Tag Archives: court

Connect Veeam to the B2 Cloud: Episode 2 — Using StarWind VTL

Post Syndicated from Roderick Bauer original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hybrid-cloud-example-veem-vtl-cloud/

Connect Veeam to the B2 Cloud

View all posts in the Veeam series.

In the first post in this series, we discussed how to connect Veeam to the B2 cloud using Synology. In this post, we continue our Veeam/B2 series with a discussion of how to back up Veeam to the Backblaze B2 Cloud using StarWind VTL.

StarWind provides “VTL” (Virtual Tape Library) technology that enables users to back up their “VMs” (virtual machines) from Veeam to on-premise or cloud storage. StarWind does this using standard “LTO” (Linear Tape-Open) protocols. This appeals to organizations that have LTO in place since it allows adoption of more scalable, cost efficient cloud storage without having to update the internal backup infrastructure.

Why An Additional Backup in the Cloud?

Common backup strategy, known as 3-2-1, dictates having three copies at a minimum of active data. Two copies are stored locally and one copy is in another location.

Relying solely on on-site redundancy does not guarantee data protection after a catastrophic or temporary loss of service affecting the primary data center. To reach maximum data security, an on-premises private cloud backup combined with an off-site public cloud backup, known as hybrid cloud, provides the best combination of security and rapid recovery when required.

Why Consider a Hybrid Cloud Solution?

The Hybrid Cloud Provides Superior Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity

Having a backup strategy that combines on-premise storage with public cloud storage in a single or multi-cloud configuration is becoming the solution of choice for organizations that wish to eliminate dependence on vulnerable on-premises storage. It also provides reliable and rapidly deployed recovery when needed.

If an organization requires restoration of service as quickly as possible after an outage or disaster, it needs to have a backup that isn’t dependent on the same network. That means a backup stored in the cloud that can be restored to another location or cloud-based compute service and put into service immediately after an outage.

Hybrid Cloud Example: VTL and the Cloud

Some organizations will already have made a significant investment in software and hardware that supports LTO protocols. Specifically, they are using Veeam to back up their VMs onto physical tape. Using StarWind to act as a VTL with Veeam enables users to save time and money by connecting their on-premises Veeam Backup & Replication archives to Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage.

Why Veeam, StarWind VTL, and Backblaze B2?

What are the primary reasons that an organization would want to adopt Veeam + StarWind VTL + B2 as a hybrid cloud backup solution?

  1. You are already invested in Veeam along with LTO software and hardware.

Using Veeam plus StarWind VTL with already-existing LTO infrastructure enables organizations to quickly and cost-effectively benefit from cloud storage.

  1. You require rapid and reliable recovery of service should anything disrupt your primary data center.

Having a backup in the cloud with B2 provides an economical primary or secondary cloud storage solution and enables fast restoration to a current or alternate location, as well as providing the option to quickly bring online a cloud-based compute service, thereby minimizing any loss of service and ensuring business continuity. Backblaze’s B2 is an ideal solution for backing up Veeam’s backup repository due to B2’s combination of low-cost and high availability compared to other cloud solutions such as Microsoft Azure or Amazon AWS.

Using Veeam, StarWind VTL, and Backblaze B2 cloud storage is a superior alternative to tape as B2 offers better economics, instant access, and faster recovery.

 

Workflow for how to connect Veeam to the Backblaze B2 Cloud using StarWind VTL

Connect Veeam to the Backblaze B2 Cloud using StarWind VTL (graphic courtesy of StarWind)

View all posts in the Veeam series.

The post Connect Veeam to the B2 Cloud: Episode 2 — Using StarWind VTL appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

Copyright Trolls Target Up to 22,000 Norwegians for Movie Piracy

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-trolls-target-up-to-22000-norwegians-for-movie-piracy-180220/

Last January it was revealed that after things had become tricky in the US, the copyright trolls behind the action movie London Has Fallen were testing out the Norwegian market.

Reports emerged of letters being sent out to local Internet users by Danish law firm Njord Law, each demanding a cash payment of 2,700 NOK (around US$345). Failure to comply, the company claimed, could result in a court case and damages of around $12,000.

The move caused outrage locally, with consumer advice groups advising people not to pay and even major anti-piracy groups distancing themselves from the action. However, in May 2017 it appeared that progress had been made in stopping the advance of the trolls when another Njord Law case running since 2015 hit the rocks.

The law firm previously sent a request to the Oslo District Court on behalf of entertainment company Scanbox asking ISP Telenor to hand over subscribers’ details. In May 2016, Scanbox won its case and Telenor was ordered to hand over the information.

On appeal, however, the tables were turned when it was decided that evidence supplied by the law firm failed to show that sharing carried out by subscribers was substantial.

Undeterred, Njord Law took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The company lost when a panel of judges found that the evidence presented against Telenor’s customers wasn’t good enough to prove infringement beyond a certain threshold. But Njord Law still wasn’t done.

More than six months on, the ruling from the Supreme Court only seems to have provided the company with a template. If the law firm could show that the scale of sharing exceeds the threshold set by Norway’s highest court, then disclosure could be obtained. That appears to be the case now.

In a ruling handed down by the Oslo District Court in January, it’s revealed that Njord Law and its partners handed over evidence which shows 23,375 IP addresses engaged in varying amounts of infringing behavior over an extended period. The ISP they have targeted is being kept secret by the court but is believed to be Telenor.

Using information supplied by German anti-piracy outfit MaverickEye (which is involved in numerous copyright troll cases globally), Njord Law set out to show that the conduct of the alleged pirates had been exceptional for a variety of reasons, categorizing them variously (but non-exclusively) as follows:

– IP addresses involved in BitTorrent swarm sizes greater than 10,000 peers/pirates
– IP addresses that have shared at least two of the plaintiffs’ movies
– IP addresses making available the plaintiffs’ movies on at least two individual days
– IP addresses that made available at least ten movies in total
– IP addresses that made available different movies on at least ten individual days
– IP addresses that made available movies from businesses and public institutions

While rejecting some categories, the court was satisfied that 21,804 IP addresses of the 23,375 IP addresses presented by Njord Law met or exceeded the criteria for disclosure. It’s still not clear how many of these IP addresses identify unique subscribers but many thousands are expected.

“For these users, it has been established that the gravity, extent, and harm of the infringement are so great that consideration for the rights holder’s interests in accessing information identifying the [allegedly infringing] subscribers is greater than the consideration of the subscribers’,” the court writes in its ruling.

“Users’ confidence that their private use of the Internet is protected from public access is a generally important factor, but not in this case where illegal file sharing has been proven. Nor has there been any information stating that the offenders in the case are children or anything else which implies that disclosure of information about the holder of the subscriber should be problematic.”

While the ISP (Telenor) will now have to spend time and resources disclosing its subscribers’ personal details to the law firm, it will be compensated for its efforts. The Oslo District Court has ordered Njord Law to pay costs of NOK 907,414 (US$115,822) plus NOK 125 (US$16.00) for every IP address and associated details it receives.

The decision can be appealed but when contacted by Norwegian publication Nettavisen, Telenor declined to comment on the case.

There is now the question of what Njord Law will do with the identities it obtains. It seems very likely that it will ask for a sum of money to make a potential lawsuit go away but it will still need to take an individual subscriber to court in order to extract payment, if they refuse to pay.

This raises the challenge of proving that the subscriber is the actual infringer when it could be anyone in a household. But that battle will have to wait until another day.

The full decision of the Oslo District Court can be found here (Norwegian)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Running ActiveMQ in a Hybrid Cloud Environment with Amazon MQ

Post Syndicated from Tara Van Unen original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/running-activemq-in-a-hybrid-cloud-environment-with-amazon-mq/

This post courtesy of Greg Share, AWS Solutions Architect

Many organizations, particularly enterprises, rely on message brokers to connect and coordinate different systems. Message brokers enable distributed applications to communicate with one another, serving as the technological backbone for their IT environment, and ultimately their business services. Applications depend on messaging to work.

In many cases, those organizations have started to build new or “lift and shift” applications to AWS. In some cases, there are applications, such as mainframe systems, too costly to migrate. In these scenarios, those on-premises applications still need to interact with cloud-based components.

Amazon MQ is a managed message broker service for ActiveMQ that enables organizations to send messages between applications in the cloud and on-premises to enable hybrid environments and application modernization. For example, you can invoke AWS Lambda from queues and topics managed by Amazon MQ brokers to integrate legacy systems with serverless architectures. ActiveMQ is an open-source message broker written in Java that is packaged with clients in multiple languages, Java Message Server (JMS) client being one example.

This post shows you can use Amazon MQ to integrate on-premises and cloud environments using the network of brokers feature of ActiveMQ. It provides configuration parameters for a one-way duplex connection for the flow of messages from an on-premises ActiveMQ message broker to Amazon MQ.

ActiveMQ and the network of brokers

First, look at queues within ActiveMQ and then at the network of brokers as a mechanism to distribute messages.

The network of brokers behaves differently from models such as physical networks. The key consideration is that the production (sending) of a message is disconnected from the consumption of that message. Think of the delivery of a parcel: The parcel is sent by the supplier (producer) to the end customer (consumer). The path it took to get there is of little concern to the customer, as long as it receives the package.

The same logic can be applied to the network of brokers. Here’s how you build the flow from a simple message to a queue and build toward a network of brokers. Before you look at setting up a hybrid connection, I discuss how a broker processes messages in a simple scenario.

When a message is sent from a producer to a queue on a broker, the following steps occur:

  1. A message is sent to a queue from the producer.
  2. The broker persists this in its store or journal.
  3. At this point, an acknowledgement (ACK) is sent to the producer from the broker.

When a consumer looks to consume the message from that same queue, the following steps occur:

  1. The message listener (consumer) calls the broker, which creates a subscription to the queue.
  2. Messages are fetched from the message store and sent to the consumer.
  3. The consumer acknowledges that the message has been received before processing it.
  4. Upon receiving the ACK, the broker sets the message as having been consumed. By default, this deletes it from the queue.
    • You can set the consumer to ACK after processing by setting up transaction management or handle it manually using Session.CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGE.

