…not to be a worry wart…the problems are mine. I have been dealing with hackers a LOT the past couple of months. Most of the problems have been due to a server level hack on my hosting company’s servers, affecting not just my site, but THOUSANDS of web sites on the companies dozens of servers.

I’ve seen spam appended to hundreds of files, using css code to hide the spam links (the worst hack adding 2508 spam links to nearly every index, login, home, default, auth, and admin file in hundreds of my directories), and I had to edit them by hand.

I’ve just found tonight, in a script I’ve been using for over a year, an URL shortener found here…

http://developers.jccorp.net/

that a subfolder of this short URL script had been hacked (I had NO CHMOD 777 folders ANYWHERE on my site), and that the same spam I had been removing from my pages, that were pointing to OTHER hacked sites on mostly .edu college and university websites, was now SOURCING and FORWARDING from my site.

I can not tell you how bloody angry I became at finding this.

The appended spam code was and is looking like this…

< u style=display:none >< a href="http://survivalring.org/url/ 1/2/30/840505780197.html">cheap cialis < a href="http://survivalring.org/url/ 1/2/30/8411792520159.html">order cialis < a href="http://survivalring.org/url/ 1/2/30/8421918768617.html">hydrocodone withdrawal < a href="http://survivalring.org/url/ 1/2/30/potentiate-hydrocodone/">potentiate hydrocodone < a href="http://survivalring.org/url/ 1/2/30/8502024412430.html">cialis compare levitra viagra < a href="http://survivalring.org/url/ 1/2/30/8441589492944.html">levitra vs cialis < a href="http://survivalring.org/url/ 1/2/30/phentermine-without-prescription/">phentermine without prescription < a href="http://survivalring.org/url/ 1/2/30/8471141010198.html">phentermine side effects … and on and on…

It took a good 20 minutes for my FTP program to delete thousands of spam files from that subfolder above at /url/1/2/.

The latest hack that affected me BEFORE this hack was one that hit, again, the index/admin/default/etc php and him files, and REPLACED all of my code with the following code.

Continue Reading »
Not a good day…weekend…or even near future…

First, read this…

I can see a couple of things here that concern me.

First, yes, it’s easy to see if a file has been accessed on a hard drive…IF it’s still in the original computer that was running the Operating System AND things such as resetting the computer’s clock wasn’t done.

I’m full aware of forensics software tools and their uses, as well as many variations of file recovery methods. I also have 24 years of computer experience, two computer science degrees, and A+ hardware certification.

Here’s the thing. Once a laptop hard drive is removed (or any drive for that matter), it’s so very easy to plug the drive into an external drive case (USB 2.0 for example), plug that data cable in, and simply make an IMAGE file (.iso) of the entire drive, which is an EXACT bit for bit copy of the data on the drive, to another same sized or bigger hard drive.

Then, return the stolen drive to the original computer, and no one is the wiser for what MIGHT have been done with, or to, the original stolen data in question.

In short, this story is NOT over, and all that data is STILL a valuable piece of personal information history that could still bite 26.5 million veterans in the proverbial buttocks.

The computer and drive were out in the wild for how many weeks? And how many hands did that system pass through? And there are NO fingerprints on the drive OR computer?

By the way, did the computer have any PHONE HOME software installed so that if it was online during it’s trip into the countryside, it could secretly call home base and give it’s current IP address so it could be tracked down immediately, by all the Alphabet Agencies neccessary?

Update ONE:

The Internet Security Zone has a story out this afternoon about this incident, with details on what the Feds may/might have done in their “checking” of the data. A nice little trip into the world of Computer Forensics

Update TWO:

Here is the OFFICIAL FBI Press Release regarding the fact that “They Found It”. Right….SOMEONE ELSE brought it TO THEM.

…from the Red Cross. Yes…THAT Red Cross…

Seems that a handful of files I have been offering for download for many years (since 2002) has offended them. The files were received, in good faith, from a team member of the Witchita Falls Emergency Management Agency many moons before 2002, on CD for me to share with the world via my website.

I even put them on my first CD rom publication in 2002, after checking with my local chapter of the Red Cross in Worland, Wyoming, and getting their permission after they viewed the entire CD. After that, my CD master disk had to go through a copyright check before thousands of copies were made at cost, to be GIVEN AWAY by a good friend of mine in the preparedness business. The manufacturer went through every file, and found NO copyright issues.

