Any of this threat apply to JagPC Accounts or Networks?

[Don McLeod]

As reported on the Time website, the terrorist orgaization Hezbollah (Hizballah?) has been taking advantage of "unwitting Web sites around the world in order to communicate, recruit and fundraise". So my question is what kind of vulnerabilites do we have here at JagPC? What can we do to protect our accounts against their nefarious deeds?

How Hizballah Hijacks the Internet

[jason]

Well, since most defacements occur because of users running outdated software, the best suggestion is to keep your bl0ogs, forums, cms systems, etc. updated with the latest releases of software. The article you linked doesn't specifically say how Hezbollah waging their attacks, but my guess is that its the same way most of these groups do it.

--Jason

[the_ancient]

Terrorist are on the Internet OHHH MY GODDDD we must destroy the internet for everyones saftey

[Ron]

Terrorist are on the Internet OHHH MY GODDDD we must destroy the internet for everyones saftey

Good point.

[lokki]

we must destroy the internet for everyones saftey

Well, you have to admit, it was *much* harder to get angry when we had to wait for Time magazine and T-shirts to tell us what was going on in the world. So yeah... let's ban the webnetinterthingie. I liked my computer better when I had to wait for my friend to send a floppy through the USPS before I could play Loderunner.

[the_ancient]

Well, you have to admit, it was *much* harder to get angry when we had to wait for Time magazine and T-shirts to tell us what was going on in the world. So yeah... let's ban the webnetinterthingie. I liked my computer better when I had to wait for my friend to send a floppy through the USPS before I could play Loderunner.

you joke, and soo do I, but the scary part is that most people are willing to give up everything for a false security blanky

"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again."
-Ronald Reagan

That said. Why are sooooo many willing to just give it up?

[Spathiphyllum]

...Why are sooooo many willing to just give it up?

In what way? Which freedom have you lost which has directly impacted your life? Not in a hypothetical sense of loss, but in real, experienced loss? What freedom (off the top of your head) does some other country have that you do not? Is there not a balance in freedom, however defined, and should there not be limitations on them such that we are able to coexist with others who desire to destroy any freedom we have?

And I guess I should be more specific. Are you referring to the United States, or are you referring to another country?

[Spathiphyllum]

...What can we do to protect our accounts against their nefarious deeds?

Well, you could use the virtual club and try blocking certain netblocks and top-level rootnames from accessing your site. It's not perfect but it can help out considerably.

Review Apache's .htaccess rules and set Deny access lines to .ir, for example. If your target audience is not from Iran, you will not lose anything from blocking any accesses from that country. You'd need to do research on which IP blocks are associated with suspect regions, though really savvy crackers may try proxying through other compromised servers elsewhere in the world.

It's better than nothing, though, and will make it harder.

[the_ancient]

In what way? Which freedom have you lost which has directly impacted your life? Not in a hypothetical sense of loss, but in real, experienced loss?

For starters, the 4th amendment, 5th amendment, and 2nd amendment have a bastarized in Many ways, to numerous to list them all here but for starters

4th amendment
----> Now because of "terrorist" laws the government no longer has to show propable cause to obtain warrants. Privacy is out the window.
----> Warrants Issued today are mainly Unconstutional because they pretty much encompass everything, which is not what is called for in the 4th amendment.

How does that "impact me" I no longer feel secure in my " persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" regaurdless if I have done anything wrong or not.


5th amendment
----> Eminate domain has been expanded to the point where you no longer own your property.
----> In some cases to refusal to "testify" against ones self is "admiting guilt" Maily in DUI cases and in some Sex crimes.


2nd amendment

---> I am no longer allowed to own Arms for my own defense, I only allowed to own arms in which the Government apporves of. Which is not what the 2nd amentment is for.



Other Amentment that have been impacted, 10th, 1st, 6th, 9th, and 8th.

Even some of the "rights" and limits written directly in to the body of the constitution have been ignored.

Some of these things may not effect me in my day to day life, but the defintaly have a impact on how you act and interact with people.