Static propagation

I now introduce the concept of static propagation with the network of brokers as the mechanism for message transfer from on-premises brokers to Amazon MQ.  Static propagation refers to message propagation that occurs in the absence of subscription information. In this case, the objective is to transfer messages arriving at your selected on-premises broker to the Amazon MQ broker for consumption within the cloud environment.

After you configure static propagation with a network of brokers, the following occurs:

  1. The on-premises broker receives a message from a producer for a specific queue.
  2. The on-premises broker sends (statically propagates) the message to the Amazon MQ broker.
  3. The Amazon MQ broker sends an acknowledgement to the on-premises broker, which marks the message as having been consumed.
  4. Amazon MQ holds the message in its queue ready for consumption.
  5. A consumer connects to Amazon MQ broker, subscribes to the queue in which the message resides, and receives the message.
  6. Amazon MQ broker marks the message as having been consumed.

Getting started

The first step is creating an Amazon MQ broker.

  1. Sign in to the Amazon MQ console and launch a new Amazon MQ broker.
  2. Name your broker and choose Next step.
  3. For Broker instance type, choose your instance size:
    mq.t2.micro
    mq.m4.large
  4. For Deployment mode, enter one of the following:
    Single-instance broker for development and test implementations (recommended)
    Active/standby broker for high availability in production environments
  5. Scroll down and enter your user name and password.
  6. Expand Advanced Settings.
  7. For VPC, Subnet, and Security Group, pick the values for the resources in which your broker will reside.
  8. For Public Accessibility, choose Yes, as connectivity is internet-based. Another option would be to use private connectivity between your on-premises network and the VPC, an example being an AWS Direct Connect or VPN connection. In that case, you could set Public Accessibility to No.
  9. For Maintenance, leave the default value, No preference.
  10. Choose Create Broker. Wait several minutes for the broker to be created.

After creation is complete, you see your broker listed.

For connectivity to work, you must configure the security group where Amazon MQ resides. For this post, I focus on the OpenWire protocol.

For Openwire connectivity, allow port 61617 access for Amazon MQ from your on-premises ActiveMQ broker source IP address. For alternate protocols, see the Amazon MQ broker configuration information for the ports required:

OpenWire – ssl://xxxxxxx.xxx.com:61617
AMQP – amqp+ssl:// xxxxxxx.xxx.com:5671
STOMP – stomp+ssl:// xxxxxxx.xxx.com:61614
MQTT – mqtt+ssl:// xxxxxxx.xxx.com:8883
WSS – wss:// xxxxxxx.xxx.com:61619

Configuring the network of brokers

Configuring the network of brokers with static propagation occurs on the on-premises broker by applying changes to the following file:
<activemq install directory>/conf activemq.xml

Network connector

This is the first configuration item required to enable a network of brokers. It is only required on the on-premises broker, which initiates and creates the connection with Amazon MQ. This connection, after it’s established, enables the flow of messages in either direction between the on-premises broker and Amazon MQ. The focus of this post is the uni-directional flow of messages from the on-premises broker to Amazon MQ.

The default activemq.xml file does not include the network connector configuration. Add this with the networkConnector element. In this scenario, edit the on-premises broker activemq.xml file to include the following information between <systemUsage> and <transportConnectors>:

<networkConnectors>
             <networkConnector 
                name="Q:source broker name->target broker name"
                duplex="false" 
                uri="static:(ssl:// aws mq endpoint:61617)" 
                userName="username"
                password="password" 
                networkTTL="2" 
                dynamicOnly="false">
                <staticallyIncludedDestinations>
                    <queue physicalName="queuename"/>
                </staticallyIncludedDestinations> 
                <excludedDestinations>
                      <queue physicalName=">" />
                </excludedDestinations>
             </networkConnector> 
     <networkConnectors>

The highlighted components are the most important elements when configuring your on-premises broker.

  • name – Name of the network bridge. In this case, it specifies two things:
    • That this connection relates to an ActiveMQ queue (Q) as opposed to a topic (T), for reference purposes.
    • The source broker and target broker.
  • duplex –Setting this to false ensures that messages traverse uni-directionally from the on-premises broker to Amazon MQ.
  • uri –Specifies the remote endpoint to which to connect for message transfer. In this case, it is an Openwire endpoint on your Amazon MQ broker. This information could be obtained from the Amazon MQ console or via the API.
  • username and password – The same username and password configured when creating the Amazon MQ broker, and used to access the Amazon MQ ActiveMQ console.
  • networkTTL – Number of brokers in the network through which messages and subscriptions can pass. Leave this setting at the current value, if it is already included in your broker connection.
  • staticallyIncludedDestinations > queue physicalName – The destination ActiveMQ queue for which messages are destined. This is the queue that is propagated from the on-premises broker to the Amazon MQ broker for message consumption.

After the network connector is configured, you must restart the ActiveMQ service on the on-premises broker for the changes to be applied.

Verify the configuration

There are a number of places within the ActiveMQ console of your on-premises and Amazon MQ brokers to browse to verify that the configuration is correct and the connection has been established.

On-premises broker

Launch the ActiveMQ console of your on-premises broker and navigate to Network. You should see an active network bridge similar to the following:

This identifies that the connection between your on-premises broker and your Amazon MQ broker is up and running.

Now navigate to Connections and scroll to the bottom of the page. Under the Network Connectors subsection, you should see a connector labeled with the name: value that you provided within the ActiveMQ.xml configuration file. You should see an entry similar to:

Amazon MQ broker

Launch the ActiveMQ console of your Amazon MQ broker and navigate to Connections. Scroll to the Connections openwire subsection and you should see a connection specified that references the name: value that you provided within the ActiveMQ.xml configuration file. You should see an entry similar to:

If you configured the uri: for AMQP, STOMP, MQTT, or WSS as opposed to Openwire, you would see this connection under the corresponding section of the Connections page.

Testing your message flow

The setup described outlines a way for messages produced on premises to be propagated to the cloud for consumption in the cloud. This section provides steps on verifying the message flow.

Verify that the queue has been created

After you specify this queue name as staticallyIncludedDestinations > queue physicalName: and your ActiveMQ service starts, you see the following on your on-premises ActiveMQ console Queues page.

As you can see, no messages have been sent but you have one consumer listed. If you then choose Active Consumers under the Views column, you see Active Consumers for TestingQ.

This is telling you that your Amazon MQ broker is a consumer of your on-premises broker for the testing queue.

Produce and send a message to the on-premises broker

Now, produce a message on an on-premises producer and send it to your on-premises broker to a queue named TestingQ. If you navigate back to the queues page of your on-premises ActiveMQ console, you see that the messages enqueued and messages dequeued column count for your TestingQ queue have changed:

What this means is that the message originating from the on-premises producer has traversed the on-premises broker and propagated immediately to the Amazon MQ broker. At this point, the message is no longer available for consumption from the on-premises broker.

If you access the ActiveMQ console of your Amazon MQ broker and navigate to the Queues page, you see the following for the TestingQ queue:

This means that the message originally sent to your on-premises broker has traversed the network of brokers unidirectional network bridge, and is ready to be consumed from your Amazon MQ broker. The indicator is the Number of Pending Messages column.

Consume the message from an Amazon MQ broker

Connect to the Amazon MQ TestingQ queue from a consumer within the AWS Cloud environment for message consumption. Log on to the ActiveMQ console of your Amazon MQ broker and navigate to the Queue page:

As you can see, the Number of Pending Messages column figure has changed to 0 as that message has been consumed.

This diagram outlines the message lifecycle from the on-premises producer to the on-premises broker, traversing the hybrid connection between the on-premises broker and Amazon MQ, and finally consumption within the AWS Cloud.

Conclusion

This post focused on an ActiveMQ-specific scenario for transferring messages within an ActiveMQ queue from an on-premises broker to Amazon MQ.

For other on-premises brokers, such as IBM MQ, another approach would be to run ActiveMQ on-premises broker and use JMS bridging to IBM MQ, while using the approach in this post to forward to Amazon MQ. Yet another approach would be to use Apache Camel for more sophisticated routing.

I hope that you have found this example of hybrid messaging between an on-premises environment in the AWS Cloud to be useful. Many customers are already using on-premises ActiveMQ brokers, and this is a great use case to enable hybrid cloud scenarios.

To learn more, see the Amazon MQ website and Developer Guide. You can try Amazon MQ for free with the AWS Free Tier, which includes up to 750 hours of a single-instance mq.t2.micro broker and up to 1 GB of storage per month for one year.

 

Canadian Pirate Site Blocks Could Spread to VPNs, Professor Warns

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/canadian-pirate-site-blocks-could-spread-to-vpns-professor-warns-180219/

ISP blocking has become a prime measure for the entertainment industry to target pirate sites on the Internet.

In recent years sites have been blocked throughout Europe, in Asia, and even Down Under.

Last month, a coalition of Canadian companies called on the local telecom regulator CRTC to establish a local pirate site blocking program, which would be the first of its kind in North America.

The Canadian deal is backed by both copyright holders and major players in the Telco industry, such as Bell and Rogers, which also have media companies of their own. Instead of court-ordered blockades, they call for a mutually agreed deal where ISPs will block pirate sites.

The plan has triggered a fair amount of opposition. Tens of thousands of people have protested against the proposal and several experts are warning against the negative consequences it may have.

One of the most vocal opponents is University of Ottawa law professor Micheal Geist. In a series of articles, processor Geist highlighted several problems, including potential overblocking.

The Fairplay Canada coalition downplays overblocking, according to Geist. They say the measures will only affect sites that are blatantly, overwhelmingly or structurally engaged in piracy, which appears to be a high standard.

However, the same coalition uses a report from MUSO as its primary evidence. This report draws on a list of 23,000 pirate sites, which may not all be blatant enough to meet the blocking standard.

