Tag Archives: ISIS

AWS Secrets Manager: Store, Distribute, and Rotate Credentials Securely

Post Syndicated from Randall Hunt original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-secrets-manager-store-distribute-and-rotate-credentials-securely/

Today we’re launching AWS Secrets Manager which makes it easy to store and retrieve your secrets via API or the AWS Command Line Interface (CLI) and rotate your credentials with built-in or custom AWS Lambda functions. Managing application secrets like database credentials, passwords, or API Keys is easy when you’re working locally with one machine and one application. As you grow and scale to many distributed microservices, it becomes a daunting task to securely store, distribute, rotate, and consume secrets. Previously, customers needed to provision and maintain additional infrastructure solely for secrets management which could incur costs and introduce unneeded complexity into systems.

AWS Secrets Manager

Imagine that I have an application that takes incoming tweets from Twitter and stores them in an Amazon Aurora database. Previously, I would have had to request a username and password from my database administrator and embed those credentials in environment variables or, in my race to production, even in the application itself. I would also need to have our social media manager create the Twitter API credentials and figure out how to store those. This is a fairly manual process, involving multiple people, that I have to restart every time I want to rotate these credentials. With Secrets Manager my database administrator can provide the credentials in secrets manager once and subsequently rely on a Secrets Manager provided Lambda function to automatically update and rotate those credentials. My social media manager can put the Twitter API keys in Secrets Manager which I can then access with a simple API call and I can even rotate these programmatically with a custom lambda function calling out to the Twitter API. My secrets are encrypted with the KMS key of my choice, and each of these administrators can explicitly grant access to these secrets with with granular IAM policies for individual roles or users.

Let’s take a look at how I would store a secret using the AWS Secrets Manager console. First, I’ll click Store a new secret to get to the new secrets wizard. For my RDS Aurora instance it’s straightforward to simply select the instance and provide the initial username and password to connect to the database.

Next, I’ll fill in a quick description and a name to access my secret by. You can use whatever naming scheme you want here.

Next, we’ll configure rotation to use the Secrets Manager-provided Lambda function to rotate our password every 10 days.

Finally, we’ll review all the details and check out our sample code for storing and retrieving our secret!

Finally I can review the secrets in the console.

Now, if I needed to access these secrets I’d simply call the API.

import json
import boto3
secrets = boto3.client("secretsmanager")
rds = json.dumps(secrets.get_secrets_value("prod/TwitterApp/Database")['SecretString'])
print(rds)

Which would give me the following values:


{'engine': 'mysql',
 'host': 'twitterapp2.abcdefg.us-east-1.rds.amazonaws.com',
 'password': '-)Kw>THISISAFAKEPASSWORD:lg{&sad+Canr',
 'port': 3306,
 'username': 'ranman'}

More than passwords

AWS Secrets Manager works for more than just passwords. I can store OAuth credentials, binary data, and more. Let’s look at storing my Twitter OAuth application keys.

Now, I can define the rotation for these third-party OAuth credentials with a custom AWS Lambda function that can call out to Twitter whenever we need to rotate our credentials.

Custom Rotation

One of the niftiest features of AWS Secrets Manager is custom AWS Lambda functions for credential rotation. This allows you to define completely custom workflows for credentials. Secrets Manager will call your lambda with a payload that includes a Step which specifies which step of the rotation you’re in, a SecretId which specifies which secret the rotation is for, and importantly a ClientRequestToken which is used to ensure idempotency in any changes to the underlying secret.

When you’re rotating secrets you go through a few different steps:

  1. createSecret
  2. setSecret
  3. testSecret
  4. finishSecret

The advantage of these steps is that you can add any kind of approval steps you want for each phase of the rotation. For more details on custom rotation check out the documentation.

Available Now
AWS Secrets Manager is available today in US East (N. Virginia), US East (Ohio), US West (N. California), US West (Oregon), Asia Pacific (Mumbai), Asia Pacific (Seoul), Asia Pacific (Singapore), Asia Pacific (Sydney), Asia Pacific (Tokyo), Canada (Central), EU (Frankfurt), EU (Ireland), EU (London), and South America (São Paulo). Secrets are priced at $0.40 per month per secret and $0.05 per 10,000 API calls. I’m looking forward to seeing more users adopt rotating credentials to secure their applications!

Randall

Huang: Spectre/Meltdown Pits Transparency Against Liability

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/746111/rss

Here’s a blog post
from “bunnie” Huang
on the tension between transparency and product
liability around hardware flaws. “The open source community could
use the Spectre/Meltdown crisis as an opportunity to reform the status
quo. Instead of suing Intel for money, what if we sue Intel for
documentation? If documentation and transparency have real value, then this
is a chance to finally put that value in economic terms that Intel
shareholders can understand. I propose a bargain somewhere along these
lines: if Intel releases comprehensive microarchitectural hardware design
specifications, microcode, firmware, and all software source code (e.g. for
AMT/ME) so that the community can band together to hammer out any other
security bugs hiding in their hardware, then Intel is absolved of any
payouts related to the Spectre/Meltdown exploits.

Chiariglione: A crisis, the causes and a solution

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/745776/rss

Worth a read: this blog
posting from Leonardo Chiariglione
, the founder and chair of MPEG, on
how (in his view) the group is being destroyed by free codecs and patent trolls.
Good stories have an end, so the MPEG business model could not last
forever. Over the years proprietary and ‘royalty free’ products have
emerged but have not been able to dent the success of MPEG standards. More
importantly IP holders – often companies not interested in exploiting MPEG
standards, so called Non Practicing Entities (NPE) – have become more and
more aggressive in extracting value from their IP.

(Thanks to Paul Wise).

Tech Companies Meet EC to Discuss Removal of Pirate & Illegal Content

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/tech-companies-meet-ec-to-discuss-removal-of-pirate-illegal-content-180109/

Thousands perhaps millions of pieces of illegal content flood onto the Internet every single day, a problem that’s only increasing with each passing year.

In the early days of the Internet very little was done to combat the problem but with the rise of social media and millions of citizens using it to publish whatever they like – not least terrorist propaganda and racist speech – governments around the world are beginning to take notice.

Of course, running parallel is the multi-billion dollar issue of intellectual property infringement. Eighteen years on from the first wave of mass online piracy and the majority of popular movies, TV shows, games, software and books are still available to download.

Over the past couple of years and increasingly in recent months, there have been clear signs that the EU in particular wishes to collectively mitigate the spread of all illegal content – from ISIS videos to pirated Hollywood movies – with assistance from major tech companies.

Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are all expected to do their part, with the looming stick of legislation behind the collaborative carrots, should they fail to come up with a solution.

To that end, five EU Commissioners – Dimitris Avramopoulos, Elżbieta Bieńkowska, Věra Jourová, Julian King and Mariya Gabriel – will meet today in Brussels with representatives of several online platforms to discuss progress made in dealing with the spread of the aforementioned material.

In a joint statement together with EC Vice-President Andrus Ansip, the Commissioners describe all illegal content as a threat to security, safety, and fundamental rights, demanding a “collective response – from all actors, including the internet industry.”

They note that online platforms have committed significant resources towards removing violent and extremist content, including via automated removal, but more needs to be done to tackle the issue.

“This is starting to achieve results. However, even if tens of thousands of pieces of illegal content have been taken down, there are still hundreds of thousands more out there,” the Commissioners writes.

“And removal needs to be speedy: the longer illegal material stays online, the greater its reach, the more it can spread and grow. Building on the current voluntary approach, more efforts and progress have to be made.”

The Commission says it is relying on online platforms such as Google and Facebook to “step up and speed up their efforts to tackle these threats quickly and comprehensively.” This should include closer cooperation with law enforcement, sharing of information with other online players, plus action to ensure that once taken down, illegal content does not simply reappear.

While it’s clear that that the EC would prefer to work collaboratively with the platforms to find a solution to the illegal content problem, as expected there’s the veiled threat of them being compelled by law to do so, should they fall short of their responsibilities.

“We will continue to promote cooperation with social media companies to detect and remove terrorist and other illegal content online, and if necessary, propose legislation to complement the existing regulatory framework,” the EC warns.

Today’s discussions run both in parallel and in tandem with others specifically targeted at intellectual property abuses. Late November the EC presented a set of new measures to ensure that copyright holders are well protected both online and in the physical realm.

A key aim is to focus on large-scale facilitators, such as pirate site operators, while cutting their revenue streams.

“The Commission seeks to deprive commercial-scale IP infringers of the revenue flows that make their criminal activity lucrative – this is the so-called ‘follow the money’ approach which focuses on the ‘big fish’ rather than individuals,” the Commission explained.

This presentation followed on the heels of a proposal last September which had the EC advocating the take-down-stay-down principle, with pirate content being taken down, automated filters ensuring infringement can be tackled proactively, with measures being taken against repeat infringers.

Again, the EC warned that should cooperation with Internet platforms fail to come up with results, future legislation cannot be ruled out.

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

Bitcoin: In Crypto We Trust

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/12/bitcoin-in-crypto-we-trust.html

Tim Wu, who coined “net neutrality”, has written an op-ed on the New York Times called “The Bitcoin Boom: In Code We Trust“. He is wrong about “code”.

The wrong “trust”

Wu builds a big manifesto about how real-world institutions can’t be trusted. Certainly, this reflects the rhetoric from a vocal wing of Bitcoin fanatics, but it’s not the Bitcoin manifesto.

Instead, the word “trust” in the Bitcoin paper is much narrower, referring to how online merchants can’t trust credit-cards (for example). When I bought school supplies for my niece when she studied in Canada, the online site wouldn’t accept my U.S. credit card. They didn’t trust my credit card. However, they trusted my Bitcoin, so I used that payment method instead, and succeeded in the purchase.

Real-world currencies like dollars are tethered to the real-world, which means no single transaction can be trusted, because “they” (the credit-card company, the courts, etc.) may decide to reverse the transaction. The manifesto behind Bitcoin is that a transaction cannot be reversed — and thus, can always be trusted.