Now, here some 3 years later, the Red Cross has “caught up” with me (literally…the envelope contained copies of letters sent [and returned] by the USPS in Nov. 2004, and July 2005. They want me to remove 133 files from the CD master. View the actual letter here.

I sent a nice return email to the Office of General Counsel of the Red Cross asking clarification of exactly what they were saying…

What I didn’t include was some rude, crude, and socially unacceptable comments about how the Red Cross seems to steal, lose, or otherwise screw people out of their hard earned money, even to the point of STEALING services and REFUSING TO PAY ANYTHING for use of equipment they used and abused after signing contracts stating they would be responsible for…

For example, a good friend of mine, “Alfie”, is based in the DC area. He has had personal dealings with these folks, who have their “ivory tower”, a huge headquarters in Merrifield (where their letter was postmarked from, incidentally). He shared the following with me…

“Alfie” recommends I pursue this hard…if the Red Cross decides to rain down their own little game of terrorism on a poor, hard working family man who is paying his own way, as well as for his wife and two kids, through full time college at the same time.

“Alfie” suggest that I follow through and consider these options…

“Alfie”, I have to agree with you. I have done NOTHING but HELP get these life saving documents into the hands of tens of thousands of Americans in the past 4 years since the events of September 11th, 2001. I’ve shared over 600 gigabytes of files with 700,000 unique visitors in that same time, and ALL on my own dime.

If I have to redo the CD…no problem. If I have to remove the files from my site, no problem. I’ll just do it.

If I have to go to the mass media…main stream media…underground media…to let the world know that the Red Cross…the agency so many millions of Americans have come to WANT to depend on…DOES NOT want to share life saving information as WIDELY and OPENLY as possible, well…I’ll just have to do that as well.

Want to see the files for youself? Check out the file set here… I also have all the files from the 1998 FEMA CD Rom titled Fema Disaster Preparedness & Mitigation Library • 1998 edition also on the site. They are also all available for free.

The REDCROSS files use less than 27 megabytes of space. The FEMA CD rom file set use just over 33 megabytes. The PDF navigation fails to work for the FEMA file set, but I have a php script that lists every file in the set, on the server and creates a browser link to the file.

Both of these sets have been COMPLETELY free for every visitor to the site.

I state on the CD set that I sell, that I only ask payment for the many dozens of files *I* have created over the years, and NOT for the rest of the government and preparedness digital files that I have added to the set, to compile in one place, a massive collection of over 19,000 pages of survival and preparedness information. From Day One of this online project, it has been about SHARING the info…not making a profit.

Please read the letter as it was received, and see if you can detect any goodwill from the Red Cross. I am concerned for their actions. I will post any reply I receive from them, here.

Support your local Red Cross chapter….somehow….

I’ll be removing the files in question from the RED CROSS folder of SurvivalRing.org, as well as the directory on the Civil Defense Now Ultimate Digital Library CD Number One, and putting the excised files into their own unique directory, and a statement to the effect that the RED CROSS does not, and has never created, supported, or is in any way connected with the files in question.

Joy to the world, my friends….

I haven’t seen this email threat yet, but I do get dozens of other threats in email EVERY day…including paypal, ebay, multiple banks and more used in phishing attemptes to steal my login data. I simply roll over the link, and if it’s NOT the URL I expect, I kill the email.

Notice of this new threat below is making the rounds of the web, so DON’T get bit by an attempt to open anything from the FBI. If it’s REALLY the FBI, they’ll be at your front door…flashing badges…

Rich

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Washington D.C.

FBI National Press Office

FBI ALERTS PUBLIC TO RECENT E-MAIL SCHEME

E-mails purporting to come from FBI are phony

Washington, D.C. - The FBI is warning the public to avoid falling victim to
an on-going mass e-mail scheme wherein computer users received unsolicited
e-mails purportedly sent by the FBI. These scam e-mails tell the recipients
that their Internet use has been monitored by the FBI and that they have
accessed illegal web sites. The e-mails then direct recipients to open an
attachment and answer questions.

The e-mail appears to be sent from the e-mail addresses of mail@fbi.gov,
post@fbi.gov and admin@fbi.gov. There may be other similarly styled
addresses. The recipient is enticed to open the zip attachment which
contains a variant of the w32/sober virus. If the program within the zip
attachment is executed then the virus is launched and may affect the user’s
computer.

The text of the email is as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have logged your IP-address on more than 30 illegal Websites.

Important: Please answer our questions! The list of questions are attached.

Yours faithfully,
Steven Allison
Federal Bureau of Investigation-FBI-

These e-mails did not come from the FBI. Recipients of this or similar
solicitations should know that the FBI does not engage in the practice of
sending unsolicited e-mails to the public in this manner.

Opening e-mail attachments from an unknown sender is a risky and dangerous
endeavor as such attachments frequently contain viruses that can infect the
recipient’s computer. The FBI strongly encourages computer users not to open
such attachments. For detailed information on the effects of running this
virus please log onto http://www.cert.org .

The FBI takes this matter seriously and is investigating. Users are
instructed to delete the e-mail without opening it.

#####

Graphic Bar
| Press Releases | FBI Home Page
|

Source from Mit.edu

MIT Profs Protest DoD Nuke Proposal
By Brian Keegan
STAFF REPORTER

A proposed change in U.S. nuclear weapons policy has exploded into a controversy between the Bush Administration and physicists worldwide. Sixteen faculty members of the MIT physics department have joined over a thousand physicists in signing a petition repudiating a Pentagon proposal that would “foresee pre-emptive nuclear strikes against non-nuclear adversaries.”

Kim Griest and Jorge Hirsch, two UCSD physics professors who started the petition in September, claim a change in the March 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations “crosses a line … and heightens the probability of future use of nuclear weapons by others.” The petition can be viewed online at http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/.

“Remember the Greek myth about Cassandra. Before every major disaster, there’s always someone who warns of it and gets ignored,” Professor Max E. Tegmark, a signatory, said in an e-mail. “This has the same feel to it. We scientists clearly have a responsibility to speak up.”

The petition, which has been signed by 1,061 physicists worldwide as of yesterday, includes 2004 Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek, 1990 Nobel Laureate Jerome I. Friedman, and 2005 Wolf Prize Laureate Daniel Kleppner from MIT.

“I believe strongly that the current Administration’s reversals of long-standing agreements and policies regarding nuclear weapons is short-sighted, self-defeating, and incredibly dangerous,” wrote Professor David I. Kaiser, a signatory, historian of science, and physicist, in an e-mail. “It is astonishing to me that after having learned so much about the incredible destructiveness of nuclear weapons over the past sixty years, some politicians today would seriously consider making their pre-emptive use part of this nation’s stated military and political policy.”

Real nuclear option

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations is the U.S. war plan for conflicts involving nuclear weapons. “It provides guidance for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations,” according to GlobalSecurity.org , an organization which “seeks to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons and the risk of their use,” according to its Web site.

Many analysts, even during the Cold War, believed that the U.S. would not be the first to employ nuclear weapons in a conflict, but rather, would only respond with nuclear weapons if first attacked with them. The most recent DJNO, however, describes many scenarios in which nuclear weapons would be used either preemptively or as a response to non-nuclear attacks.

“A great deal of information about these weapons has been available for a long time: they are not a new innovation whose consequences are difficult to discern,” Kaiser said.

DJNO states, in part, that “geographic combatant commanders may request Presidental approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions.” The report lists “an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations; imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy; to counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces; for rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms; to ensure success of US and multinational operations; to demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD” as examples of qualifying contingencies.

Some signatories expressed concern about the lack of attention to this issue.

“I was horrified to learn the extent of the changes being proposed,” Professor Scott A. Hughes said in an e-mail.

“I found it very frightening that I had heard so little about the issue outside of the petition,” Professor Joseph A. Formaggio said in an e-mail. “Given people’s reactions to what is happening in Iraq, I think they would raise strong objections, too.”

The DJNO repeatedly states that “no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict.”

Signatories feel responsibility

Hirsch and Griest call on physicists to take responsibility with both the petition and an October 2005 paper. The petition begins, “As physicists we feel a special responsibility with respect to nuclear weapons; our profession brought them into existence 60 years ago.”

Professor Emeritus Daniel Kleppner said he is motivated by this tradition. “The physicists who created the bomb felt a need to ensure that it was used responsibly,” he said. “I believe it would be a serious mistake for us to develop new nuclear weapons or even include them in our program for military preparedness, but that is exactly what the DoD is proposing,” he added in an e-mail.

While the members of the faculty had strong feelings about nuclear weapons, many were hesitant for MIT to take an official stance.

“When it comes to issues that are more political than scientific, I think it would behoove the Institute to inform rather than take sides in debates,” Physics professor Eric Hudson said.

Tegmark said, “It’s probably good that MIT avoids taking sides politically. However, we scientists clearly have a responsibility to speak up.”

Kaiser said he believed MIT should “take the lead in articulating for a broad public — in clear, accessible ways — some of the dangers (as well as the special promise) associated with scientific and technical developments.”

The leaders of two major nuclear-related groups on campus also reiterated MIT’s independence in policy debates.

Professor June L. Matthews PhD ’67, director of the Laboratory for Nuclear Science and a signatory on the petition, wrote in an e-mail, “LNS does not have an official stance or policy regarding this or any other socio-political issue. Faculty members … who have signed the petition have done so as individuals.”

“The Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, like other MIT departments, rarely takes an official stance or adopts an official policy in respect of specific initiatives,” Professor Ian H. Hutchinson, department head for Nuclear Science and Engineering, said in an e-mail.

Signatories doubt petition success

While most of the signatories were pessimistic about the impact of the petition on the Bush Administration’s final decision, they hoped to raise awareness of the issue.

Kleppner said that he regards petitions as a weak form of protest “because they take no effort to sign.” However, the strength of his conviction on this matter was such that he “felt compelled to sign.”

“A reasonable outcome would be that this petition will spark more widespread discussion of the proposed changes to the U.S. nuclear posture and the consequences that could ensue,” such as the final collapse of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Hughes said.

Other physicists felt that political motivations are limiting debate on the proposed policy.

Given the “low regard in which this administration holds scientists” Hudson said he expects “[the Bush Administration] to completely dismiss” the petition.

“It seemed the policy is being kept as quiet as possible,” Formaggio said. “My main hope for the petition was to raise public awareness to what we were doing.”

Theodore A. Postol ’67, professor of science, technology, and national security policy and an expert on nuclear weapon systems, said he agrees with some of the petition’s claims, although he is not a signatory.

Postol said he believes the new policy “tremendously stimulates” states to develop nuclear weapons. “It will cause countries to reconsider their nuclear status. As the world modernizes, more states will have the ability to develop nuclear capabilities.”

“The only way to prevent preemptive attacks is to develop arms” to deter these attacks, Postol said. He pointed out differences in perception towards attacking Iraq and North Korea as proof that possessing nuclear weapons can deter U.S. preemptive attacks.

Postol said that the U.S. has always been ambiguous about its nuclear first-strike policy because it serves the purpose of a deterrent. “The U.S. has the ability to strike anytime and anywhere. Tony Blair and Kim Jong-Il both know this.” he said.

This story was published on Friday, November 4, 2005.
Volume 125, Number 52

From the (e)mailbag this week…

Dear Mr.. Fleetwood:

After seeing the horrific disaster from the Hurricane in the south, my son and I were speaking about Civil Defense Programs. He served in the Canadian Military and had training in some of these areas. He wondered, as I did, if Civil Defense has gone the way of the Dionsaur. This encouraged me to go on my children’s computer and look up information. I came across your site and read Civil Defense Now.

I was needless to say blown away. Where are guys like you when George Bush needs them. I have never before read such a comprehensive article which was dead on. Our Canadian Universities should have information in their
libraries with respect to Civil Defense Programmes in Canada. I have heard very little since the 1950’s when I attended school.

Regards,
Mrs E Dugal

Hi Ms. D,

There are tens of thousands of fine folks in our government employ, as well as hundreds of thousands of volunteers, both spontaneous and trained, who take it personally when someone up the ladder in charge of taking care of our nation’s citizens….doesn’t.

FEMA dropped the ball with Katrina and response. But, it was not just FEMA’s fault. It was largely the fault of multi-term, buddy-buddy, congressional sewer rats who spent ALL our money on things that DID NOT and WOULD NOT save our citizens in a full blown, all-out, unbelievable national catastrophe.

There is NO national civil defense in this nation anymore. The old US civil defense program disappeared in the Carter administration ( read “Democratic fudiciary reappropriation” - the money that would have helped prepare our nation better, instead went to national pork barrel projects.

Continue Reading »
Q and A