For example, professor Geist notes that it includes a site dedicated to user-generated subtitles as well as sites that offer stream ripping tools which can be used for legal purposes.

“Stream ripping is a concern for the music industry, but these technologies (which are also found in readily available software programs from a local BestBuy) also have considerable non-infringing uses, such as for downloading Creative Commons licensed videos also found on video sites,” Geist writes.

If the coalition tried to have all these sites blocked the scope would be much larger than currently portrayed. Conversely, if only a few of the sites would be blocked, then the evidence that was used to put these blocks in place would have been exaggerated.

“In other words, either the scope of block list coverage is far broader than the coalition admits or its piracy evidence is inflated by including sites that do not meet its piracy standard,” Geist notes.

Perhaps most concerning is the slippery slope that the blocking efforts can turn into. Professor Geist fears that after the standard piracy sites are dealt with, related targets may be next.

This includes VPN services. While this may sound far-fetched to some, several members of the coalition, such as Bell and Rogers, have already criticized VPNs in the past since these allow people to watch geo-blocked content.

“Once the list of piracy sites (whatever the standard) is addressed, it is very likely that the Bell coalition will turn its attention to other sites and services such as virtual private networks (VPNs).

“This is not mere speculation. Rather, it is taking Bell and its allies at their word on how they believe certain services and sites constitute theft,” Geist adds.

The issue may even be more relevant in this case, since the same VPNs can also be used to circumvent pirate sites blockades.

“Further, since the response to site blocking from some Internet users will surely involve increased use of VPNs to evade the blocks, the attempt to characterize VPNs as services engaged in piracy will only increase,” Geist adds.

Potential overblocking is just one of the many issues with the current proposal, according to the law professor. Geist previously highlighted that current copyright law already provides sufficient remedies to deal with piracy and that piracy isn’t that much of a problem in Canada in the first place.

The CRTC has yet to issue its review of the proposal but now that the cat is out of the bag, rightsholders and ISPs are likely to keep pushing for blockades, one way or the other.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Flight Sim Company Embeds Malware to Steal Pirates’ Passwords

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/flight-sim-company-embeds-malware-to-steal-pirates-passwords-180219/

Anti-piracy systems and DRM come in all shapes and sizes, none of them particularly popular, but one deployed by flight sim company FlightSimLabs is likely to go down in history as one of the most outrageous.

It all started yesterday on Reddit when Flight Sim user ‘crankyrecursion’ reported a little extra something in his download of FlightSimLabs’ A320X module.

“Using file ‘FSLabs_A320X_P3D_v2.0.1.231.exe’ there seems to be a file called ‘test.exe’ included,” crankyrecursion wrote.

“This .exe file is from http://securityxploded.com and is touted as a ‘Chrome Password Dump’ tool, which seems to work – particularly as the installer would typically run with Administrative rights (UAC prompts) on Windows Vista and above. Can anyone shed light on why this tool is included in a supposedly trusted installer?”

The existence of a Chrome password dumping tool is certainly cause for alarm, especially if the software had been obtained from a less-than-official source, such as a torrent or similar site, given the potential for third-party pollution.

However, with the possibility of a nefarious third-party dumping something nasty in a pirate release still lurking on the horizon, things took an unexpected turn. FlightSimLabs chief Lefteris Kalamaras made a statement basically admitting that his company was behind the malware installation.

“We were made aware there is a Reddit thread started tonight regarding our latest installer and how a tool is included in it, that indiscriminately dumps Chrome passwords. That is not correct information – in fact, the Reddit thread was posted by a person who is not our customer and has somehow obtained our installer without purchasing,” Kalamaras wrote.

“[T]here are no tools used to reveal any sensitive information of any customer who has legitimately purchased our products. We all realize that you put a lot of trust in our products and this would be contrary to what we believe.

“There is a specific method used against specific serial numbers that have been identified as pirate copies and have been making the rounds on ThePirateBay, RuTracker and other such malicious sites,” he added.

In a nutshell, FlightSimLabs installed a password dumper onto ALL users’ machines, whether they were pirates or not, but then only activated the password-stealing module when it determined that specific ‘pirate’ serial numbers had been used which matched those on FlightSimLabs’ servers.

“Test.exe is part of the DRM and is only targeted against specific pirate copies of copyrighted software obtained illegally. That program is only extracted temporarily and is never under any circumstances used in legitimate copies of the product,” Kalamaras added.

That didn’t impress Luke Gorman, who published an analysis slamming the flight sim company for knowingly installing password-stealing malware on users machines, even those who purchased the title legitimately.

Password stealer in action (credit: Luke Gorman)

Making matters even worse, the FlightSimLabs chief went on to say that information being obtained from pirates’ machines in this manner is likely to be used in court or other legal processes.

“This method has already successfully provided information that we’re going to use in our ongoing legal battles against such criminals,” Kalamaras revealed.

While the use of the extracted passwords and usernames elsewhere will remain to be seen, it appears that FlightSimLabs has had a change of heart. With immediate effect, the company is pointing customers to a new installer that doesn’t include code for stealing their most sensitive data.

“I want to reiterate and reaffirm that we as a company and as flight simmers would never do anything to knowingly violate the trust that you have placed in us by not only buying our products but supporting them and FlightSimLabs,” Kalamaras said in an update.

“While the majority of our customers understand that the fight against piracy is a difficult and ongoing battle that sometimes requires drastic measures, we realize that a few of you were uncomfortable with this particular method which might be considered to be a bit heavy handed on our part. It is for this reason we have uploaded an updated installer that does not include the DRM check file in question.”

To be continued………

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Epic Games Uses Private Investigators to Locate Cheaters

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/epic-games-uses-private-investigators-to-locate-cheaters-180218/

Last fall, Epic Games released Fortnite’s free-to-play “Battle Royale” game mode for the PC and other platforms, generating massive interest among gamers.

This also included thousands of cheaters, many of whom were subsequently banned. Epic Games then went a step further by taking several cheaters to court for copyright infringement.

In the months that have passed several cases have been settled with undisclosed terms, but it appears that not all defendants are easy to track down. In at least two cases, Epic had to retain the services of private investigators to locate their targets.

In a case filed in North Carolina, the games company was unable to serve the defendant (now identified as B.B) so they called in the help of Klatt Investigations, with success.

“[A]fter having previously engaged two other process servers that were unable to locate and successfully serve B.B., Epic engaged Klatt Investigations, a Canadian firm that provides various services related to the private service of process in civil matters.

“In this case, we engaged Klatt Investigations to locate and effect service of process by personal service on Defendant,” Epic informs the court.

As Epic Games didn’t know the age of the defendant beforehand they chose to approach the person as a minor, which turned out to be a wise choice. The alleged cheater indeed appears to be a minor, so both the Defendant and Defendant’s mother were served.

Based on this new information, Epic Games asked the court to redact any court documents that reveal personal information of the defendant, which includes his or her full name.

Epic’s request to seal

This is not the first time Epic Games has used a private investigator to locate a defendant. It hired S&H Investigative Services in another widely reported case, where the defendant also turned out to be a minor.

In that case, the mother of the alleged cheater wrote a letter to the court in her son’s defense, but after that, things went quiet.

This lack of response prompted Epic Games to ask the court to enter a default in this case, which means that the defendant risks a default judgment for copyright infringement.

Epic’s declaration for the motion to seal the personal details of minor B.B. is available here (pdf). The request to enter a default in the separate C.R case can be found (here pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Sweden Considers Six Years in Jail For Online Pirates

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/sweden-considers-six-years-in-jail-for-online-pirates-180218/

Ever since the infamous Pirate Bay trial more than a decade ago, prosecutors in Sweden have called for a tougher approach to breaches of copyright law. In general terms, the country has been painted as soft on infringement but that could all be about to change.

After reaching the conclusion that penalties in Sweden “appear to be low” when compared to those on the international stage, the government sought advice on how such crimes can be punished, not only more severely, but also in proportion to the alleged damage caused.

In response, Minister for Justice Heléne Fritzon received a report this week. It proposes a new tier of offenses with “special” punishments to tackle large-scale copyright infringement and “serious” trademark infringement.

Presented by Council of Justice member Dag Mattsson, the report envisions new criminal designations and crime being divided into two levels of seriousness.

“A person who has been found guilty of copyright infringement or trademark infringement of a normal grade may be sentenced to fines or imprisonment up to a maximum of two years,” the government notes.

“In cases of gross crimes, a person may be convicted of gross copyright infringement or gross trademark infringement and sent to prison for at least six months and not more than six years.”

Last year the Supreme Court found that although prison sentences can be handed down in such cases, there were no legislative indications that copyright infringement should be penalized via a term of imprisonment.

For an idea of the level of change, one only need refer to The Pirate Bay case, which would undoubtedly be considered as “gross infringement” under the new proposals.

Under the new rules, defendants Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij and Carl Lundström would be sentenced to a minimum of six months and a maximum of six years. As things stood, with infringement being dealt with via fines or up to two years’ imprisonment, they were sentenced to prison terms of eight, ten and four months respectively.

Under the new proposals, damage to rightsholders and monetary gain by the defendant would be taken into account when assessing whether a crime is “gross” or not. This raises the question of whether someone sharing a single pre-release movie could be deemed a gross infringer even if no money was made.

Also of interest are proposals that would enable the state to confiscate all kinds of property, both physical items and more intangible assets such as domain names. This proposal is a clear nod towards the Pirate Bay case which dragged on for several years before the state was able to take over its thepiratebay.se domain.

“Today there is organized online piracy that has major consequences for the whole community,” Minister Fritzon said in a statement.

“Therefore, it is good that the punishments for these crimes have been reviewed, as the sentence will then be proportional to the seriousness of the crime.”

The legislative amendments are proposed to enter into force on July 1, 2019.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Embedding a Tweet Can be Copyright Infringement, Court Rules

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/embedding-a-tweet-can-be-copyright-infringement-court-rules-180216/

Nowadays it’s fairly common for blogs and news sites to embed content posted by third parties, ranging from YouTube videos to tweets.