Let me ask you a question, if a Cop pulls in behind you on the freeway, what is your VERY FIRST reaction?

What freedom (off the top of your head) does some other country have that you do not? Is there not a balance in freedom, however defined, and should there not be limitations on them such that we are able to coexist with others who desire to destroy any freedom we have?

You can not use the word LIMIT and FREEDOM in the same line, your either FREE or your NOT. there is no middle ground

as far as "limiting freedom" (aka destory freedom) to protect us from people that want to destory freedom???????? Anyone else see the problem here???

"You cant destory our freedom because we already destoryed it ourselves hahahahaha"

And I guess I should be more specific. Are you referring to the United States, or are you referring to another country?

No I am not refering to the "united States" The "united states" dies with the 10th amendment. We are forever Amerika

[Spathiphyllum]

4th amendment
----> Now because of "terrorist" laws the government no longer has to show propable cause to obtain warrants. Privacy is out the window.
----> Warrants Issued today are mainly Unconstutional because they pretty much encompass everything, which is not what is called for in the 4th amendment.

Hyperbole. Warrants are necessary. Only in the most extreme circumstance is this tested and it is currently being reviewed by Congress.

How does that "impact me" I no longer feel secure in my " persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" regaurdless if I have done anything wrong or not.

Might just be a case of paranoia.

5th amendment
----> Eminate domain has been expanded to the point where you no longer own your property.
----> In some cases to refusal to "testify" against ones self is "admiting guilt" Maily in DUI cases and in some Sex crimes.

Eminent domain was decided, wrongly in my mind, by a 5-4 decision with the liberal judges on SCOTUS deciding that the government trumps the individual. The states are now, as is appropriate and under public pressure, amending their own constitutions to override the lunacy of SCOTUS. Process is working.

Brief comment on DUI and sex crimes. Seems to me that refusal to submit to DUI, for example, is an admission of guilt. What reason would one have not to provide it if a driver is pulled over with cause? Have you been pulled over under the pretense of DUI so that some sort of alternate profiling could occur by the man? Do you not believe a dangerous driver should be removed from the road? If it's a legit stop, why would I, as a juror, not think you were trying to conceal your reckless behavior?

2nd amendment

---> I am no longer allowed to own Arms for my own defense, I only allowed to own arms in which the Government apporves of. Which is not what the 2nd amentment is for.

What kind of arms do you need? Are you expecting an assault from paramilitary blokes? Granted, I'm for the NRA and have reservations here, too, but I could acquire guns for defense. Just not a bazooka. Now, if you're talking about overthrowing the government with a revolution, then I'm afraid you're out of luck. There probably doesn't exist any powerful nation whereby common folks can defeat their leadership via arms. Political pressure is the weapon of choice. Further, I don't think you would want to live in the nations where citizens could overthrow their government with arms. They tend to be rather unstable, dangerous, and poor.

Let me ask you a question, if a Cop pulls in behind you on the freeway, what is your VERY FIRST reaction?

I check my speedometer.

You can not use the word LIMIT and FREEDOM in the same line, your either FREE or your NOT. there is no middle ground

Nonsense. It's a balance in civilized nations. Let me test this theory. What if I want to break into your house, take your property, beat you senseless, and leave you for dead. I'm totally free, right? As long as you don't pull out your state-sanctioned gun and shoot me first. As you can see, civilized people make rules so that everyone "gets along". There is no complete freedom and it is the balance we tweak. Utter freedom would be chaos.

as far as "limiting freedom" (aka destory freedom) to protect us from people that want to destory freedom???????? Anyone else see the problem here???

First, I think you need a few more question marks. Next, reread above.

No I am not refering to the "united States" The "united states" dies with the 10th amendment. We are forever Amerika

[the_ancient]

Hyperbole. Warrants are necessary. Only in the most extreme circumstance is this tested and it is currently being reviewed by Congress.

You must not read the reports carefully enough they have "warantless programs" they claim are legal

Might just be a case of paranoia.

