Think On This

On This Election, Donald Trump and Russian Intervention

A Facebook friend of mine and area resident, one Kent Hartland wrote and posted the following on Facebook today. I thought it worth the time and thought.

The CIA says they have clear evidence Russia is hacking into American servers in an attempt to alter the apparent outcome of a presidential election. Twenty states have also reported evidence of Russia attacking servers in an attempt to overthrow state-wide elections for congress. Yet most folks here seem oblivious or complacent.

If Russia assassinated one of our candidates or launched a strike against us to eliminate the person we chose as our leader, we would all be down at the recruiting station to enlist. But that is what they are doing. The 21st century equivalent of a Regime Change. A political assassination.

No matter what your politics, if you claim to be an American, a patriot, then this should be your line in the sand. Do not facilitate, accept, brush aside or look away from what is currently happening.

Russia has launched a cyber attack on America. Our president has promised a proportional response. Russia is warning it's citizens and America of the growing risk of nuclear war.

Nuclear war.

This from CNN:

"It is now clear that the illegal hack of my personal email account was -- just like the other recent, election-related hacks -- the work of the Russian government," John Podesta said in a statement. "This level of meddling by a foreign power can only be aimed at boosting Donald Trump and should send chills down the spine of all Americans, regardless of political party."

Trump has called on Moscow to hack into Clinton's computers, downplayed criticism of Putin's authoritarian tendencies, tried to suggest that Russia hasn't hacked US systems and promoted foreign policy positions that jibe more closely with Moscow's than Washington's. He's relied on aides with ties to Russia and most recently, quoted an incorrect Russian news report to raise questions about Clinton.

"Russia, are you listening?" Trump said from the stage of a rally, calling for a foreign country to interfere in an election, an unprecedented moment in presidential politics.

Trump has taken foreign policy positions that analysts say would please Russia, declaring in March that he would consider pulling the US out of NATO because it's "obsolete." The 28-member organization, founded in 1949 to defend against the Soviet Union, is the core US-Atlantic security mechanism.

Trump campaign advisers have had ties to Russia. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort lobbied on behalf of Russian-backed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich. Carter Page, described at one point by the campaign as an informal policy advisor, reportedly had investments in Russian gas company Gazprom and has publicly criticized the US in a speech in Moscow.

A Trump security adviser, Lt. General Mike Flynn, the retired head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, attended a December gala for the the state-backed Russia Today television network, placed two seats away from Putin, according to Politico.

Trump's refusal to release his tax returns makes it impossible to get a full sense of his investments and whether he has any in Russia, but he does have business ties to Russians.

Trump has also written about trying to build a Trump property in Moscow since 1987 in his book "The Art of the Deal," signing his most recent deal to build in Moscow in 2013, according to the Washington Post.

The Republican candidate worked with Russian oligarchs to stage the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013. And his son Trump Jr told a real estate investment conference in 2008 that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," adding that they "see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

"I've been there many times, I've spent quite a bit of time in Moscow looking at deals," Trump Jr. said.

---

If Russia doesn't want Clinton or the Democrats in power and DOES want Trump and the GOP in, that should tell you who to vote for.

Stand. Take a strong and immediate stand against these attacks. Russia cannot see a divided America, where some of the citizens are cool with Russia literally trying to overrule our choices for elected officials.

Back to me:

I don't think this, he, is overstating the situations. Seems like good to great food for thought.

Additionally, this story broke yesterday.

Trump's refusal to accept intelligence briefing on Russia stuns experts

I hope this is all only fascinating.

On Edward Snowden

Let me get this straight.

You want to fight against your nation's secretive ways that you insist are against the nation and your fellow countrymen and the people of your nation and to do it, you go to Russia?


Seriously?

To the US Congress: Don't screw with our internet

...or with freedom of communication and information: Don't mess with the American people.

Two very common computer things that shouldn't exist

The first is spam.

I mean, really.  People are sitting around, running machines so they can send out this crap and somehow, remarkably, they make money doing it.

Who responds to this nonsense anyway?

Yet somehow, somewhere, someone does.  And again, someone else then makes money.  Further proof, yet again, as if we needed it, that "There's a sucker born every minute."

The other thing that shouldn't exist is hacking and hackers.

At lest, the hackers that just do it for hacking sake.

I'm not talking about the international espionage hacking of one country vs. another or the hacking into a bank, for example, in an effort to steal millions--or billions of dollars.  At least you can say they've got a goal and a reason and purpose, albeit wildly illegal.

I'm talking about the computer hacking that is just so the hacker can see if they can do it.  Apparently these guys have nothing better to do than just hack for hacking's sake.