Although these publications don’t host the content themselves, they can be held liable for copyright infringement, a New York federal court has ruled.

The case in question was filed by Justin Goldman whose photo of Tom Brady went viral after he posted it on Snapchat. After being reposted on Reddit, it also made its way onto Twitter from where various news organizations picked it up.

Several of these news sites reported on the photo by embedding tweets from others. However, since Goldman never gave permission to display his photo, he went on to sue the likes of Breitbart, Time, Vox and Yahoo, for copyright infringement.

In their defense, the news organizations argued that they did nothing wrong as no content was hosted on their servers. They referred to the so-called “server test” that was applied in several related cases in the past, which determined that liability rests on the party that hosts the infringing content.

In an order that was just issued, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest disagrees. She rejects the “server test” argument and rules that the news organizations are liable.

“[W]hen defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield them from this result,” Judge Forrest writes.

Judge Forrest argues that the server test was established in the ‘Perfect 10 v. Amazon’ case, which dealt with the ‘distribution’ of content. This case is about ‘displaying’ an infringing work instead, an area where the jurisprudence is not as clear.

“The Court agrees with plaintiff. The plain language of the Copyright Act, the legislative history undergirding its enactment, and subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence provide no basis for a rule that allows the physical location or possession of an image to determine who may or may not have “displayed” a work within the meaning of the Copyright Act.”

As a result, summary judgment was granted in favor of Goldman.

Rightsholders, including Getty Images which supported Goldman, are happy with the result. However, not everyone is pleased. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) says that if the current verdict stands it will put millions of regular Internet users at risk.

“Rejecting years of settled precedent, a federal court in New York has ruled that you could infringe copyright simply by embedding a tweet in a web page,” EFF comments.

“Even worse, the logic of the ruling applies to all in-line linking, not just embedding tweets. If adopted by other courts, this legally and technically misguided decision would threaten millions of ordinary Internet users with infringement liability.”

Given what’s at stake, it’s likely that the news organization will appeal this week’s order.

Interestingly, earlier this week a California district court dismissed Playboy’s copyright infringement complaint against Boing Boing, which embedded a YouTube video that contained infringing content.

A copy of Judge Forrest’s opinion can be found here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Court Orders Spanish ISPs to Block Pirate Sites For Hollywood

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-spanish-isps-to-block-pirate-sites-for-hollywood-180216/

Determined to reduce levels of piracy globally, Hollywood has become one of the main proponents of site-blocking on the planet. To date there have been multiple lawsuits in far-flung jurisdictions, with Europe one of the primary targets.

Following complaints from Disney, 20th Century Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warner, Spain has become one of the latest targets. According to the studios a pair of sites – HDFull.tv and Repelis.tv – infringe their copyrights on a grand scale and need to be slowed down by preventing users from accessing them.

HDFull is a platform that provides movies and TV shows in both Spanish and English. Almost 60% its traffic comes from Spain and after a huge surge in visitors last July, it’s now the 337th most popular site in the country according to Alexa. Visitors from Mexico, Argentina, United States and Chile make up the rest of its audience.

Repelis.tv is a similar streaming portal specializing in movies, mainly in Spanish. A third of the site’s visitors hail from Mexico with the remainder coming from Argentina, Columbia, Spain and Chile. In common with HDFull, Repelis has been building its visitor numbers quickly since 2017.

The studios demanding more blocks

With a ruling in hand from the European Court of Justice which determined that sites can be blocked on copyright infringement grounds, the studios asked the courts to issue an injunction against several local ISPs including Telefónica, Vodafone, Orange and Xfera. In an order handed down this week, Barcelona Commercial Court No. 6 sided with the studios and ordered the ISPs to begin blocking the sites.

“They damage the legitimate rights of those who own the films and series, which these pages illegally display and with which they profit illegally through the advertising revenues they generate,” a statement from the Spanish Federation of Cinematographic Distributors (FEDECINE) reads.

FEDECINE General director Estela Artacho said that changes in local law have helped to provide the studios with a new way to protect audiovisual content released in Spain.

“Thanks to the latest reform of the Civil Procedure Law, we have in this jurisdiction a new way to exercise different possibilities to protect our commercial film offering,” Artacho said.

“Those of us who are part of this industry work to make culture accessible and offer the best cinematographic experience in the best possible conditions, guaranteeing the continuity of the sector.”

The development was also welcomed by Stan McCoy, president of the Motion Picture Association’s EMEA division, which represents the plaintiffs in the case.

“We have just taken a welcome step which we consider crucial to face the problem of piracy in Spain,” McCoy said.

“These actions are necessary to maintain the sustainability of the creative community both in Spain and throughout Europe. We want to ensure that consumers enjoy the entertainment offer in a safe and secure environment.”

After gaining experience from blockades and subsequent circumvention in other regions, the studios seem better prepared to tackle fallout in Spain. In addition to blocking primary domains, the ruling handed down by the court this week also obliges ISPs to block any other domain, subdomain or IP address whose purpose is to facilitate access to the blocked platforms.

News of Spain’s ‘pirate’ blocks come on the heels of fresh developments in Germany, where this week a court ordered ISP Vodafone to block KinoX, one of the country’s most popular streaming portals.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Court Dismisses Playboy’s Copyright Claims Against Boing Boing

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/court-dismisses-playboys-copyright-claims-against-boing-boing-180215/

Early 2016, Boing Boing co-editor Xeni Jardin published an article in which she linked to an archive of every Playboy centerfold image till then.

“Kind of amazing to see how our standards of hotness, and the art of commercial erotic photography, have changed over time,” Jardin commented.

While the linked material undoubtedly appealed to many readers, Playboy itself took offense to the fact that infringing copies of their work were being shared in public. While Boing Boing didn’t upload or store the images in question, the publisher filed a lawsuit late last year.

The blog’s parent company Happy Mutants was accused of various counts of copyright infringement, with Playboy claiming that it exploited their playmates’ images for commercial purposes.

Boing Boing saw things differently. With help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) it filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that hyperlinking is not copyright infringement. If Playboy would’ve had their way, millions of other Internet users could be sued for linking too.

“This case merely has to survive a motion to dismiss to launch a thousand more expensive lawsuits, chilling a broad variety of lawful expression and reporting that merely adopts the common practice of linking to the material that is the subject of the report,” they wrote.

The article in question

Yesterday US District Court Judge Fernando Olguin ruled on the matter. In a brief order, he concluded that an oral argument is not needed and that based on the arguments from both sides, the case should be dismissed with leave.

This effectively means that Playboy’s complaint has been thrown out. However, the company is offered a lifeline and is allowed to submit a new one if they can properly back up their copyright infringement allegations.

“The court will grant defendant’s Motion and dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. In preparing the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff shall carefully evaluate the contentions set forth in defendant’s Motion.

“For example, the court is skeptical that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to support either its inducement or material contribution theories of copyright infringement,” Judge Olguin adds.

According to the order, it is not sufficient to argue that Boing Boing merely ‘provided the means’ to carry out copyright infringing activity. There also has to be a personal action that ‘assists’ the infringing activity.

Playboy has until the end of the month to submit a new complaint and if it chooses not to do so, the case will be thrown out.

The order is clearly a win for Boing Boing, which vehemently opposed Playboy’s claims. While the order is clear, it must come as a surprise to the magazine publisher, which won a similar ‘hyperlinking’ lawsuit in the European Court of Justice last year.

EFF, who defend Boing Boing, is happy with the order and hopes that Playboy will leave it at this.

“From the outset of this lawsuit, we have been puzzled as to why Playboy, once a staunch defender of the First Amendment, would attack a small news and commentary website,” EFF comments

“Today’s decision leaves Playboy with a choice: it can try again with a new complaint or it can leave this lawsuit behind. We don’t believe there’s anything Playboy could add to its complaint that would meet the legal standard. We hope that it will choose not to continue with its misguided suit.”

A copy of US District Court Judge Fernando Olguin’s order is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Tickbox Must Remove Pirate Streaming Addons From Sold Devices

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/tickbox-remove-pirate-streaming-addons-180214/

Online streaming piracy is on the rise and many people now use dedicated media players to watch content through their regular TVs.

This is a thorn in the side of various movie companies, who have launched a broad range of initiatives to curb this trend.

One of these initiatives is the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), an anti-piracy partnership between Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and more than two dozen other companies.

Last year, ACE filed a lawsuit against the Georgia-based company Tickbox TV, which sells Kodi-powered set-top boxes that stream a variety of popular media.

ACE sees these devices as nothing more than pirate tools so the coalition asked the court for an injunction to prevent Tickbox from facilitating copyright infringement, demanding that it removes all pirate add-ons from previously sold devices.

Last month, a California federal court issued an initial injunction, ordering Tickbox to keep pirate addons out of its box and halt all piracy-inducing advertisements going forward. In addition, the court directed both parties to come up with a proper solution for devices that were already sold.

The movie companies wanted Tickbox to remove infringing addons from previously sold devices, but the device seller refused this initially, equating it to hacking.

This week, both parties were able to reach an ‘agreement’ on the issue. They drafted an updated preliminary injunction which replaces the previous order and will be in effect for the remainder of the lawsuit.

The new injunction prevents Tickbox from linking to any “build,” “theme,” “app,” or “addon” that can be indirectly used to transmit copyright-infringing material. Web browsers such as Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Safari, and Firefox are specifically excluded.

In addition, Tickbox must also release a new software updater that will remove any infringing software from previously sold devices.

“TickBox shall issue an update to the TickBox launcher software to be automatically downloaded and installed onto any previously distributed TickBox TV device and to be launched when such device connects to the internet,” the injunction reads.

“Upon being launched, the update will delete the Subject [infringing] Software downloaded onto the device prior to the update, or otherwise cause the TickBox TV device to be unable to access any Subject Software downloaded onto or accessed via that device prior to the update.”

