<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Security forum - dslreports.com community</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/security</link>
<description>Security forum current topics</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2007, dslreports.com</copyright>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:59:11 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:59:11 EDT</lastBuildDate>



<item>
<title>Whats worse than finding a worm in your apple?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23381993</link>
<description><![CDATA[...Finding half a worm! or the new attack on internet banking just discovered in the Netherlands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8373739.stm]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23381993</guid>
<pubDate>2009-11-23 05:51:02</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>looking for an on-demand scanner</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23381954</link>
<description><![CDATA[I'm looking for something along the lines of an on-demand anti-virus scanner. A stand alone program that can scan and clean, but only when loaded. I don't want any processes running in the background when it's not in use.

Reason being is that I use a somewhat older laptop to run windows 7, and also play WoW. My framerates suffer even more with an active scanner running in the background. And the start up time increases annoy me.

I'm not terribly worried about the risks involved in not having an active scanner. I don't browse porn, don't download shady torrents/files, and I run no-script along with site advisor in firefox.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. =)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23381954</guid>
<pubDate>2009-11-23 05:08:36</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Firewall questions - DNS connections attempts</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23382018</link>
<description><![CDATA[I'm on a cable connection using a cable/modem router. I'm using Kerio 2.15 as my firewall and have my ISP's DNS servers configured, followed by a DNS "kill" rule set to alert/log so I can tell if DNS connection attempts are being blocked. I'm by no means network savvy, so there are two things I don't understand.

First, my ISP's DHCP server address also seems to sometimes (but not always) be needed as a DNS address, meaning UDP traffic permitted to port 53 as well as to port 67. Could that be  correct?

Second occasionally on startup, DNS connections are logged as being requested (and blocked) by Kerio or by KAV, not by svchost.exe (which is permitted). After the first minute or two, these connection attempts don't happen again. Is there a reason that happens at startup and should DNS be configured for all applications or just for svchost.exe?

I hope I've explained that clearly enough.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23382018</guid>
<pubDate>2009-11-23 06:18:52</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Framed for child porn 151; by a PC virus</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23311849</link>
<description><![CDATA[http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091108/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec from http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/08/2135245 ...

"The Associated Press tells the story of Michael Fiola, a former Massachusetts government employee who was arrested in 2007 after child porn was found on his state-issued laptop computer. He was eventually cleared of all charges after some digging by the defense found that the laptop was infected with malware that was 'programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute &#151; an inhuman feat. While Fiola and his wife were out to dinner one night, someone logged on to the computer and porn flowed in for an hour and a half. Prosecutors performed another test and confirmed the defense findings. The charge was dropped &#151; 11 months after it was filed.' The article also discusses the technical aspects of how it could happen and about similar cases in the United Kingdom in 2003."
--
Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx and http://aqfl.net. Please do not IM/e-mail me for technical support. Use the forum! Disclaimer: The views expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23311849</guid>
<pubDate>2009-11-08 20:29:37</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>What is the best.................</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23373913</link>
<description><![CDATA[What's the pure virus scanner for a new Window 7 Pro OS and why? ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23373913</guid>
<pubDate>2009-11-21 01:21:08</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Major IE8 Flaw Makes &#x27;Safe&#x27; Sites Unsafe</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23371215</link>
<description><![CDATA[From The Register
20th November 2009 - said by Dan Goodin :The latest version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser contains a bug that can enable serious security attacks against websites that are otherwise safe.

The flaw in IE 8 can be exploited to introduce XSS, or cross-site scripting, errors on webpages that are otherwise safe, according to two Register sources, who discussed the bug on the condition they not be identified. Microsoft was notified of the vulnerability a few months ago, they said.

Ironically, the flaw resides in a protection added by Microsoft developers to IE 8 that's designed to prevent XSS attacks against sites. The feature works by rewriting vulnerable pages using a technique known as output encoding so that harmful characters and values are replaced with safer ones. A Google spokesman confirmed there is a "significant flaw" in the IE 8 feature but declined to provide specifics.

It's not clear how the protections can cause XSS vulnerabilities in websites that are otherwise safe. Michael Coates - a senior application security engineer at Aspect Security who has closely studied the feature but was unaware of the vulnerability - speculates it may be possible to cause IE 8 to rewrite pages in such a way that the new values trigger an attack on a clean site.

"If the attacker can figure out a flaw in the way IE 8 is actually doing that output encoding and then create a specific string the attacker will know will be transformed into an actual attack, they could use that to input a value ... that actually results in an attack firing on the page," he said. "This could be a way to introduce an attack into a page that didn't have a vulnerability otherwise."

XSS attacks are a way of manipulating a site's URL to inject malicious code or content into a trusted webpage. Many security watchers have come to view the IE 8 protections as Microsoft's answer to NoScript, a popular extension that helps prevent XSS and other types of attacks against users of the Firefox browser.

