Tagged with " C Programming"
Apr 26, 2012 - मेरो प्रविधी    Comments Off

250 Companies Hacked by One Teenager

How do you like it – a 3-month crime spree just because a teenager was bored? Recently, Inspector Knacker of the lower Austrian yard has caught a 15-year-old student who is believed to hack into more than 250 companies over three months.

Youve_Been_Hacked.jpg

According to the local media reports, the teen scanned the web for vulnerabilities and bugs in sites and databases which he was able to exploit later. The teenager allegedly stole information and published it on the open web after he breached the security infrastructure of over 250 companies.

When the boy was bored, he would simply deface company sites and boast about what he could do on Twitter. Once police arrived to his house, the teenager confessed to the attacks. All the suffering companies were attacked this year, from January to March, and their location wasn’t limited to Austria.

The boy explained that he carried out the attacks because he was bored and simply wanted to prove himself. It looked as an amazing amount of self knowledge for a teenager, who said he was anti-social, and therefore looked to the virtual world for praise and affirmation. The boy found a hacker forum providing members points for successful attacks, and started to earn those. In three months, he ended up in the top 50 hackers of around 2,000 registered forum users.

The young hacker used hacking instruments that are widely available online, including software that helped him stay anonymous. However, he made a mistake that helped the police to find out who was responsible for attacks on 259 firms: ACK!3STX’s anonymizing software let the boy down, and his IP address was spotted by the Cyber Crime Competence Centre unit.

By:
SaM

Apr 26, 2012 - मेरो प्रविधी    Comments Off

Different Interpretations of YouTube Ruling

Less than 2 weeks ago the Second Circuit Court of Appeals handed out a very important decision in the lawsuit that involved Viacom and Google, about massive copyright violation on the YouTube network. The case was revived, to the satisfaction of Viacom, but it turned out that future litigants and judges can interpret the ruling differently.

Hotfile-Smashes-MPAA%E2%80%99s-Interpretation-Of-YouTube-Ruling.jpg

Now the rights owners and their legal targets discuss the meaning of what the appellate circuit said in the decision. Last week the MPAA expressed its own opinion, while Hotfile’s attorneys replied that the plaintiffs were just trying to put a “brave face” on the ruling.

Currently, Hollywood studios are pushing for a summary judgment against Hotfile, comparing it with MegaUpload. The outfit pointed at 4 key points in the ruling. First of all, it said that ISPs can obtain knowledge of copyright violation, which disqualifies them from DMCA safe harbor, because they are willfully blind to infringement. Then, the ruling stressed that Grokster inducement responsibility depends on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, confirming that such conduct was inconsistent with DMCA safe harbor protection. In addition, the defendants’ argument was rejected saying that the higher DMCA standard for “ability to control” must be applied to common law vicarious violation too. Finally, the decision reaffirmed that ISPs are able to obtain knowledge of infringing activity which disqualifies them from DMCA safe harbor from sources other than rights holder takedown notices.

However, Hotfile has a different interpretation of the ruling, saying that plaintiffs have submitted a filing which badly distorts the important aspects of the decision. Hotfile agrees with YouTube “blindness”, but only in specific cases of copyright violation. In addition, when talking about the “right and ability to control”, the MPAA is accused of supporting the idea that DMCA safe harbors can’t be applied to those who possibly maintain inducement liability. In other words, the MPAA was trying to “camouflage” the fact that the court actually disagreed with them on this provision of the DMCA.

As you can see, the parties each read elements of the ruling to support their respective causes. Although it is not surprising, there is surprisingly too little clarity in what the judges at the appellate circuit had to say.

By:
SaM

Pages:123»