All tiles that link to copyright-infringing software from the box’s home screen also have to be stripped. Going forward, only tiles to the Google Play Store or to Kodi within the Google Play Store are allowed.

In addition, the agreement also allows ACE to report newly discovered infringing apps or addons to Tickbox, which the company will then have to remove within 24-hours, weekends excluded.

“This ruling sets an important precedent and reduces the threat from piracy devices to the legal market for creative content and a vibrant creative economy that supports millions of workers around the world,” ACE spokesperson Zoe Thorogood says, commenting on the news.

The new injunction is good news for the movie companies, but many Tickbox customers will not appreciate the forced changes. That said, the legal battle is far from over. The main question, whether Tickbox contributed to the alleged copyright infringements, has yet to be answered.

Ultimately, this case is likely to result in a landmark decision, determining what sellers of streaming boxes can and cannot do in the United States.

A copy of the new Tickbox injunction is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Australian Government Launches Pirate Site-Blocking Review

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/australian-government-launches-pirate-site-blocking-review-180214/

Following intense pressure from entertainment industry groups, in 2014 Australia began developing legislation which would allow ‘pirate’ sites to be blocked at the ISP level.

In March 2015 the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 (pdf) was introduced to parliament and after just three months of consideration, the Australian Senate passed the legislation into law.

Soon after, copyright holders began preparing their first cases and in December 2016, the Australian Federal Court ordered dozens of local Internet service providers to block The Pirate Bay, Torrentz, TorrentHound, IsoHunt, SolarMovie, plus many proxy and mirror services.

Since then, more processes have been launched establishing site-blocking as a permanent fixture on the Aussie anti-piracy agenda. But with yet more applications for injunction looming on the horizon, how is the mechanism performing and does anything else need to be done to improve or amend it?

Those are the questions now being asked by the responsible department of the Australian Government via a consultation titled Review of Copyright Online Infringement Amendment. The review should’ve been carried out 18 months after the law’s introduction in 2015 but the department says that it delayed the consultation to let more evidence emerge.

“The Department of Communications and the Arts is seeking views from stakeholders on the questions put forward in this paper. The Department welcomes single, consolidated submissions from organizations or parties, capturing all views on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2015 (Online Infringement Amendment),” the consultation paper begins.

The three key questions for response are as follows:

– How effective and efficient is the mechanism introduced by the Online Infringement Amendment?

– Is the application process working well for parties and are injunctions operating well, once granted?

– Are any amendments required to improve the operation of the Online Infringement Amendment?

Given the tendency for copyright holders to continuously demand more bang for their buck, it will perhaps come as a surprise that at least for now there is a level of consensus that the system is working as planned.

“Case law and survey data suggests the Online Infringement Amendment has enabled copyright owners to work with [Internet service providers] to reduce large-scale online copyright infringement. So far, it appears that copyright owners and [ISPs] find the current arrangement acceptable, clear and effective,” the paper reads.

Thus far under the legislation there have been four applications for injunctions through the Federal Court, notably against leading torrent indexes and browser-based streaming sites, which were both granted.

The other two processes, which began separately but will be heard together, at least in part, involve the recent trend of set-top box based streaming.

Village Roadshow, Disney, Universal, Warner Bros, Twentieth Century Fox, and Paramount are currently presenting their case to the Federal Court. Along with Hong Kong-based broadcaster Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB), which has a separate application, the companies have been told to put together quality evidence for an April 2018 hearing.

With these applications already in the pipeline, yet more are on the horizon. The paper notes that more applications are expected to reach the Federal Court shortly, with the Department of Communications monitoring to assess whether current arrangements are refined as additional applications are filed.

Thus far, however, steady progress appears to have been made. The paper cites various precedents established as a result of the blocking process including the use of landing pages to inform Internet users why sites are blocked and who is paying.

“Either a copyright owner or [ISP] can establish a landing page. If an [ISP] wishes to avoid the cost of its own landing page, it can redirect customers to one that the copyright owner would provide. Another precedent allocates responsibility for compliance costs. Cases to date have required copyright owners to pay all or a significant proportion of compliance costs,” the paper notes.

But perhaps the issue of most importance is whether site-blocking as a whole has had any effect on the levels of copyright infringement in Australia.

The Government says that research carried out by Kantar shows that downloading “fell slightly from 2015 to 2017” with a 5-10% decrease in individuals consuming unlicensed content across movies, music and television. It’s worth noting, however, that Netflix didn’t arrive on Australian shores until May 2015, just a month before the new legislation was passed.

Research commissioned by the Department of Communications and published a year later in 2016 (pdf) found that improved availability of legal streaming alternatives was the main contributor to falling infringement rates. In a juicy twist, the report also revealed that Aussie pirates were the entertainment industries’ best customers.

“The Department is aware that other factors — such as the increasing availability of television, music and film streaming services and of subscription gaming services — may also contribute to falling levels of copyright infringement,” the paper notes.

Submissions to the consultation (pdf) are invited by 5.00 pm AEST on Friday 16 March 2018 via the government’s website.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Pirate Site Blockades Enter Germany With Kinox.to as First Target

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-site-blockades-enter-germany-with-kinox-to-as-first-target-180213/

Website blocking has become one of the leading anti-piracy mechanisms of recent years.

It is particularly prevalent across Europe, where thousands of sites are blocked by ISPs following court orders.

This week, these blocking efforts also reached Germany. Following a provisional injunction issued by the federal court in Munich, Internet provider Vodafone must block access to the popular streaming portal Kinox.to.

The injunction was issued on behalf of the German film production and distribution company Constantin Film. The company complained that Kinox facilitates copyright infringement and cited a recent order from the European Court of Justice in its defense, Golem reports.

While these types of blockades are common in Europe, they’re a new sight in Germany. Vodafone users who attempt to access the Kinox site will now be welcomed with a blocking notification instead.

“This portal is temporarily unavailable due to a copyright claim,” it reads, translated from German.

Blocked

The Kinox streaming site has been a thorn in the side of German authorities and copyright holders for a long time. Last year, one of the site’s admins was detained in Kosovo after a three-year manhunt, but despite these and other actions, the site remains online.

With the blocking efforts, Constantin Film hopes to make it harder for people to access the site, although this measure is also limited.

For now, it seems to be a simple DNS blockade, which means that people can bypass it relatively easily by switching to a free alternative DNS provider such as Google DNS or OpenDNS.

And there are other workarounds as well, as operators of Kinox point out in a message on their homepage.

“Vodafone User: Use the public Google DNS server: 8.8.8.8, that goes the .TO domain again! Otherwise, a VPN or the free Tor Browser can be used!” they write.

While the measure may not be foolproof, the current order is certainly significant. Previously, all German courts have denied similar blocking orders based on different arguments. This means that more blocking efforts may be on the horizon.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Hosting Provider Steadfast Maintains DMCA Safe Harbor Defense For Trial

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/hosting-provider-steadfast-maintains-dmca-safe-harbor-defense-for-trial-180212/

Two years ago, adult entertainment publisher ALS Scan dragged several third-party Internet services to court.

The company targeted several companies including CDN provider CloudFlare and the Chicago-based hosting company Steadfast, accusing them of copyright infringement because they offered services to pirate sites.

The case against Steadfast is getting close to trial and to start with an advantage, ALS Scan recently asked the court for partial summary judgment, determining that the hosting company contributed to copyright infringement and that it has no safe harbor protection.

ALS argued that Steadfast refused to shut down the servers of the image sharing platform Imagebam.com, which was operated by its client Flixya. ALS Scan described the site as a repeat offender, as it had been targeted with dozens of DMCA notices, and accused Steadfast of turning a blind eye to the situation.

Steadfast, for its part, fiercely denied the allegations. The hosting provider admitted that it leased servers to Flixya for ten years but said that it forwarded all notices to its client. The hosting company could not address individual infringements, other than shutting down the entire site, which would have been disproportionate in their view.

A few days ago California District Court Judge George Wu ruled on the matter, denying ALS’s motion for summary judgment.

Both sides made sensible arguments on the contributory infringement issue, but it is by no means undisputed that the hosting provider ‘contributed’ to the infringing activities. The court, therefore, left this question open for the jury to determine at trial.

“Ultimately, both sides have raised triable issues of fact with respect to material contribution. As a result, the Court would deny Plaintiff’s Motion,” Judge Wu writes.

ALS also sought summary judgment on the DMCA safe harbor protection issue, but the court denied this request as well. While it’s clear that the hosting company never terminated a customer for repeat infringements, it’s not clear whether it was ever in a situation where it needed to.

The DMCA requires Internet services to implement a meaningful repeat infringer policy, but in this case, Steadfast’s client Imagebam reportedly had a takedown policy of its own, which complicates the issue.

“While the fact Steadfast has never terminated one of its own customers for infringement is potentially damaging to its ability to fit the safe harbor, Plaintiff has not established that Steadfast faced a situation requiring it to terminate one of its users,” Judge Wu writes.

“Even in the present case it is unclear that Steadfast needed to terminate Flixya’s account given Flixya itself had a policy that was arguably successful at removing infringing images from imagebam.com.”

Judge Wu adds that safe harbor defenses are generally left to the jury, and this is what he decided as well.

As a result, ALS’s entire motion for summary judgment is denied. This is good news for Steadfast, who will have their safe harbor defense available at the upcoming trial. However, they will likely celebrate this win with caution, as the jury makes its ultimate decision.

A copy of the court’s order is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Kim Dotcom Begins New Fight to Avoid Extradition to United States

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-begins-new-fight-to-avoid-extradition-to-united-states-180212/

More than six years ago in January 2012, file-hosting site Megaupload was shut down by the United States government and founder Kim Dotcom and his associates were arrested in New Zealand.

What followed was an epic legal battle to extradite Dotcom, Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato, and Bram van der Kolk to the United States to face several counts including copyright infringement, racketeering, and money laundering. Dotcom has battled the US government every inch of the way.