Now, if those same hackers could use their time, instead, to create some beautiful, elegant, simple, truly effective security program that would work on even just Microslop, I mean Microsoft computers, they'd be trillionaires.

Thoughts on TV last evening

---Why are so many (all?) of the shows for the Fox Channel "Viewer Discretion Advised"?  House?  Really?

---Why would ANYONE want a "Windows phone"?  Aren't there enough problems with the software in the form of viruses and bugs that you'd be thrilled to NOT have an electronic gadget that was based on Microsoft's Windows program?

Really.  I don't get it.  Either one.

The biggest--and most overlooked--event of the last year, bar none

Submittal:  The Stuxnet virus was the single-biggest event of the last year, barring anything even worse that wasn't actually released to the public's attention.


First, what Stuxnet is, from Wikipedia:  Stuxnet is a computer worm targeted at industrial equipment^[1] that was first discovered in July 2010 by VirusBlokAda, a security firm based in Belarus. While it is not the first time that hackers have targeted industrial systems,^[2] it is the first discovered worm that spies on and reprograms industrial systems,^[3] and the first to include a programmable logic controller (PLC) rootkit.^[4][5] It was specifically written to attack Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems used to control and monitor industrial processes.^[6] Stuxnet includes the capability to reprogram the PLCs and hide its changes.^[7]


Next, then, on the ramifications of this new "computer worm":


Russian digital security company Kaspersky Labs released a statement that described Stuxnet as "a working and fearsome prototype of a cyber-weapon that will lead to the creation of a new arms race in the world."


Perhaps the ultimate tribute to it was by a computer security expert who called its advent—and the swath of destruction it cut through Iran's nuclear program—"an Oppenheimer moment" in the history of hacking. A moment in which malware viruses had made the leap from troublemaking but controllable depredations to potentially unstoppable, history-changing weapons, their capabilities miles ahead of their predecessors', the way the first nuclear weapon Oppenheimer built at Los Alamos left mere TNT in its wake and shadowed the world we live in with the threat of cataclysmic extinction.


Computer-security experts who have handled the most complex "malware" virus infections are agog.


More:


But an Oppenheimer moment means more than a quantum leap in the power and deceptiveness of the virus. It means dramatic geopolitical ramifications. If the original Oppenheimer moment may have guaranteed that WWII would end with the horrific Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings, the Stuxnet Oppenheimer moment may have bequeathed us an unexpected last-minute reprieve from what seemed like a potential outbreak of nuclear warfare. Consider the fact that Stuxnet disabled Iran's key nuclear facilities (and infected an estimated 60,000 of its computers) just at the moment whenthe Israelis were giving out signals that they were prepared to use air strikes on Iranian facilities, using whatever weapons it took (and, of course, they have an undeclared nuclear arsenal), to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Whatever you think of the Israeli position, there was little doubt they'd do it if there were no other options, and in doing so risk not only Iranian retaliation but nuclear retaliation from Iranian sympathizers in Pakistan's military, which all-too-loosely controls Pakistan's "Islamic bomb," the generic term for the 60 to 100 nuclear warheads the Pakistanis possess.


Finally, on what nearly happened last year, it is thought:


"The world was on the verge of a regional nuclear war with unknowable further consequences. 


Until Stuxnet did its work."  --Ron Rosenbaum, from his article "Stuxnet and the triumph of hacker culture", Slate Magazine


This last quote, above,  is, by itself, pretty remarkable, I think, for what it suggests we came perilously close to--I wonder how many other such events we've almost had--but what's also remarkable is the term "regional nuclear war".  Yeah, right.  As if.  There would--will?--be nothing "regional" about a nuclear war, anywhere in the world, but particularly if it begins in the Middle East, let there be no doubt.


Apparently the Middle East, at least, nearly literally blew up in nuclear war last year, folks.  


The good news is that nuclear war was averted.


The bad news is that now a "pandora's box" of computer virus "missiles" and all that entails are now released on the world.


Let's hope it's all in humankind's favor... forever and ever, amen.




Have a good weekend, y'all.


Try to think happy thoughts.


Link to original article:  http://www.slate.com/id/2281938/?from=rss
Link to definition of Stuxnet:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Will the final WWIII we've always feared be without bombs?

It's a good question. The next phase of international war may have just become a little bit more clear and possible, what with a new "Stuxnet malware" that recently became known internationally. Well, sort of known, anyway. There is a fascinating story out today on this new Stuxnet malware and what it may portend for the future of international warfare--wars that are done on countries by, at and on computers and not with bombs, planes and guns: Stuxnet malware is 'weapon' out to destroy ... Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant? Cyber security experts say they have identified the world's first known cyber super weapon designed specifically to destroy a real-world target – a factory, a refinery, or just maybe a nuclear power plant. The cyber worm, called Stuxnet, has been the object of intense study since its detection in June. As more has become known about it, alarm about its capabilities and purpose have grown. Some top cyber security experts now say Stuxnet's arrival heralds something blindingly new: a cyber weapon created to cross from the digital realm to the physical world – to destroy something. The ways in which this is fascinating are numerous. First, it's likely not known the source--who, exactly created and released it. It used to be, in humankind's wars to date, you knew who was attacking you, where they were coming from, what they were doing and you could, hopefully, react. Not so with this new, still-debilitating type weapon. We won't know who's attacking us, where they're attacking us--at least not for a while--the extent of the damage they will do to us, etc., for some time, at least. The appearance of Stuxnet created a ripple of amazement among computer security experts. Too large, too encrypted, too complex to be immediately understood, it employed amazing new tricks, like taking control of a computer system without the user taking any action or clicking any button other than inserting an infected memory stick. Experts say it took a massive expenditure of time, money, and software engineering talent to identify and exploit such vulnerabilities in industrial control software systems. Unlike most malware, Stuxnet is not intended to help someone make money or steal proprietary data. Industrial control systems experts now have concluded, after nearly four months spent reverse engineering Stuxnet, that the world faces a new breed of malware that could become a template for attackers wishing to launch digital strikes at physical targets worldwide. And here's an additional rather big "kicker" to the whole thing: Internet link not required. "Until a few days ago, people did not believe a directed attack like this was possible," Ralph Langner, a German cyber-security researcher, told the Monitor in an interview. He was slated to present his findings at a conference of industrial control system security experts Tuesday in Rockville, Md. "What Stuxnet represents is a future in which people with the funds will be able to buy an attack like this on the black market. This is now a valid concern." By August, researchers had found something more disturbing: Stuxnet appeared to be able to take control of the automated factory control systems it had infected – and do whatever it was programmed to do with them. That was mischievous and dangerous. But it gets worse. Since reverse engineering chunks of Stuxnet's massive code, senior US cyber security experts confirm what Mr. Langner, the German researcher, told the Monitor: Stuxnet is essentially a precision, military-grade cyber missile deployed early last year to seek out and destroy one real-world target of high importance – a target still unknown. "Stuxnet is a 100-percent-directed cyber attack aimed at destroying an industrial process in the physical world," says Langner, who last week became the first to publicly detail Stuxnet's destructive purpose and its authors' malicious intent. "This is not about espionage, as some have said. This is a 100 percent sabotage attack." For those worried about a future cyber attack that takes control of critical computerized infrastructure – in a nuclear power plant, for instance – Stuxnet is a big, loud warning shot across the bow, especially for the utility industry and government overseers of the US power grid. "The implications of Stuxnet are very large, a lot larger than some thought at first," says Mr. Assante, who until recently was security chief for the North American Electric Reliability Corp. "Stuxnet is a directed attack. It's the type of threat we've been worried about for a long time. It means we have to move more quickly with our defenses – much more quickly." There are so many things to be said--and asked about this, it's nearly overwhelming. First, who made it? Second, why? Third, was it created--as looks entirely possible--by a country, in order to shut down Iran's nuclear facility? Fourth, could it have been done by formal agreement between two or more nations? Third, was it China? That would have huge implications for what, exactly, they're capable of, regarding computers and cyber warfare and we believe they've been busy with their computer homework, so to speak. Fourth, was it the US and we're acting dumb and innocent? Fifth, what's next in cyber warfare, since this is only, clearly the "next phase" of international war, cyber warfare and sabotage. Sixth, how does the world address this/these issue(s)? What do you do about this kind of attack? As pointed out on NPR, purely coincidentally, this morning, there is no international law regarding cyber warfare. That means there are no rules. What's lawful? What's unlawful? What shouldn't be accepted? For instance, shouldn't attacking another country's water infrastructure be unlawful and unacceptable? I could go on and on but won't. The last question I'll ask is, will mankind end in a bang or, like this, in a nearly silent, possibly starving and/or freezing whimper? Better start planting a garden and canning, folks, along with making your own clothes, etc. Links: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/327178; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

We can't even imagine the devastation of a cyber war in the US

President Obama is wisely and quietly both warning the country and trying to protect us, much as any government can, from any cyber warfare that would shut down the internet in this country. It's a huge threat to virtually all business in this country and so, our way of life. Truly, we can't even imagine the devastation that kind of an act--a collapsed internet--would have on this country. Sure, nothing would be blown up and no one would be killed but the financial devastation would be virtually complete, if "successful". Think World War III, without the bombs. You can't. Link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/cia-cyber-warfare-could-paralyze-us.html