Say Goodnight To The Bad Guy

The latest and greatest from the sorgenmeisters (Yiddish for fear peddlers) in the American mainstream media would have us believe North Korea is capable of shutting down the grid and conducting 9/11-type havoc and destruction at movie theaters if the absurd movie, The Interview, is released and shown to an already brain-dead audience. What will they (whoever or whatever “they” is) think of next as cover for their obvious command & control strategy to include locking up and securing the internet but pretending they’re not Vladimir Putin in the process? Seriously, how many times has the Reichstag metaphorically burned now since it actually burned in 1933? Too many times to count — it’s such a tried and true strategy — the gift that just keeps giving.

The American intelligence community asserts that it was North Korea who is responsible for the Sony hack and that we should just take its word for it. Yeah, right. Just take your word for it. I don’t think so — I won’t take your word for it because you have no word. Did you torture some North Koreans until they gave you a false confession — Gangnam Style? Your credibility is zero. You (the Western intelligence community) do the very same thing Surkov and Putin do with truth and reality per the following New York Times article. Here’s a snippet, but click the link and read it in its entirety for amusement. It’s actually quite factual but it’s misdirecting in the sense it implies “look over there — see what they’re doing?” when in fact America and The West do the same thing — just with better advertising to make the lipsticked pig look like a Princess.

Russia’s Ideology: There Is No Truth

The Kremlin’s goal is to control all narratives, so that politics becomes one great scripted reality show. The way it wields power illustrates and reinforces this psychology. Take Vladislav Y. Surkov, an adviser to President Vladimir V. Putin who is said to manage, among other things, the public image of the Russian-speaking separatist leaders in eastern Ukraine. He helped invent a new strain of authoritarianism based not on crushing opposition from above, but on climbing into different interest groups and manipulating them from the inside. On his desk in the Kremlin, Mr. Surkov had phones bearing the names of leaders of supposedly independent parties. Nationalist leaders like Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky would play the right-wing buffoon to make Mr. Putin look moderate by contrast.

With one hand Mr. Surkov supported human rights groups made up of former dissidents; with the other he organized pro-Kremlin youth groups like Nashi, which accused human rights leaders of being tools of the West. In a novel presumed to be written by Mr. Surkov, who is also an art-loving bohemian when not waging covert wars, he celebrates the triumphant cynicism of a post-Soviet generation that has seen through the illusions of belief in any values or ideology.

“Everything is P.R.,” my Moscow peers would tell me. This cynicism is useful to the state: When people stopped trusting any institutions or having any values, they could easily be spun into a conspiratorial vision of the world. Thus the paradox: the gullible cynic.

More at link

I recall Benny Hill as a buckled-shoe’d, Dutch-boy-lock’d, turkeyneck’d New England Puritan: An elderly man [Bob Todd] is in the stocks. What had he done wrong? asks Benny. “Oy ‘ad wicked thoughts, oy ‘ad.” Benny warns, “Eah – you ought to find better things to occupoy yer moynd. I know — maybe you could tell me one of those wicked thoughts, so’s if I, like, felt one of ‘em comin’ on, I could keep it away.” The sick-gray-faced onanist [ after Whitman, “The Sleepers”] whispers to Benny, to the latter’s mounting, grit-teethed grins. Pause. “You wicked, wicked lecher!” Benny Hill yells, swatting Bob Todd the onanist with abandon in projected shame. Then arrives a doe-eyed maiden in a dress, like Spring, busting all over. Lasciviously welcomed, she explains, “I just came by for a little social intercourse.” She tells a growing crowd of men about her berry-picking excursion with her sister, abandoned upon rumors of a bear. “Can you imagine that – me running through the woods with a bear behind?” Soon, an entire mob is swatting the old onanist gent in the stocks and denouncing him for their lechery.

North Korea is the onanist gent in the stocks. Sure, it’s a lech, but so are all the others and yet it’s made to take the projected guilt, shame and blame for their lecherous and impure thoughts and acts. This post is not intended to defend the clownishly satirical North Korea. Shortly, I will explain that North Korea isn’t even the story, it’s the deflection much as the Communists qh6hhwere the deflection when the Reichstag was torched in ’33. But it is interesting, with the deflection angle aside, how America and The West have their Bob Todds in the stocks to beat on when their actions and motives are most impure — which is pretty much always. North Korea is one of the easiest and most defenseless targets since it’s the numero uno global pariah — for now (it doesn’t even get new Toyota trucks for Christmas like the Islamic State). China needs North Korea. Russia needs North Korea. South Korea needs North Korea and The West needs North Korea. North Korea is all of the above’s convenient, unwitting and perfectly predictable foil. North Korea is Tony Montana as Tony describes himself in the following YouTube clip:

Truth be damned, the Plutocratic Court stenographers, the presstitutes if you will, parrot the Western intelligence community’s claim that North Korea is responsible for the Sony hack and it was an act of Cyber Warfare despite the glaring contradictions of that assertion. North Korea has never been shy about its aspirations to harm America in every conceivable way it can.For sure, these threats are generally nuclear in nature but the point is, North Korea has broadcasted its intentions loud and clear for all the world to hear. Considering that, why would North Korea deny and shy away from responsibility for the Sony hack if it in fact perpetrated it? It wouldn’t, just as Oswald woimagesuldn’t claim he’s a patsy after blowing JFK’s head open. Both alleged perps, based on their characters (in Oswald’s cae what was officially reported about his character), would be proud to lay claim to their magnanimous accomplishments.