The most significant matters include the validity of the search warrants used to raid Dotcom’s Coatesville home on January 20, 2012. Despite a prolonged trip through the legal system, in 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed Dotcom’s appeals that the search warrants weren’t valid.

In 2015, the District Court later ruled that Dotcom and his associates are eligible for extradition. A subsequent appeal to the High Court failed when in February 2017 – and despite a finding that communicating copyright-protected works to the public is not a criminal offense in New Zealand – a judge also ruled in favor.

Of course, Dotcom and his associates immediately filed appeals and today in the Court of Appeal in Wellington, their hearing got underway.

Lawyer Grant Illingworth, representing Van der Kolk and Ortmann, told the Court that the case had “gone off the rails” during the initial 10-week extradition hearing in 2015, arguing that the case had merited “meaningful” consideration by a judge, something which failed to happen.

“It all went wrong. It went absolutely, totally wrong,” Mr. Illingworth said. “We were not heard.”

As expected, Illingworth underlined the belief that under New Zealand law, a person may only be extradited for an offense that could be tried in a criminal court locally. His clients’ cases do not meet that standard, the lawyer argued.

Turning back the clocks more than six years, Illingworth again raised the thorny issue of the warrants used to authorize the raids on the Megaupload defendants.

It had previously been established that New Zealand’s GCSB intelligence service had illegally spied on Dotcom and his associates in the lead up to their arrests. However, that fact was not disclosed to the District Court judge who authorized the raids.

“We say that there was misleading conduct at this stage because there was no reference to the fact that information had been gathered illegally by the GCSB,” he said.

But according to Justice Forrest Miller, even if this defense argument holds up the High Court had already found there was a prima facie case to answer “with bells on”.

“The difficulty that you face here ultimately is whether the judicial process that has been followed in both of the courts below was meaningful, to use the Canadian standard,” Justice Miller said.

“You’re going to have to persuade us that what Justice Gilbert [in the High Court] ended up with, even assuming your interpretation of the legislation is correct, was wrong.”

Although the US seeks to extradite Dotcom and his associates on 13 charges, including racketeering, copyright infringement, money laundering and wire fraud, the Court of Appeal previously confirmed that extradition could be granted based on just some of the charges.

The stakes couldn’t be much higher. The FBI says that the “Megaupload Conspiracy” earned the quartet $175m and if extradited to the US, they could face decades in jail.

While Dotcom was not in court today, he has been active on Twitter.

“The court process went ‘off the rails’ when the only copyright expert Judge in NZ was >removed< from my case and replaced by a non-tech Judge who asked if Mega was ‘cow storage’. He then simply copy/pasted 85% of the US submissions into his judgment," Dotcom wrote.

Dotcom also appeared to question the suitability of judges at both the High Court and Court of Appeal for the task in hand.

“Justice Miller and Justice Gilbert (he wrote that High Court judgment) were business partners at the law firm Chapman Tripp which represents the Hollywood Studios in my case. Both Judges are now at the Court of Appeal. Gilbert was promoted shortly after ruling against me,” Dotcom added.

Dotcom is currently suing the New Zealand government for billions of dollars in damages over the warrant which triggered his arrest and the demise of Megaupload.

The hearing is expected to last up to two-and-a-half weeks.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

US Online Piracy Lawsuits Skyrocket in the New Year

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-online-piracy-lawsuits-skyrocket-in-the-new-year-180211/

Since the turn of the last decade, numerous people have been sued for illegal file-sharing in US courts.

Initially, these lawsuits targeted hundreds or thousands of BitTorrent users per case, but this practice has been rooted out since. Now, most file-sharing cases target a single person, up to a dozen or two at most.

While there may be fewer defendants, there are still plenty of lawsuits filed every month. These generally come from a small group of companies, regularly referred to as “copyright trolls,” who are looking to settle with the alleged pirates.

According to Lex Machina, there were 1,019 file-sharing cases filed in the United States last year, which is an average of 85 per month. More than half of these came from adult entertainment outfit Malibu Media (X-Art), which alone was good for 550 lawsuits.

While those are decent numbers, they could easily be shattered this year. Data collected by TorrentFreak shows that during the first month of 2018, three copyright holders filed a total of 286 lawsuits against alleged pirates. That’s three times more than the monthly average for 2017.

As expected, Malibu Media takes the crown with 138 lawsuits, but not by a large margin. Strike 3 Holdings, which distributes its adult videos via the Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen websites, comes in second place with 133 cases.

Some Malibu Media cases

While Strike 3 Holdings is a relative newcomer, their cases follow a similar pattern. There are also clear links to Malibu Media, as one of the company’s former lawyers, Emilie Kennedy, now works as in-house counsel at Strike 3.

The only non-adult copyright holder that filed cases against alleged BitTorrent pirates was Bodyguard Productions. The company filed 15 cases against downloaders of The Hitman’s Bodyguard, totaling a few dozen defendants.

While these numbers are significant, it’s hard to predict whether the increase will persist. Lawsuits targeted at BitTorrent users often come in waves, and the same companies that flooded the courts with cases last month could easily take a break the next.

While copyright holders have every right to go after people who share their work without permission, these type of cases are not without controversy.

Several judges have referred used strong terms including “harassment,” to describe some of the tactics that are used, and the IP-address evidence is not always trusted either.

That said, there’s no evidence that Malibu Media and others are done yet.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Comcast Explains How It Deals With Persistent Pirates

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/comcast-explains-how-it-deals-with-persistent-pirates-180210/

Dating back to the turn of the last century, copyright holders have alerted Internet providers about alleged copyright infringers on their network.

While many ISPs forwarded these notices to their subscribers, most were not very forthcoming about what would happen after multiple accusations.

This vagueness was in part shaped by law. While it’s clear that the DMCA requires Internet providers to implement a meaningful “repeat infringer” policy, the DMCA doesn’t set any clear boundaries on what constitutes a repeat infringer and when one should be punished.

With the recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against Cox, it is now clear that “infringers” doesn’t imply people who are adjudicated, valid accusations from copyright holders are enough. However, an ISP still has some flexibility when it comes to the rest of its “repeat infringer” policy.

In this light, it’s interesting to see that Comcast recently published details of its repeat infringer policy online. While the ISP has previously confirmed that persistent pirates could be terminated, it has never publicly spelled out its policy in such detail.

First up, Comcast clarifies that subscribers to its Xfinity service can be flagged based on reports from rightsholders alone, which is in line with the Fourth Circuit ruling.

“Any infringement of third party copyright rights violates the law. We reserve the right to treat any customer account for whom we receive multiple DMCA notifications from content owners as a repeat infringer,” the company notes.

If Comcast receives multiple notices in a calendar month, the associated subscriber moves from one policy step to the next one. This means that the ISP will issue warnings with increased visibility.

These alerts can come in the form of emails, letters to a home address, text messages, phone calls, and also alerts sent to the subscriber’s web browser. The alerts then have to be acknowledged by the user, so it clear that he or she understands what’s at stake.

From Comcast’s repeat infringer policy

Comcast doesn’t state specifically how many alerts will trigger tougher action, but it stresses that repeat infringers risk having their accounts suspended. As a result, all devices that rely on Internet access will be interrupted or stop working.

“If your XFINITY Internet account is suspended, you will have no Internet access or service during suspension. This means any services and devices that use the Internet will not properly work or will not work at all,” Comcast states.

The suspension is applied as a last warning before the lights go out completely. Subscribers who reach this stage can still reinstate their Internet connectivity by calling Comcast. It’s unclear whether they have to take any additional action, but it could be that these subscribers have to ‘promise’ to behave.

After this last warning, the subscriber risks the most severe penalty, account termination. This is not limited to regular access to the web, but also affects XFINITY TV, XFINITY Voice, and XFINITY Home, including smart thermostats and home security equipment.

“If you reach the point of service termination, we will terminate your XFINITY Internet service and related add-ons. Unreturned equipment charges will still apply. If you also have XFINITY TV and/or XFINITY Voice services, they will also be terminated,” Comcast warns.

Comcast doesn’t specify how long the Internet termination lasts but the company states that it’s typically no less than 180 days. This means that terminated subscribers will need to find an Internet subscription elsewhere if one’s available.

The good news is that other XFINITY services can be restored after termination, without Internet access. Subscribers will have to contact Comcast to request a quote for an Internet-less package.

While this policy may sound harsh to some, Comcast has few other options if it wants to avoid liability. The good news is that the company requires users to acknowledge the warnings, which means that any measures shouldn’t come as a surprise.

There is no mention of any option to contest any copyright holder notices, which may become an issue in the future. After all, when copyright holders have the power to have people’s Internet connections terminated, their accusations have to be spot on.



Comcast’s repeat infringer policy is available here and was, according to the information we have available, quietly published around December last year.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Cloudflare Hit With Piracy Lawsuit After Abuse Form ‘Fails’

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-hit-with-piracy-lawsuit-after-abuse-form-fails-180210/

Seattle-based artist Christopher Boffoli is no stranger when it comes to suing tech companies for aiding copyright infringement of his work.

Boffoli has filed lawsuits against Imgur, Twitter, Pinterest, Google, and others, which were dismissed and/or settled out of court under undisclosed terms.

This month he filed a new case against another intermediary, Cloudflare, which has had its fair share of piracy allegations in recent years.

In common with other companies, Cloudflare is accused of contributing to copyright infringements of Boffoli’s “Big Appetites” miniatures series. In this case, several Cloudflare customers allegedly posted these photos on their sites which were then reproduced on the servers of the CDN provider.

The lawsuit mentions that the infringing copies were posted on unique-landscape.com and baklol.com. This was also pointed out to Cloudflare by Boffoli, who sent the company DMCA takedown notices in October and November of last year.

While the photographer received an automated response, the photos in question remained online. Through the lawsuit, Boffoli hopes this will change.