Late on Thursday afternoon, Microsoft told The Register: "Microsoft is investigating new public claims of a vulnerability in Internet Explorer. We're currently unaware of any attacks trying to use the claimed vulnerability or of customer impact."

Once its investigation is finished, the company will "take appropriate action," including issuing a patch or guidance on how users can protect themselves against exploits.

When Microsoft introduced the protections, it also created a way for webmasters to override the feature (by adding the response header "X-XSS-Protection: 0"). A review of the top 50 most visited websites shows that only web properties owned by Google have actually opted to do so. The small number of sites blocking the protection calls into question how widespread the vulnerability is.

Asked why Google was forgoing the protection, a company spokesman wrote in an email:

"We're aware of a significant flaw affecting the XSS Filter in IE8, and we've taken steps to help protect our users by disabling the mechanism on our properties until a fix has been released." He didn't elaborate.

In addition to potentially introducing serious vulnerabilities into webpages, the XSS protections can bring other undesirable results. That's because its engine frequently flags perfectly acceptable characters as potentially harmful. An examples of such a false positive is here.

David Ross, a senior software security engineer for Microsoft, has said developers designing the feature aimed to strike strike a pragmatic balance between protecting users and not breaking the web.

"We needed to find a way to make the filtering automatic and painless and thus provide maximum benefit to users," he wrote. "In summary, the XSS Filter will prove its worth by raising the bar and mitigating the types of XSS most commonly found across the web today, by default;, for users of Internet Explorer 8."]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23371215</guid>
<pubDate>2009-11-20 15:21:10</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Hacking.....seriously, how easy is it to get hacked?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23373332</link>
<description><![CDATA[I have three main questions.

1) How easy is it to get hacked where someone is actually in your computer going through your files and documents as if they were sitting in front of your computer?

2) have you ever been hacked? How did you know you were hacked? Anything major happen?

3) How can you  prevent being hacked?

I use a router 
ZoneAlarm 
ThreatFire 
Avg 
Malwarebytes
Ad-Aware
Spybot
Windows updated weekly

I was testing my exposure with ShieldsUp
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

I passed everything with stealth.
Threatfire and ZoneAlarm both caught the leak test.

What else do you recommend?
Thanks
--
...there will be an answer. let it be]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23373332</guid>
<pubDate>2009-11-20 22:09:50</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Download your FREE 1-year license of Kaspersky Sec. 2010</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23379087</link>
<description><![CDATA[http://usa.kaspersky.com/shakeitup/
just tried this and you have to be a host of a party or the host e-mail, when did this change?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23379087</guid>
<pubDate>2009-11-22 13:39:12</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title> Climate Change Scandal Erupts After Email Hack.</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23381128</link>
<description><![CDATA[ Climate change scientists have been manipulating and fixing data according to bloggers that are spreading information contained in hundreds of hacked emails.

Bloggers say the 62 mb worth of emails were hacked from the Climate Research Unit, part of Britain&#146;s University of East Anglia and released onto the Internet. The file containing the emails were packaged and posted on blogs by an anonymous hacker.

&#147;We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps,&#148; said the hacker on the climate skeptic site Air Vent on Friday. &#147;We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and document.&#148;

The file contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones, director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit (CRU), to and from many people. Jones confirmed to Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition Friday night that his organization had been hacked.

"It was a hacker,&#148; Jones told TGIF. &#147;We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

The blog "Watts up with that" said they had seen the file and it appeared to be genuine. &#147;Others who have seen it concur&#151;it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.&#148;

The "No consensus" blog apparently had the files sent to their site as well.

&#147;This is the biggest news ever broken here,&#148; said the blog. &#147;The first thing I have to say is that I have no connection to the source of these files. It was left as a link on my blog while I was hunting for cloaked deers (fruitlessly) in the Upper Penninsula. These files are real [in my opinion] but they cannot be one hundred percent verified as such.&#148;

The emails are uploaded on a site called &#147;an elegant chaos.&#148;

In one email, scientists appear to admit they can't find the data to back up their global warming theory.

&#147;Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

&#147;The fact is that we can&#146;t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can&#146;t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.&#148;

Another email thread talks about manipulating data. It is apparently from Phil Jones.

&#147;Once Tim&#146;s got a diagram here we&#146;ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I&#146;ve just completed Mike&#146;s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith&#146;s to hide the decline. Mike&#146;s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.&#148;

Another email talks of the potential to excluding some research contrary to the global warming theory.

&#147;The other paper by MM is just garbage &#150; as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well &#150; frequently as I see it. I can&#146;t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow &#150; even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!&#148;
Source:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/25478/]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23381128</guid>
<pubDate>2009-11-22 22:23:58</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
