes to be followed which would have enabled the relevant prosecutor to get the information they wanted without trampling on anyone else's sovereignty. For reasons best known only to themselves - arrogance, ignorance or indolence - the US authorities have opted to ignore them. The apparent complexity arises out of that.
"${US Co} contracts with ${NonUS Co} for data center and storage service located physically outside the US ... Where does the US government go for assistance when they find a US-based (alleged) criminal enterprise is using ${US Co}'s service for its email and data processing needs?"
To exactly the same place where they should have gone in this case. To the courts of the country where the servers are operating via the MLAT which exists for this exact purpose.
It's called due process of law. Of course other countries' courts might take a dim view of that well-known US abuse of process, the fishing expedition.
"So you ask the database to delete something, then you have to ask the database to *really* delete it."
Or maybe really, really delete it. Or even really, really really delete it.
My brief encounter with Oracle simply left me with the feeling that it was thoroughly obfuscated. I'm glad I was able to make my living with saner alternatives.
"Still, it does sound a little like blaming the victim though, doesn't it?"
Not really. They were both abusing basic security, albeit in two different ways. If, say, this guy had been more adept at covering his tracks and there was a current employee might easily have come under suspicion. Changing the passwords ought to be routine and is in everyone's interest.
"outside ... its design parameters (since corrected)"
If I were to trust my life to an automatous vehicle (and with trials permitted on public roads I might have no choice) I'd want the design parameters to cover what actually can happen on the roads, however unlikely. A vehicle from one carriage way turning across another at a road junction doesn't sound like something that ought to have been outside design parameters in the first place. Correcting design parameters after obvious omissions have come up against reality isn't the best way to proceed. And just wait until one of these ventures down a Devon lane with passing places.
"t is worth mentioning, btw, that current production systems use optic and/or radar "vision", with LIDAR being very much an emergent technology in this application. At least one manufacturer (Tesla) currently has no plans to use LIDAR in their cars."
And radar is surely going to be subject to the same attacks. The "dar" in their names is a clue - it means "direction and ranging" in both cases. Optical sensors are also going to be subject to dazzling, at least in low light levels.
"At least one manufacturer (Tesla) currently has no plans to use LIDAR in their cars."
And Tesla has already been shown to miss a large object in front of it under adverse seeing conditions.
"You'd slow to a stop and pull over to the best of your ability, using your last memory of the road ahead."
Not so easy if it's on a multilane road and is now blind to traffic between itself and the side of the road. If multiple vehicles are being attacked there may already be a stationary vehicle at the side of the road waiting to be hit from behind.
"Microsoft are constantly trying to force me to use Edge and Bing, just because I use Windows... How is that ANY different?"
Yes, other market abuses are available. But why do you expect a news article to deal with other issues which aren't in the news today (and if they were would have their own article)?
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the executive summary (executive summary - six and a half pages: do executives read that far?): "In enacting section 1201, Congress aimed to create a legal foundation to launch the global digital online marketplace for copyrighted works."
Is everyone OK with putting an act of Congress and global in the same sentence?
"The paper isn't really free, it's paid for by the advertising companies. The assumption is that every paper handed out will be read by at least one person, and thus the fee set for the advertising space."
True. But the public (including the accused*) aren't party to the agreements so why should they be bound by them?
*Unless they're running the sort of circulation-boosting scam mentioned elsewhere.
"'Free' is not the same as 'worthless' or 'without value'. Just how many commentators on here don't realise this is outstanding."
I think you're missing a couple of points here. One is that commentards are free to apply their own evaluations of the said rag and do find it to be worthless other than as a raw material. The other is that if the papers are offered to be taken away free of payment without clearly displayed T&Cs than it becomes difficult to characterise taking away large numbers as theft.
Why do especially conservative governments tend to act completely incompetent and/or illiterate with regard to technology in gerneral and encryption in particular?
FTFY. Conservative governments have no monopoly in this respect. We've had plenty of experience with Labour govts. being just as bad whilst paying lip-service to technology (the white heat of this scientific revolution etc).
"How? They're all a collection of pompous, self-obsessed, talent free clowns,"
Generalise much? I agree the Lords are somewhat better, as some of them are appointed specifically for expertise elsewhere.
But even accepting your description at face value they're currently a collection of pompous, self-obsessed, talent free clowns who have just had a nasty shock about their online security and are, therefore, likely to be receptive to being told about such things right now.
BTW, why not improve the quality of Parliament by standing yourself? Or would being dismissed out of hand as a pompous, self-obsessed and talent free clown put you off?
OK, it's fun to make fun of MPs. But we should be able to do better than that. We should be turning this into a teaching opportunity.
For instance Liam Fox, who is a minister, is reported by the Beeb as saying "And it's a warning to everybody, whether they are in Parliament or elsewhere, that they need to do everything possible to maintain their own cyber-security." El Reg should ask him - or reach out to him if they really must - what part he sees end-to-end encryption playing in this. Because I doubt more than the minutest handful of them realise the role that has to play in securing everyday services that we all use.
"Current Linux distros (Ubuntu from at least 15.04 on) have a "3rd party driver" feature to update the CPU microcode. Both, for AMD and Intel."
Such mechanisms have existed since the days of oops-I-can't-divide. So why are Debian saying it can't be fixed except by motherboard firmware?
Does current firmware shut the door on such mechanisms? That might be done for security reasons - block malware that attempts to rewrite microcode - but if so there needs to be a better way to fix it than depending on motherboard manufacturers getting round to distributing upgrades, always assuming they can be bothered.