Deliberately confusing the micro-trust in a transaction and macro-trust in banks and governments is a sort of bait-and-switch.

The wrong inspiration

Wu claims:

“It was, after all, a carnival of human errors and misfeasance that inspired the invention of Bitcoin in 2009, namely, the financial crisis.”

Not true. Bitcoin did not appear fully formed out of the void, but was instead based upon a series of innovations that predate the financial crisis by a decade. Moreover, the financial crisis had little to do with “currency”. The value of the dollar and other major currencies were essentially unscathed by the crisis. Certainly, enthusiasts looking backward like to cherry pick the financial crisis as yet one more reason why the offline world sucks, but it had little to do with Bitcoin.

In crypto we trust

It’s not in code that Bitcoin trusts, but in crypto. Satoshi makes that clear in one of his posts on the subject:

A generation ago, multi-user time-sharing computer systems had a similar problem. Before strong encryption, users had to rely on password protection to secure their files, placing trust in the system administrator to keep their information private. Privacy could always be overridden by the admin based on his judgment call weighing the principle of privacy against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors. Then strong encryption became available to the masses, and trust was no longer required. Data could be secured in a way that was physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what.

You don’t possess Bitcoins. Instead, all the coins are on the public blockchain under your “address”. What you possess is the secret, private key that matches the address. Transferring Bitcoin means using your private key to unlock your coins and transfer them to another. If you print out your private key on paper, and delete it from the computer, it can never be hacked.

Trust is in this crypto operation. Trust is in your private crypto key.

We don’t trust the code

The manifesto “in code we trust” has been proven wrong again and again. We don’t trust computer code (software) in the cryptocurrency world.

The most profound example is something known as the “DAO” on top of Ethereum, Bitcoin’s major competitor. Ethereum allows “smart contracts” containing code. The quasi-religious manifesto of the DAO smart-contract is that the “code is the contract”, that all the terms and conditions are specified within the smart-contract code, completely untethered from real-world terms-and-conditions.

Then a hacker found a bug in the DAO smart-contract and stole most of the money.

In principle, this is perfectly legal, because “the code is the contract”, and the hacker just used the code. In practice, the system didn’t live up to this. The Ethereum core developers, acting as central bankers, rewrote the Ethereum code to fix this one contract, returning the money back to its original owners. They did this because those core developers were themselves heavily invested in the DAO and got their money back.

Similar things happen with the original Bitcoin code. A disagreement has arisen about how to expand Bitcoin to handle more transactions. One group wants smaller and “off-chain” transactions. Another group wants a “large blocksize”. This caused a “fork” in Bitcoin with two versions, “Bitcoin” and “Bitcoin Cash”. The fork championed by the core developers (central bankers) is worth around $20,000 right now, while the other fork is worth around $2,000.

So it’s still “in central bankers we trust”, it’s just that now these central bankers are mostly online instead of offline institutions. They have proven to be even more corrupt than real-world central bankers. It’s certainly not the code that is trusted.

The bubble

Wu repeats the well-known reference to Amazon during the dot-com bubble. If you bought Amazon’s stock for $107 right before the dot-com crash, it still would be one of wisest investments you could’ve made. Amazon shares are now worth around $1,200 each.

The implication is that Bitcoin, too, may have such long term value. Even if you buy it today and it crashes tomorrow, it may still be worth ten-times its current value in another decade or two.

This is a poor analogy, for three reasons.

The first reason is that we knew the Internet had fundamentally transformed commerce. We knew there were going to be winners in the long run, it was just a matter of picking who would win (Amazon) and who would lose (Pets.com). We have yet to prove Bitcoin will be similarly transformative.

The second reason is that businesses are real, they generate real income. While the stock price may include some irrational exuberance, it’s ultimately still based on the rational expectations of how much the business will earn. With Bitcoin, it’s almost entirely irrational exuberance — there are no long term returns.

The third flaw in the analogy is that there are an essentially infinite number of cryptocurrencies. We saw this today as Coinbase started trading Bitcoin Cash, a fork of Bitcoin. The two are nearly identical, so there’s little reason one should be so much valuable than another. It’s only a fickle fad that makes one more valuable than another, not business fundamentals. The successful future cryptocurrency is unlikely to exist today, but will be invented in the future.

The lessons of the dot-com bubble is not that Bitcoin will have long term value, but that cryptocurrency companies like Coinbase and BitPay will have long term value. Or, the lesson is that “old” companies like JPMorgan that are early adopters of the technology will grow faster than their competitors.

Conclusion

The point of Wu’s paper is to distinguish trust in traditional real-world institutions and trust in computer software code. This is an inaccurate reading of the situation.

Bitcoin is not about replacing real-world institutions but about untethering online transactions.

The trust in Bitcoin is in crypto — the power crypto gives individuals instead of third-parties.

The trust is not in the code. Bitcoin is a “cryptocurrency” not a “codecurrency”.

The deal with Bitcoin

Post Syndicated from Michal Zalewski original http://lcamtuf.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-deal-with-bitcoin.html

♪ Used to have a little now I have a lot
I’m still, I’m still Jenny from the block
          chain ♪

For all that has been written about Bitcoin and its ilk, it is curious that the focus is almost solely what the cryptocurrencies are supposed to be. Technologists wax lyrical about the potential for blockchains to change almost every aspect of our lives. Libertarians and paleoconservatives ache for the return to “sound money” that can’t be conjured up at the whim of a bureaucrat. Mainstream economists wag their fingers, proclaiming that a proper currency can’t be deflationary, that it must maintain a particular velocity, or that the government must be able to nip crises of confidence in the bud. And so on.

Much of this may be true, but the proponents of cryptocurrencies should recognize that an appeal to consequences is not a guarantee of good results. The critics, on the other hand, would be best served to remember that they are drawing far-reaching conclusions about the effects of modern monetary policies based on a very short and tumultuous period in history.

In this post, my goal is to ditch most of the dogma, talk a bit about the origins of money – and then see how “crypto” fits the bill.

1. The prehistory of currencies

The emergence of money is usually explained in a very straightforward way. You know the story: a farmer raised a pig, a cobbler made a shoe. The cobbler needed to feed his family while the farmer wanted to keep his feet warm – and so they met to exchange the goods on mutually beneficial terms. But as the tale goes, the barter system had a fatal flaw: sometimes, a farmer wanted a cooking pot, a potter wanted a knife, and a blacksmith wanted a pair of pants. To facilitate increasingly complex, multi-step exchanges without requiring dozens of people to meet face to face, we came up with an abstract way to represent value – a shiny coin guaranteed to be accepted by every tradesman.

It is a nice parable, but it probably isn’t very true. It seems far more plausible that early societies relied on the concept of debt long before the advent of currencies: an informal tally or a formal ledger would be used to keep track of who owes what to whom. The concept of debt, closely associated with one’s trustworthiness and standing in the community, would have enabled a wide range of economic activities: debts could be paid back over time, transferred, renegotiated, or forgotten – all without having to engage in spot barter or to mint a single coin. In fact, such non-monetary, trust-based, reciprocal economies are still common in closely-knit communities: among families, neighbors, coworkers, or friends.

In such a setting, primitive currencies probably emerged simply as a consequence of having a system of prices: a cow being worth a particular number of chickens, a chicken being worth a particular number of beaver pelts, and so forth. Formalizing such relationships by settling on a single, widely-known unit of account – say, one chicken – would make it more convenient to transfer, combine, or split debts; or to settle them in alternative goods.

Contrary to popular belief, for communal ledgers, the unit of account probably did not have to be particularly desirable, durable, or easy to carry; it was simply an accounting tool. And indeed, we sometimes run into fairly unusual units of account even in modern times: for example, cigarettes can be the basis of a bustling prison economy even when most inmates don’t smoke and there are not that many packs to go around.

2. The age of commodity money

In the end, the development of coinage might have had relatively little to do with communal trade – and far more with the desire to exchange goods with strangers. When dealing with a unfamiliar or hostile tribe, the concept of a chicken-denominated ledger does not hold up: the other side might be disinclined to honor its obligations – and get away with it, too. To settle such problematic trades, we needed a “spot” medium of exchange that would be easy to carry and authenticate, had a well-defined value, and a near-universal appeal. Throughout much of the recorded history, precious metals – predominantly gold and silver – proved to fit the bill.

In the most basic sense, such commodities could be seen as a tool to reconcile debts across societal boundaries, without necessarily replacing any local units of account. An obligation, denominated in some local currency, would be created on buyer’s side in order to procure the metal for the trade. The proceeds of the completed transaction would in turn allow the seller to settle their own local obligations that arose from having to source the traded goods. In other words, our wondrous chicken-denominated ledgers could coexist peacefully with gold – and when commodity coinage finally took hold, it’s likely that in everyday trade, precious metals served more as a useful abstraction than a precise store of value. A “silver chicken” of sorts.

Still, the emergence of commodity money had one interesting side effect: it decoupled the unit of debt – a “claim on the society”, in a sense – from any moral judgment about its origin. A piece of silver would buy the same amount of food, whether earned through hard labor or won in a drunken bet. This disconnect remains a central theme in many of the debates about social justice and unfairly earned wealth.

3. The State enters the game

If there is one advantage of chicken ledgers over precious metals, it’s that all chickens look and cluck roughly the same – something that can’t be said of every nugget of silver or gold. To cope with this problem, we needed to shape raw commodities into pieces of a more predictable shape and weight; a trusted party could then stamp them with a mark to indicate the value and the quality of the coin.

At first, the task of standardizing coinage rested with private parties – but the responsibility was soon assumed by the State. The advantages of this transition seemed clear: a single, widely-accepted and easily-recognizable currency could be now used to settle virtually all private and official debts.

Alas, in what deserves the dubious distinction of being one of the earliest examples of monetary tomfoolery, some States succumbed to the temptation of fiddling with the coinage to accomplish anything from feeding the poor to waging wars. In particular, it would be common to stamp coins with the same face value but a progressively lower content of silver and gold. Perhaps surprisingly, the strategy worked remarkably well; at least in the times of peace, most people cared about the value stamped on the coin, not its precise composition or weight.