“CloudFlare induced, caused, or materially contributed to the Infringing Websites’ publication,” the complaint reads. “CloudFlare had actual knowledge of the Infringing Content. Boffoli provided notice to CloudFlare in compliance with the DMCA, and CloudFlare failed to disable access to or remove the Infringing Websites.”

The photographer is asking the court to order an injunction preventing Cloudflare from making his work available. In addition, the complaint asks for actual and statutory damages for willful copyright infringement. With at least four photos in the lawsuit, the potential damages are more than half a million dollars.

While it’s not mentioned in the complaint, the email communication between Boffoli and Cloudflare goes further than just an automated response. Court records show that the photographer initially didn’t ask Cloudflare to remove the infringing photos. Instead, he asked the CDN provider to forward them to the ISP or site owner.

“I would be grateful if you would forward this DMCA takedown request to the website owner and ISP so these infringing links can immediately be removed,” it read.

Part of the email communication

From then on things escalated a bit. The emails reveal that Boffoli had trouble reporting the infringing photos through the required form.

When the photographer pointed this out in a direct email, Cloudflare urged him to try the form again as that was the only way to send the DMCA request to the designated copyright agent.

“The DMCA doesn’t require us to process reports not sent to our registered agent as per our registration with the US Copyright Office. Our registered copyright agent is the form located at cloudflare.com/abuse/form and you may proceed via that avenue,” Cloudflare wrote.

If the case moves forward, Cloudflare may use this to argue that it never received a proper DMCA takedown notice. However, Boffoli wasn’t planning on trying again and instead threatened a lawsuit, unless Cloudflare took immediate action.

“As I have said, your form did not work for me despite repeated attempts to use it. And it is insulting for you to suggest that it’s working fine when it is not. So again, this is absolutely my last attempt to get you to respond to this infringement for which you are impeding the removal,” Boffoli wrote.

“If you take no action now I will forward this to my legal team this week. It is more than enough of a burden to have to waste countless hours policing my own copyrights without organizations like Cloudflare running interference for copyright infringers. I am not averse to asking a federal judge to compel you to deal with these copyright infringements. And I will seek statutory damages for contributory infringement at that time.”

As it turns out, that was not an idle threat.

—-

A copy of the complaint is available here (pdf) and the email exhibits can be found here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Sharing Secrets with AWS Lambda Using AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store

Post Syndicated from Chris Munns original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/sharing-secrets-with-aws-lambda-using-aws-systems-manager-parameter-store/

This post courtesy of Roberto Iturralde, Sr. Application Developer- AWS Professional Services

Application architects are faced with key decisions throughout the process of designing and implementing their systems. One decision common to nearly all solutions is how to manage the storage and access rights of application configuration. Shared configuration should be stored centrally and securely with each system component having access only to the properties that it needs for functioning.

With AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store, developers have access to central, secure, durable, and highly available storage for application configuration and secrets. Parameter Store also integrates with AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM), allowing fine-grained access control to individual parameters or branches of a hierarchical tree.

This post demonstrates how to create and access shared configurations in Parameter Store from AWS Lambda. Both encrypted and plaintext parameter values are stored with only the Lambda function having permissions to decrypt the secrets. You also use AWS X-Ray to profile the function.

Solution overview

This example is made up of the following components:

  • An AWS SAM template that defines:
    • A Lambda function and its permissions
    • An unencrypted Parameter Store parameter that the Lambda function loads
    • A KMS key that only the Lambda function can access. You use this key to create an encrypted parameter later.
  • Lambda function code in Python 3.6 that demonstrates how to load values from Parameter Store at function initialization for reuse across invocations.

Launch the AWS SAM template

To create the resources shown in this post, you can download the SAM template or choose the button to launch the stack. The template requires one parameter, an IAM user name, which is the name of the IAM user to be the admin of the KMS key that you create. In order to perform the steps listed in this post, this IAM user will need permissions to execute Lambda functions, create Parameter Store parameters, administer keys in KMS, and view the X-Ray console. If you have these privileges in your IAM user account you can use your own account to complete the walkthrough. You can not use the root user to administer the KMS keys.

SAM template resources

The following sections show the code for the resources defined in the template.
Lambda function

ParameterStoreBlogFunctionDev:
    Type: 'AWS::Serverless::Function'
    Properties:
      FunctionName: 'ParameterStoreBlogFunctionDev'
      Description: 'Integrating lambda with Parameter Store'
      Handler: 'lambda_function.lambda_handler'
      Role: !GetAtt ParameterStoreBlogFunctionRoleDev.Arn
      CodeUri: './code'
      Environment:
        Variables:
          ENV: 'dev'
          APP_CONFIG_PATH: 'parameterStoreBlog'
          AWS_XRAY_TRACING_NAME: 'ParameterStoreBlogFunctionDev'
      Runtime: 'python3.6'
      Timeout: 5
      Tracing: 'Active'

  ParameterStoreBlogFunctionRoleDev:
    Type: AWS::IAM::Role
    Properties:
      AssumeRolePolicyDocument:
        Version: '2012-10-17'
        Statement:
          -
            Effect: Allow
            Principal:
              Service:
                - 'lambda.amazonaws.com'
            Action:
              - 'sts:AssumeRole'
      ManagedPolicyArns:
        - 'arn:aws:iam::aws:policy/service-role/AWSLambdaBasicExecutionRole'
      Policies:
        -
          PolicyName: 'ParameterStoreBlogDevParameterAccess'
          PolicyDocument:
            Version: '2012-10-17'
            Statement:
              -
                Effect: Allow
                Action:
                  - 'ssm:GetParameter*'
                Resource: !Sub 'arn:aws:ssm:${AWS::Region}:${AWS::AccountId}:parameter/dev/parameterStoreBlog*'
        -
          PolicyName: 'ParameterStoreBlogDevXRayAccess'
          PolicyDocument:
            Version: '2012-10-17'
            Statement:
              -
                Effect: Allow
                Action:
                  - 'xray:PutTraceSegments'
                  - 'xray:PutTelemetryRecords'
                Resource: '*'

In this YAML code, you define a Lambda function named ParameterStoreBlogFunctionDev using the SAM AWS::Serverless::Function type. The environment variables for this function include the ENV (dev) and the APP_CONFIG_PATH where you find the configuration for this app in Parameter Store. X-Ray tracing is also enabled for profiling later.

The IAM role for this function extends the AWSLambdaBasicExecutionRole by adding IAM policies that grant the function permissions to write to X-Ray and get parameters from Parameter Store, limited to paths under /dev/parameterStoreBlog*.
Parameter Store parameter

SimpleParameter:
    Type: AWS::SSM::Parameter
    Properties:
      Name: '/dev/parameterStoreBlog/appConfig'
      Description: 'Sample dev config values for my app'
      Type: String
      Value: '{"key1": "value1","key2": "value2","key3": "value3"}'

This YAML code creates a plaintext string parameter in Parameter Store in a path that your Lambda function can access.
KMS encryption key

ParameterStoreBlogDevEncryptionKeyAlias:
    Type: AWS::KMS::Alias
    Properties:
      AliasName: 'alias/ParameterStoreBlogKeyDev'
      TargetKeyId: !Ref ParameterStoreBlogDevEncryptionKey

  ParameterStoreBlogDevEncryptionKey:
    Type: AWS::KMS::Key
    Properties:
      Description: 'Encryption key for secret config values for the Parameter Store blog post'
      Enabled: True
      EnableKeyRotation: False
      KeyPolicy:
        Version: '2012-10-17'
        Id: 'key-default-1'
        Statement:
          -
            Sid: 'Allow administration of the key & encryption of new values'
            Effect: Allow
            Principal:
              AWS:
                - !Sub 'arn:aws:iam::${AWS::AccountId}:user/${IAMUsername}'
            Action:
              - 'kms:Create*'
              - 'kms:Encrypt'
              - 'kms:Describe*'
              - 'kms:Enable*'
              - 'kms:List*'
              - 'kms:Put*'
              - 'kms:Update*'
              - 'kms:Revoke*'
              - 'kms:Disable*'
              - 'kms:Get*'
              - 'kms:Delete*'
              - 'kms:ScheduleKeyDeletion'
              - 'kms:CancelKeyDeletion'
            Resource: '*'
          -
            Sid: 'Allow use of the key'
            Effect: Allow
            Principal:
              AWS: !GetAtt ParameterStoreBlogFunctionRoleDev.Arn
            Action:
              - 'kms:Encrypt'
              - 'kms:Decrypt'
              - 'kms:ReEncrypt*'
              - 'kms:GenerateDataKey*'
              - 'kms:DescribeKey'
            Resource: '*'

This YAML code creates an encryption key with a key policy with two statements.

The first statement allows a given user (${IAMUsername}) to administer the key. Importantly, this includes the ability to encrypt values using this key and disable or delete this key, but does not allow the administrator to decrypt values that were encrypted with this key.

The second statement grants your Lambda function permission to encrypt and decrypt values using this key. The alias for this key in KMS is ParameterStoreBlogKeyDev, which is how you reference it later.

Lambda function

Here I walk you through the Lambda function code.

import os, traceback, json, configparser, boto3
from aws_xray_sdk.core import patch_all
patch_all()

# Initialize boto3 client at global scope for connection reuse
client = boto3.client('ssm')
env = os.environ['ENV']
app_config_path = os.environ['APP_CONFIG_PATH']
full_config_path = '/' + env + '/' + app_config_path
# Initialize app at global scope for reuse across invocations
app = None

class MyApp:
    def __init__(self, config):
        """
        Construct new MyApp with configuration
        :param config: application configuration
        """
        self.config = config

    def get_config(self):
        return self.config

def load_config(ssm_parameter_path):
    """
    Load configparser from config stored in SSM Parameter Store
    :param ssm_parameter_path: Path to app config in SSM Parameter Store
    :return: ConfigParser holding loaded config
    """
    configuration = configparser.ConfigParser()
    try:
        # Get all parameters for this app
        param_details = client.get_parameters_by_path(
            Path=ssm_parameter_path,
            Recursive=False,
            WithDecryption=True
        )

        # Loop through the returned parameters and populate the ConfigParser
        if 'Parameters' in param_details and len(param_details.get('Parameters')) > 0:
            for param in param_details.get('Parameters'):
                param_path_array = param.get('Name').split("/")
                section_position = len(param_path_array) - 1
                section_name = param_path_array[section_position]
                config_values = json.loads(param.get('Value'))
                config_dict = {section_name: config_values}
                print("Found configuration: " + str(config_dict))
                configuration.read_dict(config_dict)

    except:
        print("Encountered an error loading config from SSM.")
        traceback.print_exc()
    finally:
        return configuration

def lambda_handler(event, context):
    global app
    # Initialize app if it doesn't yet exist
    if app is None:
        print("Loading config and creating new MyApp...")
        config = load_config(full_config_path)
        app = MyApp(config)

    return "MyApp config is " + str(app.get_config()._sections)

Beneath the import statements, you import the patch_all function from the AWS X-Ray library, which you use to patch boto3 to create X-Ray segments for all your boto3 operations.