Only the Paranoid are truely prepard

Eminent domain was decided, wrongly in my mind, by a 5-4 decision with the liberal judges on SCOTUS deciding that the government trumps the individual. The states are now, as is appropriate and under public pressure, amending their own constitutions to override the lunacy of SCOTUS. Process is working.

ROFL, yea the process is working, how many states have actually amended anything? How many states are actually going to limit their own power?

ROFL, you keep the faith

Brief comment on DUI and sex crimes. Seems to me that refusal to submit to DUI, for example, is an admission of guilt.

So using your 5th amendment right is now an admission of guilt? If I refuse to allow cops to search my home or car, is that an admission of guilt tooo???

What reason would one have not to provide it if a driver is pulled over with cause?

Because I value my privacy, and dont trust their dime store machines that may or may not be calibarated properly. As far as "stopped with cause" who dertermins that "cause" is before I am tried and convicted of the crime that requires me now to PROVE I am innocent by taking a Test? When did cops become judges?

Have you been pulled over under the pretense of DUI so that some sort of alternate profiling could occur by the man? Do you not believe a dangerous driver should be removed from the road? If it's a legit stop, why would I, as a juror, not think you were trying to conceal your reckless behavior?

Dangerous Drives should be removed from the road, but DUI's are far from the only dangerous people on the roads, but that is another Topic, as far as Removing DUI's, they need to find away to do that with out violating the 5th amendment.

Cops would love to kill the constitution, it would make there jobs easyer, why are you willing to let them kill it?

What kind of arms do you need? Are you expecting an assault from paramilitary blokes?

Who knows what the future holds.... I would like to be prepard for anything.

Granted, I'm for the NRA and have reservations here, too, but I could acquire guns for defense.

If you support the NRA, you dont support the 2nd amendment. The NRA is a JOKE, they are a Hunting organzation out to support HUNTING rights not DEFENSE rights. you CAN NOT acuaire guns for defense, you can acquire hunting weapons.
and since when did "arms" translate to "guns only"??????

Just not a bazooka. Now, if you're talking about overthrowing the government with a revolution, then I'm afraid you're out of luck. There probably doesn't exist any powerful nation whereby common folks can defeat their leadership via arms.

the King said the same thing when he sent the red coats over

Political pressure is the weapon of choice. Further, I don't think you would want to live in the nations where citizens could overthrow their government with arms. They tend to be rather unstable, dangerous, and poor.

Yep, the United states is Unstable, dangerous and Poor

I check my speedometer.


Nonsense. It's a balance in civilized nations. Let me test this theory. What if I want to break into your house, take your property, beat you senseless, and leave you for dead. I'm totally free, right? As long as you don't pull out your state-sanctioned gun and shoot me first. As you can see, civilized people make rules so that everyone "gets along". There is no complete freedom and it is the balance we tweak. Utter freedom would be chaos.

That is correct, if you CAN break in to my house and leave alive, more power to you, Ohh and for your info, you would not be shot for breaking in. If you want to Kill some one you dont use a Gun..... Guns you can buy today are far more likly to Injure than kill....

First, I think you need a few more question marks. Next, reread above.

long Live the King. Right Tory

[Ron]

Of course this is a state-by-state issue not a Federal one.

I am concerned as well. The DUI thing is this: You can refuse to take the test, but that means you lose the PRIVILEGE of driving, not a constitutional guarantee to protect your property and liberty.

However, I think that's quite heavy handed. Since mobility is such an important aspect of our society, I think it should be something like this: If you are forced to take the test to retain your right to drive, then the results (either way) should not be allowed in criminal court. If you're coherent enough to make that decision, then you can live with the results either way.

The police REALLY don't need Breathalyzer tests to make their cases in court anyway; they jury ALMOST ALWAYS assumes the police are telling the truth. It's a VERY high burden to be able to overcome the police testimony (and that of their dashcam, or their pocket recorder) and disprove their assertions that you were drunk.

Right now, the police have a very very strong weapon in their arsenal; one that is waaaaay too powerful for their position. They have the ability to claim that you refused the test when asked, and by that simple statement have your license revoked immediately, before a trial. That's particularly troublesome to me, as an acquaintence of mine who recently retired from the force enjoyed recounting a lot of his heavy handed antics to me. Most of them I considered to be illegal. If he was willing to share those stories....

So what say you, The_Ancient? Aer you in on my new political party, The Tenths?

Naaaa don't like that name, either.

[Don McLeod]

Sorry I didn't follow-up on my original post sooner. Computer power supply failed and was briefly without a computer. Our severe weather, power outages and fluctuating voltage must have taken their toll.

Thanks all for weighing in on this one. Really appreciate the following which would be good advice under any circumstances when considering web security:

Well, since most defacements occur because of users running outdated software, the best suggestion is to keep your bl0ogs, forums, cms systems, etc. updated with the latest releases of software.

Well, you could use the virtual club and try blocking certain netblocks and top-level rootnames from accessing your site. It's not perfect but it can help out considerably. Review Apache's .htaccess rules and set Deny access lines to .ir, for example.

I must admit I was a little puzzled at the direction the thread discussion went but found the reading entertaining and enlightening! Thank you!

[the_ancient]

Of course this is a state-by-state issue not a Federal one.

I am concerned as well. The DUI thing is this: You can refuse to take the test, but that means you lose the PRIVILEGE of driving, not a constitutional guarantee to protect your property and liberty.

First off, While Driving is not a enumerated Rights, the constition clearly states right are not to be enumerated. The founders did this for this very reason. Anything not clearly laid out as illegal under the consitution is a RIGHT.

Second this DOES violate a numerated right, the right to due process.

Further in my state DUI can carry a Jail Sentence. So it is not just about losing your Lic.

However, I think that's quite heavy handed. Since mobility is such an important aspect of our society, I think it should be something like this: If you are forced to take the test to retain your right to drive, then the results (either way) should not be allowed in criminal court. If you're coherent enough to make that decision, then you can live with the results either way.

The police REALLY don't need Breathalyzer tests to make their cases in court anyway; they jury ALMOST ALWAYS assumes the police are telling the truth. It's a VERY high burden to be able to overcome the police testimony (and that of their dashcam, or their pocket recorder) and disprove their assertions that you were drunk.

Which is a Shame, If I was on a jury I would NEVER believe the word of a Cop with out Backing Evidence.

Right now, the police have a very very strong weapon in their arsenal; one that is waaaaay too powerful for their position. They have the ability to claim that you refused the test when asked, and by that simple statement have your license revoked immediately, before a trial. That's particularly troublesome to me, as an acquaintence of mine who recently retired from the force enjoyed recounting a lot of his heavy handed antics to me. Most of them I considered to be illegal. If he was willing to share those stories....

Yea, they have the ability to decide guilt and issuse punishment, I always thought that was a judges job???

So what say you, The_Ancient? Aer you in on my new political party, The Tenths?

Naaaa don't like that name, either.

Nope Sorry, I already have a Party, the LP Party, www.lp.org

[the_ancient]

I must admit I was a little puzzled at the direction the thread discussion went but found the reading entertaining and enlightening! Thank you!

I did kinda hijack the thread but it does tie in to the Over reaction to "terror" we see today

Hackers, Terrorist or Script Kiddies all effect web sites, the protections agaisnt all of them is the same, Terrorist are not some specail Group IMO.....

I think we are seeing an EXTREME over reaction to anything "terror" related,

For example the last host issuse is NO LIQUIDS on a Plane. When are they going to make it manadatory to be naked so we can all feel safe, I am sure most of you support this last measure, I dont, they are over reacting as usaual.

Plus I am going to hate it the next time I board on of the Cheap Airlines that stopped serving in flight beverages since I will no longer be allowed to bring a bottle of water with me, I guess I can just dehydrate and die.... but as long as some dreamed up terrorist is stopped is all good right.....