The technical angle doesn’t pass the smell test either. There is no way to tell the origin of the hacker(s) from the malware code itself. No way. The fact that the malware code was typed on a Korean keyboard and personal computer tells us nothing more than it was typed on a Korean keyboard and personal computer as the following article reveals:

Why the Sony hack is unlikely to be the work of North Korea

2. The fact that the code was written on a PC with Korean locale & language actually makes it less likely to be North Korea. Not least because they don’t speak traditional “Korean” in North Korea, they speak their own dialect and traditional Korean is forbidden. This is one of the key things that has made communication with North Korean refugees difficult. I would find the presence of Chinese far more plausible.

See here – http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/world/asia/30iht-dialect.2644361.html?_r=0

here – http://www.nknews.org/2014/08/north-korean-dialect-as-a-soviet-russian-translation/

and here – http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2009-03-16-voa49-68727402/409810.html

This change in language is also most pronounced when it comes to special words, such as technical terms. That’s possibly because in South Korea, many of these terms are “borrowed” from other languages, including English. For example, the Korean word for “Hellicopter” is: 헬리콥터 or hellikobteo. The North Koreans, on the other hand, use a literal translation of “vehicle that goes straight up after takeoff”. This is because such borrowed words are discouraged, if not outright forbidden, in North Korea – http://pinyin.info/news/2005/ban-loan-words-says-north-korea/

Lets not forget also that it is *trivial* to change the language/locale of a computer before compiling code on it.

And finally, does anyone really believe North Korea is capable of a 9/11-style attack on American movie theaters? I’m sure some do. In fact, I’m sure many do just as many believe the price of oil is determined largely by supply & demand or that gold is a hedge against inflation and economic collapse. I don’t know about you, but I sure am pleased Carmike Cinemas and all the other major American movie theater chains refused to show The Interview. It allowed my family and I to avoid yet another crappy American movie and instead go get some real Korean BBQ — Gawd Dangit how I love the smell of Beef Bulgogi in the morning.

So what’s it all about then? Well, I’ll tell you what it’s about, and the timing couldn’t be more perfect considering one of my recent blog posts. It’s about Net Neutrality and this act and others just like it yet to come will be used as justification for ramming through Congress a Patriot Act for The Net under the auspices of Cyber Security. Here’s how they’ll do it:

The Senate’s New Cybersecurity Bill Threatens Net Neutrality

Cybersecurity bills are normally looked at as being terrible for privacy. But a new one being considered by the Senate has a bonus—it’s still bad for privacy, but it could also kill whatever is left of net neutrality.

Portions of the cybersecurity bill that the Senate is considering, which is modeled on CISPA, could be construed to subvert net neutrality, according to a coalition of civil liberties groups.

The bill, championed by Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein, is called the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014 and, as we wrote when it was initially introduced by Feinstein earlier this month, looks to be every bit as bad as the Cybersecurity Information and Sharing Protection Act bill the internet has already rallied against twice.

In a letter to Feinstein, a coalition of 22 civil liberties groups just called CISA a disaster for the internet that would “facilitate a vast flow of private communications data to the NSA” and could infringe on net neutrality policy.

The groups—which including the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Demand Progress—note that the last time the Senate considered a cybersecurity bill, back in 2012, specific protections were written in to protect the free and open internet.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012—the last cybersecurity bill considered by the Senate—had a clause that said nothing in the bill could be “construed to authorize or limit liability for actions that would violate the regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on preserving the open Internet, or any successor regulations thereto, nor to modify or alter the obligations of private entities under such regulations.”

CISA has no such clause. The group notes that terms popular throughout CISA, such as “cybersecurity threat” and “countermeasure” are poorly defined and could be used by service providers to harm the free and open internet.

“The July 2012 bill also contained provisions clarifying that nothing in the Act, including overbroad application of the terms ‘cybersecurity threat’ and ‘countermeasure,’ could be construed to modify or alter any Open Internet rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission,” the group wrote. “Net neutrality is a complex topic and policy on this matter should not be set by cybersecurity legislation.”

Beyond that, the group notes that CISA’s overly broad terminology would make it much easier for the NSA and local police departments to conduct surveillance.

“CISA ignores [the NSA] revelations,” the groups wrote. “Instead of reining in NSA surveillance, the bill would facilitate a vast flow of private communications data to the NSA. CISA omits many of the civil liberties protections that were incorporated, after thorough consideration, into the cybersecurity legislation the Senate last considered.”

Among the group’s concerns with CISA are the fact that “cyber threat” information from CISA would be funneled from the Department of Homeland Security, a civilian agency, to the Department of Defense (and NSA), a military one.

As we mentioned in our earlier coverage, the bill would also create the possibility of “backdoor wiretaps” by local police, who could request that companies give them information that pertains to any crime, even if a person is only tangentially related to a cybersecurity concern. An example of someone being related to a “cyber threat” can be as simple as receiving a spam email, according to Amie Stepanovich, a lawyer with the civil liberties group Access, who is not listed on Thursday’s letter.

The bill has not yet been considered by Feinstein’s committee, but the Senator indicated in a press release earlier this month that it is planning to do so soon.

You know what they say, “if at first you don’t succeed, try and try and try again.” They’ll get this passed in one form or another, just you wait and see, and when they do the idea of Net Neutrality will be put to rest once and for all. Most won’t notice. Most won’t care. So why should I? I don’t really — it’s just something interesting to observe and talk about. What’s the point of caring if no one else can be bothered?

That’s it for now. Lie well and for all the right reasons and live long. As Tony says, “tell the truth even when you’re lying.” That takes real guts — and skill. So for now, say goodnight to the bad guy. I’ll see you in the morning.

PS: I almost forgot. This from the former Director of Human Intelligence, Colonel Pat Mustard (that’s Mootard in French) at Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex, aka The Turkey Plier — whatever that means.

If it is established that the North Korean government and/or its agents attacked Sony then I say, let slip the dogs of cyberwar. Hacking? You like hacking and destructive cyberwar activity? Hah! We will burn your servers into piles of smoldering kimchi !! pl

Ha! Patty Cakes made a funny. Him weally make me raff. What a commodian. Seriously, the more I read him, which is less and less these days, the more I believe the incompetence theory. Mustard doesn’t have a Clue.

Addendum: It should be noted, Apple, for the first time in its history, has forced a security patch update that circumvents the user’s manual updating preference. At the behest of The Department of Homeland Security. The irony is, I’ve recently sworn off Microsoft and adopted Apple as my operating system of choice, but I should have known, in fact I did know, they would follow me wherever I go. I considered open source Linux but that’s effectively been hijacked by the Red Hatters. For those not yet privy, the following linked article explains Apple‘s unprecedented actions. The question is, is Apple now fully in cooperation with Big Brother and was this recent forced patch another backdoor for yet more government prying and spying? If so, the Cyber Security legislation is really an afterthought to make what is already unofficial rule the official rule of law. Or, it could be a cigar is just a cigar and I have a vivid imagination. You be the judge, even though you’re in no better position to judge than me, but judge you will.

Apple updates Macs for first time without asking — to foil hackers

Apple is pushing out its first automatic security update to protect your computer from being taken over.

Apple is updating its Macs to guard against hackers taking control — the first time a Mac update has been sent out automatically without requiring your permission.

The automated security update protects Apple laptops and desktops from newly discovered security vulnerability CVE-2014-9295, which affects OS X and other Linux and Unix distributions.

Speaking to Reuters, Apple spokesperson Bill Evans described Monday’s update as “seamless” and noted that Mac users don’t even need to restart their computers.

Apple isn’t the only company that could be vulnerable to the security bug, which was revealed Friday by the US Department of Homeland Security and the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute. Researchers warn that vulnerabilities in a computer’s network time protocol (NTP), which sync a computer’s clocks, could allow hackers to take control of a computer remotely.

“Apple’s proactive steps to automatically remediate this particular vulnerability shows the need to quickly patch remotely exploitable vulnerabilities,” says security analyst Ken Westin of Tripwire. “However, the use of Apple’s automatic deployment tool is not without risks, as even the simplest update can cause problems for some systems. In this case the update may have been so minor the risk of affecting other applications and processes was minimal.”

Previously, Apple’s security updates have required a computer user to accept the update. The company has actually had a method to automatically update computers for two years but is only now using it for the first time.

What if someone doesn’t want automatic updates? Westin advises: “If you have a Mac system where an automatic update might introduce a problem — or you are the paranoid type — it can be disabled by going to the Apple Menu > System Preferences > App Store and unchecking Install system data files and security updates.”

Apple did not immediately respond to CNET’s request for comment.

Here are some comments from that linked article. This is very curious and worthy of a thorough investigation.

Lout says:
December 22, 2014 at 6:08 pm

very strange. just after I posted, I saw a message flash by saying a security update had been installed. However when I went to updates, it does not show in the list of recently installed updates.

Does Apple auto install updates that are not listed?

Ben says:
December 22, 2014 at 6:29 pm

I got the same message about 10 minutes ago. No record of what was installed other than the notification dialog.

Must be a pretty serious vulnerability.

Margaret says:
December 23, 2014 at 8:22 am

App Store doesn’t list this update on my machine, either. I saw the message flash by this morning, butt here was no way to figure out if it was actually installed or even if it was legit.

Terrible security here. If Apple wants people’s systems to be secure, they need to do a much better job of explaining what the patch is and who initiated it and if it actually installed properly. Instead, this ham-fisted method is just going to confuse my clients and reinforce the idea that ordinary people have no hope of understanding computer security.

For the record, their experience has been my experience and it has raised huge Red Flags. It’s Crunch Time as some of you well know.

Advertisements