And so, over time, representative money was born: sooner or later, most States opted to mint coins from nearly-worthless metals, or print banknotes on paper and cloth. This radically new currency was accompanied with a simple pledge: the State offered to redeem it at any time for its nominal value in gold.

Of course, the promise was largely illusory: the State did not have enough gold to honor all the promises it had made. Still, as long as people had faith in their rulers and the redemption requests stayed low, the fundamental mechanics of this new representative currency remained roughly the same as before – and in some ways, were an improvement in that they lessened the insatiable demand for a rare commodity. Just as importantly, the new money still enabled international trade – using the underlying gold exchange rate as a reference point.

4. Fractional reserve banking and fiat money

For much of the recorded history, banking was an exceptionally dull affair, not much different from running a communal chicken
ledger of the old. But then, something truly marvelous happened in the 17th century: around that time, many European countries have witnessed
the emergence of fractional-reserve banks.

These private ventures operated according to a simple scheme: they accepted people’s coin
for safekeeping, promising to pay a premium on every deposit made. To meet these obligations and to make a profit, the banks then
used the pooled deposits to make high-interest loans to other folks. The financiers figured out that under normal circumstances
and when operating at a sufficient scale, they needed only a very modest reserve – well under 10% of all deposited money – to be
able to service the usual volume and size of withdrawals requested by their customers. The rest could be loaned out.

The very curious consequence of fractional-reserve banking was that it pulled new money out of thin air.
The funds were simultaneously accounted for in the statements shown to the depositor, evidently available for withdrawal or
transfer at any time; and given to third-party borrowers, who could spend them on just about anything. Heck, the borrowers could
deposit the proceeds in another bank, creating even more money along the way! Whatever they did, the sum of all funds in the monetary
system now appeared much higher than the value of all coins and banknotes issued by the government – let alone the amount of gold
sitting in any vault.

Of course, no new money was being created in any physical sense: all that banks were doing was engaging in a bit of creative accounting – the sort of which would probably land you in jail if you attempted it today in any other comparably vital field of enterprise. If too many depositors were to ask for their money back, or if too many loans were to go bad, the banking system would fold. Fortunes would evaporate in a puff of accounting smoke, and with the disappearance of vast quantities of quasi-fictitious (“broad”) money, the wealth of the entire nation would shrink.

In the early 20th century, the world kept witnessing just that; a series of bank runs and economic contractions forced the governments around the globe to act. At that stage, outlawing fractional-reserve banking was no longer politically or economically tenable; a simpler alternative was to let go of gold and move to fiat money – a currency implemented as an abstract social construct, with no predefined connection to the physical realm. A new breed of economists saw the role of the government not in trying to peg the value of money to an inflexible commodity, but in manipulating its supply to smooth out economic hiccups or to stimulate growth.

(Contrary to popular beliefs, such manipulation is usually not done by printing new banknotes; more sophisticated methods, such as lowering reserve requirements for bank deposits or enticing banks to invest its deposits into government-issued securities, are the preferred route.)

The obvious peril of fiat money is that in the long haul, its value is determined strictly by people’s willingness to accept a piece of paper in exchange for their trouble; that willingness, in turn, is conditioned solely on their belief that the same piece of paper would buy them something nice a week, a month, or a year from now. It follows that a simple crisis of confidence could make a currency nearly worthless overnight. A prolonged period of hyperinflation and subsequent austerity in Germany and Austria was one of the precipitating factors that led to World War II. In more recent times, dramatic episodes of hyperinflation plagued the fiat currencies of Israel (1984), Mexico (1988), Poland (1990), Yugoslavia (1994), Bulgaria (1996), Turkey (2002), Zimbabwe (2009), Venezuela (2016), and several other nations around the globe.

For the United States, the switch to fiat money came relatively late, in 1971. To stop the dollar from plunging like a rock, the Nixon administration employed a clever trick: they ordered the freeze of wages and prices for the 90 days that immediately followed the move. People went on about their lives and paid the usual for eggs or milk – and by the time the freeze ended, they were accustomed to the idea that the “new”, free-floating dollar is worth about the same as the old, gold-backed one. A robust economy and favorable geopolitics did the rest, and so far, the American adventure with fiat currency has been rather uneventful – perhaps except for the fact that the price of gold itself skyrocketed from $35 per troy ounce in 1971 to $850 in 1980 (or, from $210 to $2,500 in today’s dollars).

Well, one thing did change: now better positioned to freely tamper with the supply of money, the regulators in accord with the bankers adopted a policy of creating it at a rate that slightly outstripped the organic growth in economic activity. They did this to induce a small, steady degree of inflation, believing that doing so would discourage people from hoarding cash and force them to reinvest it for the betterment of the society. Some critics like to point out that such a policy functions as a “backdoor” tax on savings that happens to align with the regulators’ less noble interests; still, either way: in the US and most other developed nations, the purchasing power of any money kept under a mattress will drop at a rate of somewhere between 2 to 10% a year.

5. So what’s up with Bitcoin?

Well… countless tomes have been written about the nature and the optimal characteristics of government-issued fiat currencies. Some heterodox economists, notably including Murray Rothbard, have also explored the topic of privately-issued, decentralized, commodity-backed currencies. But Bitcoin is a wholly different animal.

In essence, BTC is a global, decentralized fiat currency: it has no (recoverable) intrinsic value, no central authority to issue it or define its exchange rate, and it has no anchoring to any historical reference point – a combination that until recently seemed nonsensical and escaped any serious scrutiny. It does the unthinkable by employing three clever tricks:

  1. It allows anyone to create new coins, but only by solving brute-force computational challenges that get more difficult as the time goes by,

  2. It prevents unauthorized transfer of coins by employing public key cryptography to sign off transactions, with only the authorized holder of a coin knowing the correct key,

  3. It prevents double-spending by using a distributed public ledger (“blockchain”), recording the chain of custody for coins in a tamper-proof way.

The blockchain is often described as the most important feature of Bitcoin, but in some ways, its importance is overstated. The idea of a currency that does not rely on a centralized transaction clearinghouse is what helped propel the platform into the limelight – mostly because of its novelty and the perception that it is less vulnerable to government meddling (although the government is still free to track down, tax, fine, or arrest any participants). On the flip side, the everyday mechanics of BTC would not be fundamentally different if all the transactions had to go through Bitcoin Bank, LLC.

A more striking feature of the new currency is the incentive structure surrounding the creation of new coins. The underlying design democratized the creation of new coins early on: all you had to do is leave your computer running for a while to acquire a number of tokens. The tokens had no practical value, but obtaining them involved no substantial expense or risk. Just as importantly, because the difficulty of the puzzles would only increase over time, the hope was that if Bitcoin caught on, latecomers would find it easier to purchase BTC on a secondary market than mine their own – paying with a more established currency at a mutually beneficial exchange rate.

The persistent publicity surrounding Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies did the rest – and today, with the growing scarcity of coins and the rapidly increasing demand, the price of a single token hovers somewhere south of $15,000.

6. So… is it bad money?

Predicting is hard – especially the future. In some sense, a coin that represents a cryptographic proof of wasted CPU cycles is no better or worse than a currency that relies on cotton decorated with pictures of dead presidents. It is true that Bitcoin suffers from many implementation problems – long transaction processing times, high fees, frequent security breaches of major exchanges – but in principle, such problems can be overcome.

That said, currencies live and die by the lasting willingness of others to accept them in exchange for services or goods – and in that sense, the jury is still out. The use of Bitcoin to settle bona fide purchases is negligible, both in absolute terms and in function of the overall volume of transactions. In fact, because of the technical challenges and limited practical utility, some companies that embraced the currency early on are now backing out.

When the value of an asset is derived almost entirely from its appeal as an ever-appreciating investment vehicle, the situation has all the telltale signs of a speculative bubble. But that does not prove that the asset is destined to collapse, or that a collapse would be its end. Still, the built-in deflationary mechanism of Bitcoin – the increasing difficulty of producing new coins – is probably both a blessing and a curse.

It’s going to go one way or the other; and when it’s all said and done, we’re going to celebrate the people who made the right guess. Because future is actually pretty darn easy to predict — in retrospect.

Pioneers winners: only you can save us

Post Syndicated from Erin Brindley original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/pioneers-winners-only-you-can-save-us/

She asked for help, and you came to her aid. Pioneers, the winners of the Only you can save us challenge have been picked!

Can you see me? Only YOU can save us!

I need your help. This is a call out for those between 11- and 16-years-old in the UK and Republic of Ireland. Something has gone very, very wrong and only you can save us. I’ve collected together as much information for you as I can. You’ll find it at http://www.raspberrypi.org/pioneers.

The challenge

In August we intercepted an emergency communication from a lonesome survivor. She seemed to be in quite a bit of trouble, and asked all you young people aged 11 to 16 to come up with something to help tackle the oncoming crisis, using whatever technology you had to hand. You had ten weeks to work in teams of two to five with an adult mentor to fulfil your mission.

The judges

We received your world-saving ideas, and our savvy survivor pulled together a ragtag bunch of apocalyptic experts to help us judge which ones would be the winning entries.

Dr Shini Somara

Dr Shini Somara is an advocate for STEM education and a mechanical engineer. She was host of The Health Show and has appeared in documentaries for the BBC, PBS Digital, and Sky. You can check out her work hosting Crash Course Physics on YouTube.

Prof Lewis Dartnell is an astrobiologist and author of the book The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World From Scratch.

Emma Stephenson has a background in aeronautical engineering and currently works in the Shell Foundation’s Access to Energy and Sustainable Mobility portfolio.

Currently sifting through the entries with the other judges of #makeyourideas with @raspberrypifoundation @_raspberrypi_

151 Likes, 3 Comments – Shini Somara (@drshinisomara) on Instagram: “Currently sifting through the entries with the other judges of #makeyourideas with…”

The winners

Our survivor is currently putting your entries to good use repairing, rebuilding, and defending her base. Our judges chose the following projects as outstanding examples of world-saving digital making.

Theme winner: Computatron

Raspberry Pioneers 2017 – Nerfus Dislikus Killer Robot

This is our entry to the pioneers ‘Only you can save us’ competition. Our team name is Computatrum. Hope you enjoy!

Are you facing an unknown enemy whose only weakness is Nerf bullets? Then this is the robot for you! We loved the especially apocalyptic feel of the Computatron’s cleverly hacked and repurposed elements. The team even used an old floppy disc mechanism to help fire their bullets!

Technically brilliant: Robot Apocalypse Committee

Pioneers Apocalypse 2017 – RationalPi

Thousands of lines of code… Many sheets of acrylic… A camera, touchscreen and fingerprint scanner… This is our entry into the Raspberry Pi Pioneers2017 ‘Only YOU can Save Us’ theme. When zombies or other survivors break into your base, you want a secure way of storing your crackers.

The Robot Apocalypse Committee is back, and this time they’ve brought cheese! The crew designed a cheese- and cracker-dispensing machine complete with face and fingerprint recognition to ensure those rations last until the next supply drop.

Best explanation: Pi Chasers

Tala – Raspberry Pi Pioneers Project

Hi! We are PiChasers and we entered the Raspberry Pi Pionners challenge last time when the theme was “Make it Outdoors!” but now we’ve been faced with another theme “Apocolypse”. We spent a while thinking of an original thing that would help in an apocolypse and decided upon a ‘text-only phone’ which uses local radio communication rather than cellular.

This text-based communication device encased in a tupperware container could be a lifesaver in a crisis! And luckily, the Pi Chasers produced an excellent video and amazing GitHub repo, ensuring that any and all survivors will be able to build their own in the safety of their base.

Most inspiring journey: Three Musketeers

Pioneers Entry – The Apocalypse

Pioneers Entry Team Name: The Three Musketeers Team Participants: James, Zach and Tom

We all know that zombies are terrible at geometry, and the Three Musketeers used this fact to their advantage when building their zombie security system. We were impressed to see the team working together to overcome the roadblocks they faced along the way.

We appreciate what you’re trying to do: Zombie Trolls

Zombie In The Middle

Uploaded by CDA Bodgers on 2017-12-01.

Playing piggy in the middle with zombies sure is a unique way of saving humankind from total extinction! We loved this project idea, and although the Zombie Trolls had a little trouble with their motors, we’re sure with a little more tinkering this zombie-fooling contraption could save us all.

Most awesome

Our judges also wanted to give a special commendation to the following teams for their equally awesome apocalypse-averting ideas:

  • PiRates, for their multifaceted zombie-proofing defence system and the high production value of their video
  • Byte them Pis, for their beautiful zombie-detecting doormat
  • Unatecxon, for their impressive bunker security system
  • Team Crompton, for their pressure-activated door system
  • Team Ernest, for their adventures in LEGO

The prizes

All our winning teams have secured exclusive digital maker boxes. These are jam-packed with tantalising tech to satisfy all tinkering needs, including:

Our theme winners have also secured themselves a place at Coolest Projects 2018 in Dublin, Ireland!

Thank you to everyone who got involved in this round of Pioneers. Look out for your awesome submission swag arriving in the mail!

The post Pioneers winners: only you can save us appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Rightscorp: Revenue From Piracy Settlements Down 48% in 2017

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/rightscorp-revenue-from-piracy-settlements-down-48-in-2017-171125/

For the past several years, anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp has been trying to turn piracy into profit. The company monitors BitTorrent networks, captures IP addresses, then attempts to force ISPs to forward cash settlement demands to its subscribers.

Unlike other companies operating in the same area, Rightscorp has adopted a “speeding fine” type model, where it asks for $20 to $30 to make a supposed lawsuit go away, instead of the many hundreds demanded by its rivals. To date, this has resulted in the company closing more than 230,000 cases of infringement.

But despite the high numbers, the company doesn’t seem to be able to make it pay. Rightscorp’s latest set of financial results covering the three months ended September 30, 2017, show how bad things have got on the settlement front.

During the period in question, Rightscorp generated copyright settlement revenues of $45,848, an average of just $15,282 per month. That represents a decrease of 67% when compared to the $139,834 generated during the same period in 2016.

When looking at settlement revenues year to date, Rightscorp generated $184,362 in 2017, a decrease of 48% when compared to $354,160 generated during the same nine-month period in 2016.

But as bleak as these figures are, things get much worse. Out of these top-line revenues, Rightscorp has to deal with a whole bunch of costs before it can put anything into its own pockets. For example, in exchange for the right to pursue pirates, Rightscorp agrees to pay around 50% of everything it generates from settlements back to copyright holders.

So, for the past three months when it collected $45,848 from BitTorrent users, it must pay out $22,924 to copyright holders. Last year, in the same period, it paid them $69,143. For the year to date (nine months ended September 30, 2017), the company paid $92,181 to copyright holders, that’s versus $174,878 for the same period last year.

Whichever way you slice it, Rightscorp settlement model appears to be failing. With revenues from settlements down by almost half thus far this year, one has to question where this is all going, especially with BitTorrent piracy volumes continuing to fall in favor of other less traceable methods such as streaming.

However, Rightscorp does have a trick up its sleeve that is helping to keep the company afloat. As previously reported, the company has amassed a lot of intelligence on pirate activity which clearly has some value to copyright holders.

That data is currently being utilized by both BMG and the RIAA, who are using it as evidence in copyright liability lawsuits filed against ISPs Cox and Grande Communications, where each stand accused of failing to disconnect repeat infringers.

This selling of ‘pirate’ data is listed by Rightscorp in its financial reports as “consulting services” and thus far at least, it’s proving to be a crucial source of income.

“During the three months ended September 30, 2017, we generated revenues of $76,666 from consulting services rendered under service arrangements with prominent trade organizations,” Rightscorp reports.

“Under the agreements, the Company is providing certain data and consultation regarding copyright infringements on such organizations’ respective properties. During the three months ended September 30, 2016, we had no consulting services revenue.”

Year to date, the numbers begin to add up. In the nine months ended September 30, 2017, Rightscorp generated revenues of $224,998 from this facet of their business, that’s versus zero revenue in 2016.

It’s clear that without this “consulting” revenue, Rightscorp would be in an even worse situation than it is today. In fact, it appears that these services, provided to the likes of the RIAA, are now preventing the company from falling into the abyss. All that being said, there’s no guarantee that won’t happen anyway.

To the nine months ended September 30, 2017, Rightscorp recorded a net loss of $1,448,899, which is even more than the $1,380,698 it lost during the same period last year. As a result, the company had just $3,147 left in cash at the end of September. That crisis was eased by issuing 2.5 million shares to an investor for a purchase price just $50,000. But to keep going, Rightscorp will need more money – much more.

“Management believes that the Company will need an additional $250,000 to $500,000 in 2017 to fund operations based on our current operating plans,” it reports, noting that there is “substantial doubt” whether Rightscorp can continue as a going concern.

But despite all the bad news, Rightscorp manages to survive and at least in the short-term, the piracy data it has amassed holds value, beyond basic cash settlement letters. The question is, for how long?

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

The Truth Behind the “Kodi Boxes Can Kill Their Owners” Headlines

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/the-truth-behind-the-kodi-boxes-can-kill-their-owners-headlines-171118/

Another week, another batch of ‘Kodi Box Armageddon’ stories. This time it hasn’t been directly about the content they can provide but the physical risks they pose to their owners.

After being primed in advance, the usual British tabloids jumped into action early Thursday, noting that following tests carried out on “illicit streaming devices” (aka Android set-top devices), 100% of them failed to meet UK national electrical safety regulations.

The tests were carried out by Electrical Safety First, a charity which was prompted into action by anti-piracy outfit Federation Against Copyright Theft.

“A series of product safety tests on popular illicit streaming devices entering the UK have found that 100% fail to meet national electrical safety regulations,” a FACT statement reads.

“The news is all the more significant as the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) estimates that more than one million of these illegal devices have been sold in the UK in the last two years, representing a significant risk to the general public.”

After reading many sensational headlines stating that “Kodi Boxes Might Kill Their Owners”, please excuse us for groaning. This story has absolutely nothing – NOTHING – to do with Kodi or any other piece of software. Quite obviously, software doesn’t catch fire.

So, suspecting that there might be more to this than meets the eye, we decided to look beyond the press releases into the actual Electrical Safety First (ESF) report. While we have no doubt that ESF is extremely competent in its field (it is, no question), the front page of its report is disappointing.

Despite the items sent for testing being straightforward Android-based media players, the ESF report clearly describes itself as examining “illicit streaming devices”. It’s terminology that doesn’t describe the subject matter from an electrical, safety or technical perspective but is pretty convenient for FACT clients Sky and the Premier League.

Nevertheless, the full picture reveals rather more than most of the headlines suggest.

First of all, it’s important to know that ESF tested just nine devices out of the million or so allegedly sold in the UK during the past two years. Even more importantly, every single one of those devices was supplied to ESF by FACT.

Now, we’re not suggesting they were hand-picked to fail but it’s clear that the samples weren’t provided from a neutral source. Also, as we’ll learn shortly, it’s possible to determine in advance if an item will fail to meet UK standards simply by looking at its packaging and casing.

But perhaps even more intriguing is that the electrical testing carried out by ESF related primarily not to the set-top boxes themselves, but to their power supplies. ESF say so themselves.

“The product review relates primarily to the switched mode power supply units for the connection to the mains supply, which were supplied with the devices, to identify any potential risks to consumers such as electric shocks, heating and resistance to fire,” ESF reports.

The set-top boxes themselves were only assessed “in terms of any faults in the marking, warnings and instructions,” the group adds.

So, what we’re really talking about here isn’t dangerous illicit streaming devices set-top boxes, but the power supply units that come with them. It might seem like a small detail but we’ll come to the vast importance of this later on.

Firstly, however, we should note that none of the equipment supplied by FACT complied with Schedule 1 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994. This means that they failed to have the “Conformité Européene” or CE logo present. That’s unacceptable.

In addition, none of them lived up the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 either, which in part requires the manufacturer’s brand name or trademark to be “clearly printed on the electrical equipment or, where that is not possible, on the packaging.” (That’s how you can tell they’ll definitely fail UK standards, before sending them for testing)

Also, none of the samples were supplied with “sufficient safety or warning information to ensure the safe and correct use, assembly, installation or maintenance of the equipment.” This represents ‘a technical breach’ of the regulations, ESF reports.

Finally, several of the samples were considered to be a potential risk to their users, either via electric shock and/or fire. That’s an important finding and people who suspect they have such devices at home should definitely take note.

However, the really important point isn’t mentioned in the tabloids, probably since it distracts from the “Kodi Armageddon” narrative which underlies the whole study and subsequent reports.

ESF says that one of the key issues is that the set-top boxes come unbranded, something which breaches safety regulations while making it difficult for consumers to assess whether they’re buying a quality product. Crucially, this is not exclusively a set-top box problem, it is much, MUCH bigger.

“Issues with power supply units or unbranded and counterfeit chargers go beyond illicit streaming devices. In the last year, issues have been reported with other consumer electrical devices, such as laptop chargers and counterfeit phone chargers,” the same ESF report reveals.

“The total annual online sales of mains plug-in chargers is estimated to be in the region of 1.8 million and according to Electrical Safety First, it is likely that most of these sales involve cheap, unbranded chargers.”

So, we looked into this issue of problem power supplies and chargers generally, to see where this report fits into the bigger picture. It transpires it’s a massive problem, all over the UK, across a wide range of products. In fact, Trading Standards reports that 99% of non-genuine Apple chargers bought online “fail a basic safety test”.

But buying from reputable High Street retailers doesn’t help either.

During the past year, Poundworld was fined for selling – wait for it – 72,000 dangerous chargers. Home Bargains was also fined for selling “thousands” of power adaptors that fail to meet UK standards.

“All samples provided failed to comply with Electrical Equipment Safety Regulations and were not marked with the manufacturer’s name,” Trading Standards reports.

That sounds familiar.

So, there you have it. Far from this being an isolated “Kodi Box Crisis” as some have proclaimed, this is a broad issue affecting imported electrical items in general. On this basis, one can’t help but think the tabloids missed a trick here. Think of the power of this headline:

ALL UNBRANDED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CAN KILL, DISCONNECT EVERYTHING

or, alternatively:

PIRATES URGED TO SWITCH TO BRANDED AMAZON FIRESTICKS, SAFER FOR KODI

Perhaps not….

The ESF report 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

How to Prepare for AWS’s Move to Its Own Certificate Authority

Post Syndicated from Jonathan Kozolchyk original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/how-to-prepare-for-aws-move-to-its-own-certificate-authority/

AWS Certificate Manager image

 

Update from March 28, 2018: We updated the Amazon Trust Services table by replacing an out-of-date value with a new value.


Transport Layer Security (TLS, formerly called Secure Sockets Layer [SSL]) is essential for encrypting information that is exchanged on the internet. For example, Amazon.com uses TLS for all traffic on its website, and AWS uses it to secure calls to AWS services.

An electronic document called a certificate verifies the identity of the server when creating such an encrypted connection. The certificate helps establish proof that your web browser is communicating securely with the website that you typed in your browser’s address field. Certificate Authorities, also known as CAs, issue certificates to specific domains. When a domain presents a certificate that is issued by a trusted CA, your browser or application knows it’s safe to make the connection.

In January 2016, AWS launched AWS Certificate Manager (ACM), a service that lets you easily provision, manage, and deploy SSL/TLS certificates for use with AWS services. These certificates are available for no additional charge through Amazon’s own CA: Amazon Trust Services. For browsers and other applications to trust a certificate, the certificate’s issuer must be included in the browser’s trust store, which is a list of trusted CAs. If the issuing CA is not in the trust store, the browser will display an error message (see an example) and applications will show an application-specific error. To ensure the ubiquity of the Amazon Trust Services CA, AWS purchased the Starfield Services CA, a root found in most browsers and which has been valid since 2005. This means you shouldn’t have to take any action to use the certificates issued by Amazon Trust Services.

AWS has been offering free certificates to AWS customers from the Amazon Trust Services CA. Now, AWS is in the process of moving certificates for services such as Amazon EC2 and Amazon DynamoDB to use certificates from Amazon Trust Services as well. Most software doesn’t need to be changed to handle this transition, but there are exceptions. In this blog post, I show you how to verify that you are prepared to use the Amazon Trust Services CA.

How to tell if the Amazon Trust Services CAs are in your trust store

The following table lists the Amazon Trust Services certificates. To verify that these certificates are in your browser’s trust store, click each Test URL in the following table to verify that it works for you. When a Test URL does not work, it displays an error similar to this example.

Distinguished name SHA-256 hash of subject public key information Test URL
CN=Amazon Root CA 1,O=Amazon,C=US fbe3018031f9586bcbf41727e417b7d1c45c2f47f93be372a17b96b50757d5a2 Test URL
CN=Amazon Root CA 2,O=Amazon,C=US 7f4296fc5b6a4e3b35d3c369623e364ab1af381d8fa7121533c9d6c633ea2461 Test URL
CN=Amazon Root CA 3,O=Amazon,C=US 36abc32656acfc645c61b71613c4bf21c787f5cabbee48348d58597803d7abc9 Test URL
CN=Amazon Root CA 4,O=Amazon,C=US f7ecded5c66047d28ed6466b543c40e0743abe81d109254dcf845d4c2c7853c5 Test URL
CN=Starfield Services Root Certificate Authority – G2,O=Starfield Technologies\, Inc.,L=Scottsdale,ST=Arizona,C=US 2b071c59a0a0ae76b0eadb2bad23bad4580b69c3601b630c2eaf0613afa83f92 Test URL
Starfield Class 2 Certification Authority 15f14ac45c9c7da233d3479164e8137fe35ee0f38ae858183f08410ea82ac4b4 Not available*

* Note: Amazon doesn’t own this root and doesn’t have a test URL for it. The certificate can be downloaded from here.

You can calculate the SHA-256 hash of Subject Public Key Information as follows. With the PEM-encoded certificate stored in certificate.pem, run the following openssl commands:

openssl x509 -in certificate.pem -noout -pubkey | openssl asn1parse -noout -inform pem -out certificate.key
openssl dgst -sha256 certificate.key

As an example, with the Starfield Class 2 Certification Authority self-signed cert in a PEM encoded file sf-class2-root.crt, you can use the following openssl commands:

openssl x509 -in sf-class2-root.crt -noout -pubkey | openssl asn1parse -noout -inform pem -out sf-class2-root.key
openssl dgst -sha256 sf-class2-root.key ~
SHA256(sf-class2-root.key)= 15f14ac45c9c7da233d3479164e8137fe35ee0f38ae858183f08410ea82ac4b4

What to do if the Amazon Trust Services CAs are not in your trust store

If your tests of any of the Test URLs failed, you must update your trust store. The easiest way to update your trust store is to upgrade the operating system or browser that you are using.

You will find the Amazon Trust Services CAs in the following operating systems (release dates are in parentheses):

  • Microsoft Windows versions that have January 2005 or later updates installed, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and newer versions
  • Mac OS X 10.4 with Java for Mac OS X 10.4 Release 5, Mac OS X 10.5 and newer versions
  • Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (March 2007), Linux 6, and Linux 7 and CentOS 5, CentOS 6, and CentOS 7
  • Ubuntu 8.10
  • Debian 5.0
  • Amazon Linux (all versions)
  • Java 1.4.2_12, Java 5 update 2, and all newer versions, including Java 6, Java 7, and Java 8

All modern browsers trust Amazon’s CAs. You can update the certificate bundle in your browser simply by updating your browser. You can find instructions for updating the following browsers on their respective websites:

If your application is using a custom trust store, you must add the Amazon root CAs to your application’s trust store. The instructions for doing this vary based on the application or platform. Please refer to the documentation for the application or platform you are using.

AWS SDKs and CLIs

Most AWS SDKs and CLIs are not impacted by the transition to the Amazon Trust Services CA. If you are using a version of the Python AWS SDK or CLI released before October 29, 2013, you must upgrade. The .NET, Java, PHP, Go, JavaScript, and C++ SDKs and CLIs do not bundle any certificates, so their certificates come from the underlying operating system. The Ruby SDK has included at least one of the required CAs since June 10, 2015. Before that date, the Ruby V2 SDK did not bundle certificates.

Certificate pinning

If you are using a technique called certificate pinning to lock down the CAs you trust on a domain-by-domain basis, you must adjust your pinning to include the Amazon Trust Services CAs. Certificate pinning helps defend you from an attacker using misissued certificates to fool an application into creating a connection to a spoofed host (an illegitimate host masquerading as a legitimate host). The restriction to a specific, pinned certificate is made by checking that the certificate issued is the expected certificate. This is done by checking that the hash of the certificate public key received from the server matches the expected hash stored in the application. If the hashes do not match, the code stops the connection.

AWS recommends against using certificate pinning because it introduces a potential availability risk. If the certificate to which you pin is replaced, your application will fail to connect. If your use case requires pinning, we recommend that you pin to a CA rather than to an individual certificate. If you are pinning to an Amazon Trust Services CA, you should pin to all CAs shown in the table earlier in this post.

If you have comments about this post, submit them in the “Comments” section below. If you have questions about this post, start a new thread on the ACM forum.

– Jonathan

Students Overwhelmingly Vote Pirate Party in Simulated “General Election”

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/students-overwhelmingly-vote-pirate-party-in-simulated-general-election-171007/

While millions of people have died throughout history fighting for the right to vote, there is a significant wave of apathy among large swathes of the population in democracies where the ballot box is taken for granted.

With this in mind, an educational project in the Czech Republic aims to familiarize high school students with basic democratic principles, acquaint them with the local electoral system, while promoting dialog among students, teachers, and parents. The main goal is to increase participation of young people in elections.

In line with this project, young students across the country are invited to take part in a simulated general election, to get a taste of what things will be like when they reach voting age. This year, these Student Elections took place over two days starting October 3 in secondary schools across the Czech Republic.

Under the One World Education Program at People in Need, a nonprofit that implements educational and human rights programs in crisis zones, 40,068 students from 281 schools cast their votes for political parties, movements and coalition candidates standing for the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament in the upcoming real elections.

Students 15-years-old and above were eligible to vote and when they were all counted, the results were quite something for any follower of the worldwide Pirate Party movement.

Of all groups, the Czech Pirate Party won a decisive victory, netting 24.5% of the overall vote, double that achieved by the ANO movement (11.9%) and the right-wing TOP 09 (11.8%). The fourth and fifth-placed candidates topped out at 7.76% and 6.33% respectively.

“The results of the Student Elections will be compared to the results of the election in a couple of weeks. It is certain they will vary greatly,” says Karel Strachota, director of the One World at School Education Program and the person who launched the Student Election project seven years ago.

“At the same time, however, the choice of students seems to indicate a certain trend in the development of voter preferences. From our teachers and school visits, we know that, as in the past, most of the pupils have been able to choose responsibly.”

According to Prague Monitor, opinion polls for the upcoming election (October 20-21) place the ANO movement as the clear favorites, with the Pirates having “a big chance to succeed” with up to 7% of the vote. Given the results of the simulation, elections in coming years could be something really special for the Pirates.

The full results of the Student Elections 2017 can be found on the One World website here. Meanwhile, Czech Pirate Party President Ivan Bartos sings to voters in the pre-election video below, explaining why Pirates are needed in Parliament in 2017.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Denuvo Crisis After Total Warhammer 2 Gets Pirated in Hours

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/denuvo-crisis-after-total-warhammer-2-gets-pirated-in-hours-170929/

Needing little introduction, the anti-piracy system sold by Denuvo Software Solutions of Austria is probably the most well-known product of its type of the planet.

For years, Denuvo was considered pretty much impenetrable, with its presence a virtual stamp of assurance that a game being protected by it would not fall victim to piracy, potentially for years. In recent times, however, things have begun to crumble.

Strangely, it started in early 2016 with bad news. Chinese cracking group 3DM declared that Denuvo was probably uncrackable and no protected games would appear online during the next two years.

By June, however, hope appeared on the horizon, with hints that progress was being made. By August 2016, all doubts were removed when a group called CONSPIR4CY (a reported collaboration between CPY and CODEX) released Rise of the Tomb Raider.

After that, Denuvo-protected titles began dropping like flies, with some getting cracked weeks after their launch. Then things got serious.

Early this year, Resident Evil 7 fell in less than a week. In the summer, RiME fell in a few days, four days exactly for Tekken 7.

Now, however, Denuvo has suffered its biggest failure yet, with strategy game Total War: Warhammer 2 falling to pirates in less than a day, arguably just a few hours. It was cracked by STEAMPUNKS, a group that’s been dumping cracked games on the Internet at quite a rate for the past few months.

TOTAL.WAR.WARHAMMER.2-STEAMPUNKS

“Take this advice, DO NOT CODE a new installer when you have very hot Babes dancing in their bikini just in front of you. Never again,” the group said in a statement. “This time we locked ourselves inside and produced a new installer.”

The fall of this game in such a short space of time will be of major concern to Denuvo Software Solutions. After Resident Evil 7 was cracked in days earlier this year, Denuvo Marketing Director Thomas Goebl told Eurogamer that some protection was better than nothing.

“Given the fact that every unprotected title is cracked on the day of release — as well as every update of games — our solution made a difference for this title,” he said.

With yesterday’s 0-day crack of Total War: Warhammer 2, it can be argued that Denuvo made absolutely no difference whatsoever to the availability of the title. It didn’t even protect the initial launch window.

Goebl’s additional comment in the summer was that “so far only one piracy group has been able to bypass [Denuvo].” Now, just a handful of months later, there are several groups with the ability. That’s not a good look for the company.

Back in 2016, Denuvo co-founder Robert Hernandez told Kotaku that the company does not give refunds. It would be interesting to know if anything has changed there too.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Research on What Motivates ISIS — and Other — Fighters

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/09/research_on_wha.html

Interesting research from Nature Human Behaviour: “The devoted actor’s will to fight and the spiritual dimension of human conflict“:

Abstract: Frontline investigations with fighters against the Islamic State (ISIL or ISIS), combined with multiple online studies, address willingness to fight and die in intergroup conflict. The general focus is on non-utilitarian aspects of human conflict, which combatants themselves deem ‘sacred’ or ‘spiritual’, whether secular or religious. Here we investigate two key components of a theoretical framework we call ‘the devoted actor’ — sacred values and identity fusion with a group­ — to better understand people’s willingness to make costly sacrifices. We reveal three crucial factors: commitment to non-negotiable sacred values and the groups that the actors are wholly fused with; readiness to forsake kin for those values; and perceived spiritual strength of ingroup versus foes as more important than relative material strength. We directly relate expressed willingness for action to behaviour as a check on claims that decisions in extreme conflicts are driven by cost-benefit calculations, which may help to inform policy decisions for the common defense.

Entire Kim Dotcom Spying Operation Was Illegal, High Court Rules

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/entire-kim-dotcom-spying-operation-was-illegal-high-court-rules-170825/

In the months that preceded the January 2012 raid on file-storage site Megaupload, authorities in New Zealand used the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) spy agency to monitor Kim and Mona Dotcom, plus Megaupload co-defendant Bram van der Kolk.

When this fact was revealed it developed into a crisis. The GCSB was forbidden by law from conducting surveillance on its own citizens or permanent residents in the country, which led to former Prime Minister John Key later apologizing for the error.

With Dotcom determined to uncover the truth, the entrepreneur launched legal action in pursuit of the information illegally obtained by GCSB and to obtain compensation. In July, the High Court determined that Dotcom wouldn’t get access to the information but it also revealed that the scope of the spying went on much longer than previously admitted, a fact later confirmed by the police.

This raised the specter that not only did the GCSB continue to spy on Dotcom after it knew it was acting illegally, but that an earlier affidavit from a GCSB staff member was suspect.

With the saga continuing to drag on, revelations published in New Zealand this morning indicate that not only was the spying on Dotcom illegal, the entire spying operation – which included his Megaupload co-defendants – was too.

The reports are based on documents released by Lawyer Peter Spring, who is acting for Bram van der Kolk and Mathias Ortmann. Spring says that the High Court decision, which dates back to December but has only just been made available, shows that “the whole surveillance operation fell outside the authorization of the GCSB legislation as it was at the relevant time”.

Since Dotcom is a permanent resident of New Zealand, it’s long been established that the GCSB acted illegally when it spied on him. As foreigners, however, Megaupload co-defendants Finn Batato and Mathias Ortmann were previously considered valid surveillance targets.

It now transpires that the GCSB wasn’t prepared to mount a defense or reveal its methods concerning their surveillance, something which boosted the case against it.

“The circumstances of the interceptions of Messrs Ortmann and Batato’s communications are Top Secret and it has not proved possible to plead to the allegations the plaintiffs have made without revealing information which would jeopardize the national security of New Zealand,” the Court documents read.

“As a result the GCSB is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the statement of claim which relate to the manner in which the interceptions were effected.”

Speaking with RadioNZ, Grant Illingworth, a lawyer representing Ortmann and van der Kolk, said the decision calls the entire GCSB operation into doubt.

“The GCSB has now admitted that the unlawfulness was not just dependent upon residency issues, it went further. The reason it went further was because it didn’t have authorization to carry out the kind of surveillance that it was carrying out under the legislation, as it was at that time,” Illingworth said.

In comments to NZHerald, Illingworth added that the decision meant that the damages case for Ortmann and van der Kolk had come to an end. He refused to respond to questions of whether damages had been paid or a settlement reached.

He did indicate, however, that there could be implications for the battle underway to have Dotcom, Batato, Ortmann and van der Kolk extradited to the United States.

“If there was illegality in the arrest and search phase and that illegality has not previously been made known in the extradition context then it could be relevant to the extradition,” Illingworth said.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

BREIN is Taking Infamous ‘Piracy’ Hosting Provider Ecatel to Court

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/brein-is-taking-infamous-piracy-hosting-provider-ecatel-to-court-170815/

A regular website can be easily hosted in most countries of the world but when the nature of the project begins to step on toes, opportunities begin to reduce. Openly hosting The Pirate Bay, for example, is something few providers want to get involved with.

There are, however, providers out there who specialize in hosting services that others won’t touch. They develop a reputation of turning a blind eye to their customers’ activities, only reacting when a crisis looms on the horizon. Despite the problems, there are a few that are surprisingly resilient.

One such host is Netherlands-based Ecatel, which has hit the headlines many times over the years for allegedly having customers involved in warez, torrents, and streaming, not to mention spam and malware. For hosting the former group, it’s now in the crosshairs of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN.

According to an application for a witness hearing filed with The Court of the Hague by BREIN, Ecatel has repeatedly hosted websites dealing in infringing content over recent years. While this is nothing particularly out of the ordinary, BREIN claims that complaints filed against the sites were dealt with slowly by Ecatel or not at all.

Ecatel Ltd is a company incorporated in the UK with servers in the Netherlands but since 2015, another hosting company called Novogara has appeared in tandem. Court documents suggest that Novogara is associated with Ecatel, something that was confirmed early 2016 in an email sent out by Ecatel itself.

“We’d like to inform you that all services of Ecatel Ltd are taken over by a new brand called Novogara Ltd with immediate effect. The take-over includes Ecatel and all her subsidiaries,” the email read.

Muddying the waters a little more, in 2015 Ecatel’s IP addresses were apparently taken over by Quasi Networks Ltd, a Seychelles-based company whose business is described locally as being conducted entirely overseas.

“Stichting BREIN has found several websites in the network of Quasi Networks with obviously infringing content. Quasi Networks, however, does not respond structurally to requests for closing those websites. This involves unlawful acts against the parties associated with the BREIN Foundation,” a ruling from the Court reads.

As a result, BREIN wants a witness hearing with three defendants connected to the Ecatel/Novgara/Quasi group of companies in order to establish the relationship between the businesses, where their servers are, and who is behind Quasi Networks.

“Stichting BREIN is interested in this information in order to be able to judge who it can appeal to and whether it is useful to start a legal procedure,” the Court adds.

Two of the defendants failed to lodge a defense against BREIN’s application but one objected to the request for a hearing. He said that since Quasi Networks, Ecatel and Novogara are all incorporated outside the Netherlands, a trial must also be conducted abroad and therefore a Dutch judge would not have jurisdiction.

He also argued that BREIN would use the witness hearing as a “fishing expedition” in order to gather information it currently does not have, in order to formulate some kind of case against the defendants, in one way or another.

In a decision published this week, The Court of the Hague rejected that argument, noting that the basis for the claim is copyright infringement through Netherlands-hosted websites. Furthermore, the majority of the witnesses are resident in the district of The Hague. It also underlined the importance of a hearing.

“The request for holding a preliminary witness hearing opens an independent petition procedure, which does not address the eligibility of any claim that may be lodged. An investigation must be made by the judge who has to deal with and decide the main case – if it comes.

“The court points out that a preliminary witness hearing is now (partly) necessary to clarify whether and to what extent a claim has any chance of success,” the decision reads.

According to documents published by Companies House in the UK, Ecatel Ltd ceased to exist this morning, having been dissolved at the request of its directors.

The hearing of the witnesses is set to take place on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 9.30 in the Palace of Justice at Prince Claus 60 in The Hague.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Deploying an NGINX Reverse Proxy Sidecar Container on Amazon ECS

Post Syndicated from Nathan Peck original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/nginx-reverse-proxy-sidecar-container-on-amazon-ecs/

Reverse proxies are a powerful software architecture primitive for fetching resources from a server on behalf of a client. They serve a number of purposes, from protecting servers from unwanted traffic to offloading some of the heavy lifting of HTTP traffic processing.

This post explains the benefits of a reverse proxy, and explains how to use NGINX and Amazon EC2 Container Service (Amazon ECS) to easily implement and deploy a reverse proxy for your containerized application.

Components

NGINX is a high performance HTTP server that has achieved significant adoption because of its asynchronous event driven architecture. It can serve thousands of concurrent requests with a low memory footprint. This efficiency also makes it ideal as a reverse proxy.

Amazon ECS is a highly scalable, high performance container management service that supports Docker containers. It allows you to run applications easily on a managed cluster of Amazon EC2 instances. Amazon ECS helps you get your application components running on instances according to a specified configuration. It also helps scale out these components across an entire fleet of instances.

Sidecar containers are a common software pattern that has been embraced by engineering organizations. It’s a way to keep server side architecture easier to understand by building with smaller, modular containers that each serve a simple purpose. Just like an application can be powered by multiple microservices, each microservice can also be powered by multiple containers that work together. A sidecar container is simply a way to move part of the core responsibility of a service out into a containerized module that is deployed alongside a core application container.

The following diagram shows how an NGINX reverse proxy sidecar container operates alongside an application server container:

In this architecture, Amazon ECS has deployed two copies of an application stack that is made up of an NGINX reverse proxy side container and an application container. Web traffic from the public goes to an Application Load Balancer, which then distributes the traffic to one of the NGINX reverse proxy sidecars. The NGINX reverse proxy then forwards the request to the application server and returns its response to the client via the load balancer.

Reverse proxy for security

Security is one reason for using a reverse proxy in front of an application container. Any web server that serves resources to the public can expect to receive lots of unwanted traffic every day. Some of this traffic is relatively benign scans by researchers and tools, such as Shodan or nmap:

[18/May/2017:15:10:10 +0000] "GET /YesThisIsAReallyLongRequestURLbutWeAreDoingItOnPurposeWeAreScanningForResearchPurposePleaseHaveALookAtTheUserAgentTHXYesThisIsAReallyLongRequestURLbutWeAreDoingItOnPurposeWeAreScanningForResearchPurposePleaseHaveALookAtTheUserAgentTHXYesThisIsAReallyLongRequestURLbutWeAreDoingItOnPurposeWeAreScanningForResearchPurposePleaseHaveALookAtTheUserAgentTHXYesThisIsAReallyLongRequestURLbutWeAreDoingItOnPurposeWeAreScanningForResearchPurposePleaseHaveALookAtTheUserAgentTHXYesThisIsAReallyLongRequestURLbutWeAreDoingItOnPurposeWeAreScanningForResearchPurposePleaseHaveALookAtTheUserAgentTHXYesThisIsAReallyLongRequestURLbutWeAreDoingItOnPurposeWeAreScanningForResearchPurposePleaseHaveALookAtTheUserAgentTHXYesThisIsAReallyLongRequestURLbutWeAreDoingItOnPurposeWeAreScanningForResearchPurposePleaseHaveALookAtTheUserAgentTHXYesThisIsAReallyLongRequestURLbutWeAreDoingItOnPurposeWeAreScanningForResearchPurposePleaseHaveALookAtTheUserAgentTHXYesThisIsAReallyLongRequestURLbutWeAreDoingItOnPurposeWeAreScann HTTP/1.1" 404 1389 - Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/46.0.2490.86 Safari/537.36
[18/May/2017:18:19:51 +0000] "GET /clientaccesspolicy.xml HTTP/1.1" 404 322 - Cloud mapping experiment. Contact [email protected]

But other traffic is much more malicious. For example, here is what a web server sees while being scanned by the hacking tool ZmEu, which scans web servers trying to find PHPMyAdmin installations to exploit:

[18/May/2017:16:27:39 +0000] "GET /mysqladmin/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 391 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:39 +0000] "GET /web/phpMyAdmin/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 394 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:39 +0000] "GET /xampp/phpmyadmin/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 396 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:40 +0000] "GET /apache-default/phpmyadmin/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 405 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:40 +0000] "GET /phpMyAdmin-2.10.0.0/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 397 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:40 +0000] "GET /mysql/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 386 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:41 +0000] "GET /admin/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 386 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:41 +0000] "GET /forum/phpmyadmin/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 396 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:41 +0000] "GET /typo3/phpmyadmin/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 396 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:42 +0000] "GET /phpMyAdmin-2.10.0.1/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 399 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:44 +0000] "GET /administrator/components/com_joommyadmin/phpmyadmin/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 418 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:18:34:45 +0000] "GET /phpmyadmin/scripts/setup.php HTTP/1.1" 404 390 - ZmEu
[18/May/2017:16:27:45 +0000] "GET /w00tw00t.at.blackhats.romanian.anti-sec:) HTTP/1.1" 404 401 - ZmEu

In addition, servers can also end up receiving unwanted web traffic that is intended for another server. In a cloud environment, an application may end up reusing an IP address that was formerly connected to another service. It’s common for misconfigured or misbehaving DNS servers to send traffic intended for a different host to an IP address now connected to your server.

It’s the responsibility of anyone running a web server to handle and reject potentially malicious traffic or unwanted traffic. Ideally, the web server can reject this traffic as early as possible, before it actually reaches the core application code. A reverse proxy is one way to provide this layer of protection for an application server. It can be configured to reject these requests before they reach the application server.

Reverse proxy for performance

Another advantage of using a reverse proxy such as NGINX is that it can be configured to offload some heavy lifting from your application container. For example, every HTTP server should support gzip. Whenever a client requests gzip encoding, the server compresses the response before sending it back to the client. This compression saves network bandwidth, which also improves speed for clients who now don’t have to wait as long for a response to fully download.

NGINX can be configured to accept a plaintext response from your application container and gzip encode it before sending it down to the client. This allows your application container to focus 100% of its CPU allotment on running business logic, while NGINX handles the encoding with its efficient gzip implementation.

An application may have security concerns that require SSL termination at the instance level instead of at the load balancer. NGINX can also be configured to terminate SSL before proxying the request to a local application container. Again, this also removes some CPU load from the application container, allowing it to focus on running business logic. It also gives you a cleaner way to patch any SSL vulnerabilities or update SSL certificates by updating the NGINX container without needing to change the application container.

NGINX configuration

Configuring NGINX for both traffic filtering and gzip encoding is shown below:

http {
  # NGINX will handle gzip compression of responses from the app server
  gzip on;
  gzip_proxied any;
  gzip_types text/plain application/json;
  gzip_min_length 1000;
 
  server {
    listen 80;
 
    # NGINX will reject anything not matching /api
    location /api {
      # Reject requests with unsupported HTTP method
      if ($request_method !~ ^(GET|POST|HEAD|OPTIONS|PUT|DELETE)$) {
        return 405;
      }
 
      # Only requests matching the whitelist expectations will
      # get sent to the application server
      proxy_pass http://app:3000;
      proxy_http_version 1.1;
      proxy_set_header Upgrade $http_upgrade;
      proxy_set_header Connection 'upgrade';
      proxy_set_header Host $host;
      proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;
      proxy_cache_bypass $http_upgrade;
    }
  }
}

The above configuration only accepts traffic that matches the expression /api and has a recognized HTTP method. If the traffic matches, it is forwarded to a local application container accessible at the local hostname app. If the client requested gzip encoding, the plaintext response from that application container is gzip-encoded.

Amazon ECS configuration

Configuring ECS to run this NGINX container as a sidecar is also simple. ECS uses a core primitive called the task definition. Each task definition can include one or more containers, which can be linked to each other:

 {
  "containerDefinitions": [
     {
       "name": "nginx",
       "image": "<NGINX reverse proxy image URL here>",
       "memory": "256",
       "cpu": "256",
       "essential": true,
       "portMappings": [
         {
           "containerPort": "80",
           "protocol": "tcp"
         }
       ],
       "links": [
         "app"
       ]
     },
     {
       "name": "app",
       "image": "<app image URL here>",
       "memory": "256",
       "cpu": "256",
       "essential": true
     }
   ],
   "networkMode": "bridge",
   "family": "application-stack"
}

This task definition causes ECS to start both an NGINX container and an application container on the same instance. Then, the NGINX container is linked to the application container. This allows the NGINX container to send traffic to the application container using the hostname app.

The NGINX container has a port mapping that exposes port 80 on a publically accessible port but the application container does not. This means that the application container is not directly addressable. The only way to send it traffic is to send traffic to the NGINX container, which filters that traffic down. It only forwards to the application container if the traffic passes the whitelisted rules.

Conclusion

Running a sidecar container such as NGINX can bring significant benefits by making it easier to provide protection for application containers. Sidecar containers also improve performance by freeing your application container from various CPU intensive tasks. Amazon ECS makes it easy to run sidecar containers, and automate their deployment across your cluster.

To see the full code for this NGINX sidecar reference, or to try it out yourself, you can check out the open source NGINX reverse proxy reference architecture on GitHub.

– Nathan
 @nathankpeck

Hard Drive Cost Per Gigabyte

Post Syndicated from Andy Klein original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/

Hard Drive Cost

For hard drive prices, the race to zero is over: nobody won. For the past 35+ years or so, hard drives prices have dropped, from around $500,000 per gigabyte in 1981 to less than $0.03 per gigabyte today. This includes the period of the Thailand drive crisis in 2012 that spiked hard drive prices. Matthew Komorowski has done an admirable job of documenting the hard drive price curve through March 2014 and we’d like to fill in the blanks with our own drive purchase data to complete the picture. As you’ll see, the hard drive pricing curve has flattened out.

75,000 New Hard Drives

We first looked at the cost per gigabyte of a hard drive in 2013 when we examined the effects of the Thailand Drive crisis on our business. When we wrote that post, the cost per gigabyte for a 4 TB hard drive was about $0.04 per gigabyte. Since then 5-, 6-, 8- and recently 10 TB hard drives have been introduced and during that period we have purchased nearly 75,000 drives. Below is a chart by drive size of the drives we purchased since that last report in 2013.

Hard Drive Cost Per GB by drive size

Observations

  1. We purchase drives in bulk, thousands at a time. The price you might get at Costco or BestBuy, or on Amazon will most likely be higher.
  2. The effect of the Thailand Drive crisis is clearly seen from October 2011 through mid-2013.

The 4 TB Drive Enigma

Up through the 4 TB drive models, the cost per gigabyte of a larger sized drive always became less than the smaller sized drives. In other words, the cost per gigabyte of a 2 TB drive was less than that of a 1 TB drive resulting in higher density at a lower cost per gigabyte. This changed with the introduction of 6- and 8 TB drives, especially as it relates to the 4 TB drives. As you can see in the chart above, the cost per gigabyte of the 6 TB drives did not fall below that of the 4 TB drives. You can also observe that the 8 TB drives are just approaching the cost per gigabyte of the 4 TB drives. The 4 TB drives are the price king as seen in the chart below of the current cost of Seagate consumer drives by size.

Seagate Hard Drive Prices By Size

Drive Size Model Price Cost/GB
1 TB ST1000DM010 $49.99 $0.050
2 TB ST2000DM006 $66.99 $0.033
3 TB ST3000DM008 $83.72 $0.028
4 TB ST4000DM005 $99.99 $0.025
6 TB ST6000DM004 $240.00 $0.040
8 TB ST8000DM005 $307.34 $0.038

The data on this chart was sourced from the current price of these drives on Amazon. The drive models selected were “consumer” drives, like those we typically use in our data centers.

The manufacturing and marketing efficiencies that drive the pricing of hard drives seems to have changed over time. For example, the 6 TB drives have been in the market at least 3 years, but are not even close to the cost per gigabyte of the 4 TB drives. Meanwhile, back in 2011, the 3 TB drives models fell below the cost per gigabyte of the 2 TB drives they “replaced” within a few months. Have we as consumers decided that 4 TB drives are “big enough” for our needs and we are not demanding (by purchasing) larger sized drives in the quantities needed to push down the unit cost?

Approaching Zero: There’s a Limit

The important aspect is the trend of the cost over time. While it has continued to move downward, the rate of change has slowed dramatically as observed in the chart below which represents our average quarterly cost per gigabyte over time.

Hard Drive Cost per GB over time

The change in the rate of the cost per gigabyte of a hard drive is declining. For example, from January 2009 to January 2011, our average cost for a hard drive decreased 45% from $0.11 to $0.06 – $0.05 per gigabyte. From January 2015 to January 2017, the average cost decreased 26% from $0.038 to $0.028 – just $0.01 per gigabyte. This means that the declining price of storage will become less relevant in driving the cost of providing storage.

Back in 2011, IDC predicted that the overall data will grow by 50 times by 2020, and in 2014, EMC estimated that by 2020, we will be creating 44 trillion gigabytes of data annually. That’s quite a challenge for the storage industry especially as the cost per gigabyte curve for hard drives is flattening out. Improvements in existing storage technologies (Helium, HAMR) along with future technologies (Quantum Storage, DNA), are on the way – we can’t wait. Of course we’d like these new storage devices to be 50% less expensive per gigabyte then today’s hard drives. That would be a good start.

The post Hard Drive Cost Per Gigabyte appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

I want to talk for a moment about tolerance

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/05/i-want-to-talk-for-moment-about.html

This post is in response to this Twitter thread. I was going to do a series of tweets in response, but as the number grew, I thought it’d better be done in a blog.

She thinks we are fighting for the rights of Nazis. We aren’t — indeed, the fact that she thinks we are is exactly the problem. They aren’t Nazis.

The issue is not about a slippery slope that first Nazi’s lose free speech, then other groups start losing their speech as well. The issue is that it’s a slippery slope that more and more people get labeled a Nazi. And we are already far down that slope.

The “alt-right” is a diverse group. Like any group. Vilifying the entire alt-right by calling them Nazi’s is like lumping all Muslims in with ISIS or Al Qaeda. We really don’t have Nazi’s in America. Even White Nationalists don’t fit the bill. Nazism was about totalitarianism, real desire to exterminate Jews, lebensraum, and Aryan superiority. Sure, some of these people exist, but they are a fringe, even among the alt-right.

It’s at this point we need to discuss words like “tolerance”. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

The idea of tolerance is that reasonable people can disagree. You still believe you are right, and the other person is wrong, but you accept that they are nonetheless a reasonable person with good intentions, and that they don’t need to be punished for holding the wrong opinion.

Gay rights is a good example. I agree with you that there is only one right answer to this. Having spent nights holding my crying gay college roommate, because his father hated gays, has filled me with enormous hatred and contempt for people like his father. I’ve done my fair share shouting at people for anti-gay slurs.

Yet on the other hand, progressive icons like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have had evolving positions on gay rights issues, such as having opposed gay marriage at one time.

Tolerance means accepting that a person is reasonable, intelligent, and well-meaning — even if they oppose gay marriage. It means accepting that Hillary and Obama were reasonable people, even when they were vocally opposing gay marriage.

I’m libertarian. Like most libertarians, I support wide open borders, letting any immigrant across the border for any reason. To me, Hillary’s and Obama’s immigration policies are almost as racist as Trump’s. I have to either believe all you people supporting Hillary/Obama are irredeemably racist — or that well-meaning, good people can disagree about immigration.

I could go through a long list of issues that separate the progressive left and alt-right, and my point would always be the same. While people disagree on issues, and I have my own opinions about which side is right, there are reasonable people on both sides. If there are issues that divide our country down the middle, then by definition, both sides are equally reasonable. The problem with the progressive left is that they do not tolerate this. They see the world as being between one half who hold the correct opinions, and the other half who are unreasonable.

What defines the “alt-right” is not Nazism or White Nationalism, but the reaction of many on the right to intolerance of many on the left. Every time somebody is punished and vilified for uttering what is in fact a reasonable difference of opinion, they join the “alt-right”.

The issue at stake here, the issue that the ACLU is defending, is after that violent attack on the Portland train by an extremist, the city is denying all “alt-right” protesters the right to march. It’s blaming all those of the “alt-right” for the actions of one of their member. It’s similar to cities blocking Muslims from building a mosque because of extremists like ISIS and Al Qaeda, or disturbed individuals who carry out violent attacks in the name of Islam.

This is not just a violation of the First Amendment rights, it’s an obvious one. As the Volokh Conspiracy documents, the courts have ruled many times on this issue. There is no doubt that the “alt-right” has the right to march, and that the city’s efforts to deny them this right is a blatant violation of the constitution.

What we are defending here is not the rights of actual Nazi’s to march (as the courts famous ruled was still legitimate speech in Skokie, Illinois), but the rights of non-Nazi’s to march, most who have legitimate, reasonable (albeit often wrong) grievances to express. This speech is clearly being suppressed by gun wielding thugs in Portland, Oregon.

Those like Jillian see this as dealing with unreasonable speech, we see this as a problem of tolerably wrong speech. Those like Jillian York aren’t defending the right to free speech because, in their minds, they’ve vilified the people they disagree with. But that’s that’s exactly when, and only when, free speech needs our protection, when those speaking out have been vilified, and their repression seems just. Look at how Russia suppresses supporters of gay rights, with exactly this sort of vilification, whereby the majority of the populace sees the violence and policing as a legitimate response to speech that should not be free.

We aren’t fighting a slippery slope here, by defending Nazis. We’ve already slid down that slope, where reasonable people’s rights are being violated. We are fighting to get back up top.

–> –>