Next, you create a boto3 SSM client at the global scope for reuse across function invocations, following Lambda best practices. Using the function environment variables, you assemble the path where you expect to find your configuration in Parameter Store. The class MyApp is meant to serve as an example of an application that would need its configuration injected at construction. In this example, you create an instance of ConfigParser, a class in Python’s standard library for handling basic configurations, to give to MyApp.

The load_config function loads the all the parameters from Parameter Store at the level immediately beneath the path provided in the Lambda function environment variables. Each parameter found is put into a new section in ConfigParser. The name of the section is the name of the parameter, less the base path. In this example, the full parameter name is /dev/parameterStoreBlog/appConfig, which is put in a section named appConfig.

Finally, the lambda_handler function initializes an instance of MyApp if it doesn’t already exist, constructing it with the loaded configuration from Parameter Store. Then it simply returns the currently loaded configuration in MyApp. The impact of this design is that the configuration is only loaded from Parameter Store the first time that the Lambda function execution environment is initialized. Subsequent invocations reuse the existing instance of MyApp, resulting in improved performance. You see this in the X-Ray traces later in this post. For more advanced use cases where configuration changes need to be received immediately, you could implement an expiry policy for your configuration entries or push notifications to your function.

To confirm that everything was created successfully, test the function in the Lambda console.

  1. Open the Lambda console.
  2. In the navigation pane, choose Functions.
  3. In the Functions pane, filter to ParameterStoreBlogFunctionDev to find the function created by the SAM template earlier. Open the function name to view its details.
  4. On the top right of the function detail page, choose Test. You may need to create a new test event. The input JSON doesn’t matter as this function ignores the input.

After running the test, you should see output similar to the following. This demonstrates that the function successfully fetched the unencrypted configuration from Parameter Store.

Create an encrypted parameter

You currently have a simple, unencrypted parameter and a Lambda function that can access it.

Next, you create an encrypted parameter that only your Lambda function has permission to use for decryption. This limits read access for this parameter to only this Lambda function.

To follow along with this section, deploy the SAM template for this post in your account and make your IAM user name the KMS key admin mentioned earlier.

  1. In the Systems Manager console, under Shared Resources, choose Parameter Store.
  2. Choose Create Parameter.
    • For Name, enter /dev/parameterStoreBlog/appSecrets.
    • For Type, select Secure String.
    • For KMS Key ID, choose alias/ParameterStoreBlogKeyDev, which is the key that your SAM template created.
    • For Value, enter {"secretKey": "secretValue"}.
    • Choose Create Parameter.
  3. If you now try to view the value of this parameter by choosing the name of the parameter in the parameters list and then choosing Show next to the Value field, you won’t see the value appear. This is because, even though you have permission to encrypt values using this KMS key, you do not have permissions to decrypt values.
  4. In the Lambda console, run another test of your function. You now also see the secret parameter that you created and its decrypted value.

If you do not see the new parameter in the Lambda output, this may be because the Lambda execution environment is still warm from the previous test. Because the parameters are loaded at Lambda startup, you need a fresh execution environment to refresh the values.

Adjust the function timeout to a different value in the Advanced Settings at the bottom of the Lambda Configuration tab. Choose Save and test to trigger the creation of a new Lambda execution environment.

Profiling the impact of querying Parameter Store using AWS X-Ray

By using the AWS X-Ray SDK to patch boto3 in your Lambda function code, each invocation of the function creates traces in X-Ray. In this example, you can use these traces to validate the performance impact of your design decision to only load configuration from Parameter Store on the first invocation of the function in a new execution environment.

From the Lambda function details page where you tested the function earlier, under the function name, choose Monitoring. Choose View traces in X-Ray.

This opens the X-Ray console in a new window filtered to your function. Be aware of the time range field next to the search bar if you don’t see any search results.
In this screenshot, I’ve invoked the Lambda function twice, one time 10.3 minutes ago with a response time of 1.1 seconds and again 9.8 minutes ago with a response time of 8 milliseconds.

Looking at the details of the longer running trace by clicking the trace ID, you can see that the Lambda function spent the first ~350 ms of the full 1.1 sec routing the request through Lambda and creating a new execution environment for this function, as this was the first invocation with this code. This is the portion of time before the initialization subsegment.

Next, it took 725 ms to initialize the function, which includes executing the code at the global scope (including creating the boto3 client). This is also a one-time cost for a fresh execution environment.

Finally, the function executed for 65 ms, of which 63.5 ms was the GetParametersByPath call to Parameter Store.

Looking at the trace for the second, much faster function invocation, you see that the majority of the 8 ms execution time was Lambda routing the request to the function and returning the response. Only 1 ms of the overall execution time was attributed to the execution of the function, which makes sense given that after the first invocation you’re simply returning the config stored in MyApp.

While the Traces screen allows you to view the details of individual traces, the X-Ray Service Map screen allows you to view aggregate performance data for all traced services over a period of time.

In the X-Ray console navigation pane, choose Service map. Selecting a service node shows the metrics for node-specific requests. Selecting an edge between two nodes shows the metrics for requests that traveled that connection. Again, be aware of the time range field next to the search bar if you don’t see any search results.

After invoking your Lambda function several more times by testing it from the Lambda console, you can view some aggregate performance metrics. Look at the following:

  • From the client perspective, requests to the Lambda service for the function are taking an average of 50 ms to respond. The function is generating ~1 trace per minute.
  • The function itself is responding in an average of 3 ms. In the following screenshot, I’ve clicked on this node, which reveals a latency histogram of the traced requests showing that over 95% of requests return in under 5 ms.
  • Parameter Store is responding to requests in an average of 64 ms, but note the much lower trace rate in the node. This is because you only fetch data from Parameter Store on the initialization of the Lambda execution environment.

Conclusion

Deduplication, encryption, and restricted access to shared configuration and secrets is a key component to any mature architecture. Serverless architectures designed using event-driven, on-demand, compute services like Lambda are no different.

In this post, I walked you through a sample application accessing unencrypted and encrypted values in Parameter Store. These values were created in a hierarchy by application environment and component name, with the permissions to decrypt secret values restricted to only the function needing access. The techniques used here can become the foundation of secure, robust configuration management in your enterprise serverless applications.

MPA Met With Russian Site-Blocking Body to Discuss Piracy

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-met-with-russian-site-blocking-body-to-discuss-piracy-180209/

Given Russia’s historical reputation for having a weak approach to online piracy, the last few years stand in stark contrast to those that went before.

Overseen by telecoms watchdog Rozcomnadzor, Russia now has one of the toughest site-blocking regimes in the whole world. It’s possible to have entire sites blocked in a matter of days, potentially over a single piece of infringing content. For persistent offenders, permanent blocking is now a reality.

While that process requires the involvement of the courts, the subsequent blocking of mirror sites does not, with Russia blocking more than 500 since a new law was passed in October 2017.

With anti-piracy measures now a force to be reckoned with in Russia, it’s emerged that last week Stan McCoy, president of the Motion Picture Association’s EMEA division, met with telecoms watchdog Roskomnadzor in Moscow.

McCoy met with Rozcomnadzor chief Alexander Zharov last Friday, in a meeting that was also attended by Ekaterina Mironova, head of the anti-piracy committee of the Media Communication Union (ISS).

According to Rozcomnadzor, issues discussed included copyright-related legislation and regulation. Also on the agenda was the strengthening of international cooperation, including between public organizations representing the interests of rightholders.

“In particular, an agreement was reached to expand contacts between the MPAA and the ISS,” Rozcomnadzor notes.

The ISS (known locally as Media-Communication Union MKC) was founded by the largest Russian media companies and telecom operators in February 2014. It differentiates itself from other organizations with the claim that its the first group of its type to represent the interests of communications companies, rights holders, broadcasters and large distributors.

During the meeting, McCoy was given an update on Russia’s implementation of the various anti-piracy laws introduced and developed since May 2015.

“Since the introduction of the anti-piracy laws, Roskomnadzor has received more than 2,800 rulings from the Moscow City Court on the adoption of preliminary provisional [blocking] measures to protect copyright on the Internet, including 1,630 for movies,” the watchdog reveals.

“In connection with the deletion of pirated content, access to the territory of Russia was restricted for 1,547 Internet resources. Based on the decisions of the Moscow City Court, 752 pirated sites are now permanently blocked, and according to the decisions of the Ministry of Communications, more than 600 ‘mirrors’ of these resources are blocked too.”

While it’s normally the position of the US to criticize Russia for not doing enough to tackle piracy, it must’ve been interesting to participate in a meeting where for once the Russians had the upper hand. Even though the MPAA previously campaigned for one, there is no site-blocking mechanism in the United States.

“The fight against piracy stimulates the growth of the legal online video market in Russia. Attendance of legal online sites is constantly growing. Users are attracted to high-quality content for an affordable fee,” Rozcomnadzor concludes.

The meeting’s participants will join up again during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum scheduled to take place May 24-26.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons