Sunday 28 October 2012

Faith-killing questions from the trenches, and answers

Lie #1: ‘If you live a moral life, deny yourself pleasure, follow the prescribed rituals and give us enough money, you’ll have a decent shot at being accepted by God.’

Remember that scene near the end of the Wizard of Oz,
when Toto is pulling back the curtain? The sound system
is bellowing, ‘Pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain. THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ HAS SPOKEN!’
And There’s a little man behind the controls, talking into
a microphone. more »

Lie #2: ‘God is huge and unapproachable, and He wants you to labor, struggle and live in guilt.’

2000 years ago, they wouldn’t even dare say the word
‘God.’ God was distant, remote, terrible.
But Jesus had his own words for God, and he used them freely.
They were controversial, even scandalous. more »

Tribute on September Eleven

On September 11, 1993, I received word that my 14
year old cousin, Chris Marshall, lost his life in
an accident.
Every year on the anniversary of that day his mom
and dad, my uncle Tim and his wife Dottie have relived
those sad events. When the World Trade Center was
decimated on September 11 2001, the sorrow became
greater still.
Today I want to share a message Tim wrote to his
son, on the 5th anniversary of what most of us now know
as “9/11.”
Perry Marshall more »

Mel Gibson’s Controversial Passion Movie

Most of the buzz about Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”
has subsided.
I heard a lot and read a lot about this movie before going to
see it. You’d think I knew what I was in for, but I really didn’t. more »

Lie #7: ‘If God was really powerful and good, he wouldn’t allow so much evil and suffering to go on.’

This is raised by just about everyone: Priests and ministers, college students and housewives, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers.
It’s one of the hardest questions anybody ever asks. more »

Lie #6: ‘The Bible is out of date, inaccurate and over-rated. People in the 21st century are way too smart for that.’

At first blush this doesn’t seem like an ‘Organized Religion’
thing. The reason I include it here is that many large religious
organizations do teach it today.
Let me ask you something: Don’t you think it’s a lot easier for a
leader to sneak in his own agenda when there’s no outside authority to
compare it to? more »

Lie #5: ‘There is no single truth. Everyone needs to explore and find a truth that works for them.’

This one’s a real hot potato. And it’s not something you hear
so much from ancient religious institutions… rather, it’s simply
the ‘politically correct’ way to talk about spirituality these days.
It tends to be expressed something like this: ‘You’ve got your
truth, and I’ve got my truth. You find a faith that works for
you, and I’ll find a faith that works for me.’
Well here’s my question:
How many conflicting versions of the truth can actually be true? more »

Lie #4: ‘Women are spiritually inferior and must bow to the authority of men.’

In the religious bureaucracy of the ancient world, women
were basically property. If she burned his toast, he could
divorce her and send her away destitute. If she saw a crime
in progress and reported it to the police, her testimony in
court would be thrown out–simply because she was female.
Women weren’t considered smart enough to recount what really
happened.
Isn’t that special? more »

Lie #3: ‘You are not smart enough or good enough to think for yourself. We will do your thinking for you.’

Do you know what the most important invention in the
history of the world was?
It wasn’t the computer. And it sure wasn’t the light bulb
or the telephone. (Or even the electronic voting machine.)
It was the printing press. more »
Posted by at No comments:

“Deadly” Radiation and God’s Design


October 22, 2012
By Guest Writer
A feature article in the August 2012 issue of Scientific American trumpets a scary warning: “Deadly Rays from Clouds—Thunderstorms Give Out Powerful Blasts of X-Rays and Gamma Rays.”1
Headlines are written to grab the reader’s attention—whether or not the article’s content lives up to the hype. At the end of this particular article, the authors reveal that the real hazard is somewhat less frightening: “thunderstorms most often emit a relatively harmless, continuous glow of gamma rays. Preliminary calculations, however, show that if an airline flight happened to be struck directly by the energetic electrons and gamma rays [up to 100 million electron volts (MeV)] inside a storm, passengers and crew members could—without feeling anything—receive up to a lifetime’s natural radiation dose in a fraction of a second.”2
This raises the question of God’s providence. Humankind is bombarded by cosmic rays and radiation from a variety of natural sources in the Earth.3 Conventional wisdom—both among scientists and the lay public—suggests that all radiation is harmful.
Would a benevolent God subject the crowning glory of his creation—humankind—to bombardment by deadly rays, which provide no benefit to humanity and are harmful in even the smallest quantity? And if so, would not God design a compensatory biological system?
Indeed, in reviewing the data, we see a remarkable instance of divine design.
The concern that all radiation is harmful, even at the lowest levels, can be traced to a 1946 Nobel Prize lecture given by Hermann Muller. Although a recent review of Muller’s papers reveals that he was aware of contrary data at the time of his lecture,4 one must remember that in 1946 many scientists were reacting with horror and regret to the radiation effects of the atomic bombing of Japan the year before. Furthermore, in the absence of definitive data, the scientific community concluded that the safest approach is to assume all radiation is harmful. Later data, showing DNA strand breaks due to low-level radiation doses, seemed to support this “linear no-threshold” (LNT) hypothesis.
However, studies conducted over nearly 100 years5 indicate that radiation is beneficial in low doses—although its effects are lethal or carcinogenic at high doses.
Even so, radiation is necessary for life as we know it. In the 1950s, studies at Oak Ridge National Laboratory showed that animals were stated to have “done poorly” when radioactive potassium (K-40) was removed from their diets, yet they recovered when the extracted K-40 was returned; also, cells without K-40 “looked good but they didn’t function.”6 In other words, our bodies seem to be designed to work in an environment of low-level radiation.
In fact, “low-to-intermediate doses [of ionizing radiation] have been observed to enhance growth and survival, augment the immune response, and increase resistance to mutagenic and clastogenic effects of further irradiation in plants, bacteria, insects, and mammals.”7 A 1961 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reviewed all known low-dose studies (defined as “to about 1 rad [10 mSv]3 per day”) and concluded: “The preponderance of data better supports the hypothesis that low chronic exposures result in an increased longevity than it supports the opposite hypothesis of decreased longevity.”8 (10 mSv/day is 1,000 times more than the natural background.) Furthermore, “Animal studies have revealed that LDR [low dose radiation] … inhibits carcinogenesis induced by high dose radiation.”9 Furthermore, “It has been extensively and consistently confirmed that supplemental radiation, above the natural background level, stimulates organisms, enhancing their growth and increasing their mean lifespans.”10 A study has shown that “cancer-prone” mice given low-level radiation were found to be less susceptible to “spontaneously initiated” cancer.11
Most home-sellers are required to test for radon—and sometimes undertake expensive corrections if it is detected. However, a University of Pittsburgh study compared radon exposure and lung cancer rates in 1,729 counties, covering 90 percent of the U.S. population, and found far fewer cases of lung cancer in counties with the highest amounts of radon (a correlation that could not be explained by smoking rates).12
The question is: why is low-level radiation beneficial? Research suggests the answer may be divine design.
Evidence has accumulated over many years that the body is equipped with a mechanism to repair radiation-induced DNA mutations. Multiple papers over the last twenty-plus years have shown a pattern of DNA-strand breaking and resealing due to low-level radiation.13 Radiation biologists have observed “the capacity of a cell to react to a low [radiation] dose by increasing its radio-resistance to a subsequent high dose challenge,”14 that “human lymphocytes exposed to low doses of ionizing radiation … become less susceptible to the induction of chromatid breaks by high doses of X-rays,”15 and even that “exposure to low levels of chronic radiation can trigger or induce increased repair of radiation-induced chromosome breaks.”16
A recent article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the following:
Radiation-induced foci (RIF) in human cells … are characterized by the local recruitment of DNA damage sensing proteins.…We provide strong evidence for the existence of repair centers … [and] we show that multiple DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) 1 to 2 μm apart can rapidly cluster into repair centers … We observe an absolute RIF yield that is surprisingly much smaller at higher doses … Our discovery of DSB clustering over such large distances casts considerable doubts on the general assumption that risk to ionizing radiation is proportional to dose.17
So what does all this mean to the average person? I wouldn’t advise uranium baths to get extra radiation—as people did in the 1950s. However, the main point is not to have an unreasonable fear of radiation, as implied by the headline of the Scientific American article, because the design of the cell automatically compensates for reasonable exposure levels.
What is a “reasonable” exposure level? A recent article in the Health Physics journal provides some guidelines: “The linear no-threshold (LNT) model [which suggests all radiation is harmful] ... is not supported by scientific data at doses less than about 100 mSv or at chronic dose rates up to at least 200 mSv/yr.”18 200 mSv/yr is of course almost 100 times natural background radiation.
Exposure from a full-body CT scan is about 10–12 mSv; a person would need to have more than ten CTs a year before becoming concerned. A mammogram is about 1–2 mSv—less than annual background—and exposure from dental X-Rays are too low to matter. The Scientific American article claims if an airplane is in just the wrong place at just the wrong time, people would “receive up to a lifetime’s natural radiation dose;” but in reality, the radiation would just barely reach the level for which they might be concerned.
Furthermore, cancer patients can receive as much as 80,000 Sv to localized areas with curative intent and no anticipation of long-term detrimental effects. My mother was cured of cancer due to a high dose to a small area with no side effects—as is typical with modern radiation oncology. And this happens because of another miracle of cell design: normal cells are able to repair radiation damage more rapidly than cancerous cells.
Dr. Hugh Henry, PhD
Dr. Hugh Henry received his PhD in Physics from the University of Virginia in 1971, retired after 26 years at Varian Medical Systems, and currently serves as Lecturer in physics at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, KY.
Posted by at No comments:

Eat This: Zombies Are Real


October 26th, 2012
By Sandra Dimas
They prey on their own kind. Some might call it cannibalism, but it’s the only way they can survive. Indeed, the zombie apocalypse is here.
Sort of.
So-called “zombies” exist throughout nature, but unlike their fictional counterparts, these zombies serve a good purpose.
For example, our very own galaxy has gobbled up smaller galaxies for over ten billion years. Astronomer Jeff Zweerink tells me that this regular diet of galactic food keeps star formation at a steady pace. Continual star formation might not seem like a big deal, as though non-continual star formation just means fewer objects to spot in the night sky. But, as Jeff puts it, “a galaxy must form multiple generations of stars” in order to host life. “On the other hand,” he continues, “a collision with a galaxy that was too large would have disrupted the MWG’s [Milky Way Galaxy’s] spiral structure and led to conditions hostile to life.”
Collisions with the just-right size galaxies affect our galaxy’s structure and add energy to the outer part of the Milky Way’s disk. According to Jeff, these cannibalistic collisions remain frequent throughout cosmic history, and yet they’re not so frequent as to disrupt Earth or any other planet in our solar system. That’s comforting.
Astronomers aren’t the only ones who get to “see” nature’s zombies in action. They can also be found much closer to home, too. Biochemist Fazale Rana explains a process called phagocytosis.
Phagocytosis is the process by which cells will eat solid material that can include other cells. It’s a way for cells to gain nutrients but it’s a critical part of the body’s defense mechanism so that when infectious agents like bacteria invade the organism the immune system unleashes cells that will recognize the bacteria’s foreign materials and then will consume them through phagocytosis.
It might seem like a stretch to refer to these cells as zombies, but Fuz assures me, “If one would like to call them zombie cells, one most certainly can.” Sounds good to me.
So if a gruesome zombie shambles to your front door looking for treats this Halloween, remember that zombies—at least those found in nature—are nothing to fear. Whether it’s zombie galaxies or cells, even the odd features found in nature point to universe that was fine-tuned to support life. Now there’s something to sink your teeth into.
–Sandra
Resources:
For more about “zombie” galaxies, check out these articles by Jeff Zweerink:
“Planet from Another Galaxy Discovered”
“Steady Diet of Dwarf Galaxies Maintains Milky Way Spirals”
“Milky Way Gobbled Gobs of Galaxies”
Subjects: Biochemical Design, Galaxy Design, TCM - Biochemical Design, TCM - Cosmic Design
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday 27 October 2012

Flame (malware) a virus that opens a computer and steals all the information from it

Flame (malware)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Stoned (computer virus)#Flame/Stamford or Olympic Torch (virus hoax).
Flame,[a] also known as Flamer, sKyWIper,[b] and Skywiper,[2] is modular computer malware discovered in 2012[3][4] that attacks computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system.[5] The program is being used for targeted cyber espionage in Middle Eastern countries.[1][5][6]
Its discovery was announced on 28 May 2012 by MAHER Center of Iranian National Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT),[5] Kaspersky Lab[6] and CrySyS Lab of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics.[1] The last of these stated in its report that it "is certainly the most sophisticated malware we encountered during our practice; arguably, it is the most complex malware ever found."[1]
Flame can spread to other systems over a local network (LAN) or via USB stick. It can record audio, screenshots, keyboard activity and network traffic.[6] The program also records Skype conversations and can turn infected computers into Bluetooth beacons which attempt to download contact information from nearby Bluetooth-enabled devices.[7] This data, along with locally stored documents, is sent on to one of several command and control servers that are scattered around the world. The program then awaits further instructions from these servers.[6]
According to estimates by Kaspersky in May 2012, Flame had initially infected approximately 1,000 machines,[7] with victims including governmental organizations, educational institutions and private individuals.[6] At that time 65% of the infections happened in Iran, Israel, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt,[3][6] with a "huge majority of targets" within Iran.[8] Flame has also been reported in Europe and North America.[9] Flame supports a "kill" command which wipes all traces of the malware from the computer. The initial infections of Flame stopped operating after its public exposure, and the "kill" command was sent.[10]
<a href='http://o.o-clk.com/www/delivery/afr.php?zoneid=119&cb=3400' target='_blank'><img src='http://o.o-clk.com/www/delivery/afr.php?zoneid=119&cb=7953&n=adc4e6a8' border='0' alt='' /></a>

Contents

History

Flame was identified in May 2012 by MAHER Center of Iranian National CERT, Kaspersky Lab and CrySyS Lab (Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security) of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics when Kaspersky Lab was asked by the United Nations International Telecommunication Union to investigate reports of a virus affecting Iranian Oil Ministry computers.[7] As Kaspersky Lab investigated, they discovered an MD5 hash and filename that appeared only on customer machines from Middle Eastern nations. After discovering more pieces, researchers dubbed the program "Flame" after the name of one of its modules.[7]
According to Kaspersky, Flame had been operating in the wild since at least February 2010.[6] CrySyS Lab reported that the file name of the main component was observed as early as December 2007.[1] However, its creation date could not be determined directly, as the creation dates for the malware's modules are falsely set to dates as early as 1994.[7]
Computer experts consider it the cause of an attack in April 2012 that caused Iranian officials to disconnect their oil terminals from the Internet.[11] At the time the Iranian Students News Agency referred to the malware that caused the attack as "Wiper", a name given to it by the malware's creator.[12] However, Kaspersky Lab believes that Flame may be "a separate infection entirely" from the Wiper malware.[7] Due to the size and complexity of the program—described as "twenty times" more complicated than Stuxnet—the Lab stated that a full analysis could require as long as ten years.[7]
On 28 May, Iran's CERT announced that it had developed a detection program and a removal tool for Flame, and had been distributing these to "select organizations" for several weeks.[7] After Flame's exposure in news media, Symantec reported on 8 June that some Flame command and control (C&C) computers had sent a "suicide" command to infected PCs to remove all traces of Flame.[10]
According to estimates by Kaspersky in May 2012, initially Flame had infected approximately 1,000 machines,[7] with victims including governmental organizations, educational institutions and private individuals.[6] At that time the countries most affected were Iran, Israel, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.[3][6]

Operation

Name Description
List of code names for various families of modules in Flame's source code and their possible purpose[1]
Flame Modules that perform attack functions
Boost Information gathering modules
Flask A type of attack module
Jimmy A type of attack module
Munch Installation and propagation modules
Snack Local propagation modules
Spotter Scanning modules
Transport Replication modules
Euphoria File leaking modules
Headache Attack parameters or properties
Flame is an uncharacteristically large program for malware at 20 megabytes. It is written partly in the Lua scripting language with compiled C++ code linked in, and allows other attack modules to be loaded after initial infection.[6][13] The malware uses five different encryption methods and an SQLite database to store structured information.[1] The method used to inject code into various processes is stealthy, in that the malware modules do not appear in a listing of the modules loaded into a process and malware memory pages are protected with READ, WRITE and EXECUTE permissions that make them inaccessible by user-mode applications.[1] The internal code has few similarities with other malware, but exploits two of the same security vulnerabilties used previously by Stuxnet to infect systems.[c][1] The malware determines what antivirus software is installed, then customises its own behaviour (for example, by changing the filename extensions it uses) to reduce the probability of detection by that software.[1] Additional indicators of compromise include mutex and registry activity, such as installation of a fake audio driver which the malware uses to maintain persistence on the compromised system.[13]
Flame is not designed to deactivate automatically, but supports a "kill" function that makes it eliminate all traces of its files and operation from a system on receipt of a module from its controllers.[7]
Flame was signed with a fraudulent certificate purportedly from the Microsoft Enforced Licensing Intermediate PCA certificate authority.[14] The malware authors identified a Microsoft Terminal Server Licensing Service certificate that inadvertently was enabled for code signing and that still used the weak MD5 hashing algorithm, then produced a counterfeit copy of the certificate that they used to sign some components of the malware to make them appear to have originated from Microsoft.[14] A successful collision attack against a certificate was previously demonstrated in 2008,[15] but Flame implemented a new variation of the chosen-prefix collision attack.[16]

Deployment

Like the previously known cyber weapons Stuxnet and Duqu, it is employed in a targeted manner and can evade current security software through rootkit functionality. Once a system is infected, Flame can spread to other systems over a local network or via USB stick. It can record audio, screenshots, keyboard activity and network traffic.[6] The program also records Skype conversations and can turn infected computers into Bluetooth beacons which attempt to download contact information from nearby Bluetooth enabled devices.[7] This data, along with locally stored documents, is sent on to one of several command and control servers that are scattered around the world. The program then awaits further instructions from these servers.[6]
Unlike Stuxnet, which was designed to sabotage an industrial process, Flame appears to have been written purely for espionage.[17] It does not appear to target a particular industry, but rather is "a complete attack toolkit designed for general cyber-espionage purposes".[18]
Using a technique known as sinkholing, Kaspersky demonstrated that "a huge majority of targets" were within Iran, with the attackers particularly seeking AutoCAD drawings, PDFs, and text files.[8] Computing experts said that the program appeared to be gathering technical diagrams for intelligence purposes.[8]
A network of 80 servers across Asia, Europe and North America has been used to access the infected machines remotely.[19]

Origin

On June 19, 2012, The Washington Post published an article claiming that Flame was jointly developed by the U.S. National Security Agency, CIA and Israel’s military at least five years prior. The project was said to be part of a classified effort code-named Olympic Games, which was intended to collect intelligence in preparation for a cyber-sabotage campaign aimed at slowing Iranian nuclear efforts.[20]
According to Kaspersky's chief malware expert, "the geography of the targets and also the complexity of the threat leaves no doubt about it being a nation-state that sponsored the research that went into it."[3] Kaspersky initially said that the malware bears no resemblance to Stuxnet, although it may have been a parallel project commissioned by the same attackers.[21] After analysing the code further, Kaspersky later said that there is a strong relationship between Flame and Stuxnet; the early version of Stuxnet contained code to propagate via USB drives that is nearly identical to a Flame module that exploits the same zero-day vulnerability.[22]
Iran's CERT described the malware's encryption as having "a special pattern which you only see coming from Israel".[23] The Daily Telegraph reported that due to Flame's apparent targets—which included Iran, Syria, and the West Bank—Israel became "many commentators' prime suspect". Other commentators named China and the U.S. as possible perpetrators.[21] Richard Silverstein, a commentator critical of Israeli policies, stated that he had confirmed with a "senior Israeli source" that the malware was created by Israeli computer experts.[21][24] The Jerusalem Post wrote that Israel's Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon appeared to have hinted that his government was responsible,[21] but an Israeli spokesperson later denied that this had been implied.[25] Unnamed Israeli security officials suggested that the infected machines found in Israel may imply that the virus could be traced to the U.S. or other Western nations.[26] The U.S. has officially denied responsibility.[27]

<a href='http://o.o-clk.com/www/delivery/afr.php?zoneid=119&cb=3673' target='_blank'><img src='http://o.o-clk.com/www/delivery/afr.php?zoneid=119&cb=9601&n=adc4e6a8' border='0' alt='' /></a>
See also

Portal icon Computer security portal

Notes

  1. ^ "Flame" is one of the strings found in the code, a common name for attacks, most likely by exploits[1]
  2. ^ The name "sKyWIper" is derived from the letters "KWI" which are used as a partial filename by the malware[1]
  3. ^ MS10-061 and MS10-046

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "sKyWIper: A Complex Malware for Targeted Attacks". Budapest University of Technology and Economics. 28 May 2012. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  2. ^ "Flamer: Highly Sophisticated and Discreet Threat Targets the Middle East". Symantec. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 30 May 2012.
  3. ^ a b c d Lee, Dave (28 May 2012). "Flame: Massive Cyber-Attack Discovered, Researchers Say". BBC News. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  4. ^ McElroy, Damien; Williams, Christopher (28 May 2012). "Flame: World's Most Complex Computer Virus Exposed". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  5. ^ a b c "Identification of a New Targeted Cyber-Attack". Iran Computer Emergency Response Team. 28 May 2012. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Gostev, Alexander (28 May 2012). "The Flame: Questions and Answers". Securelist. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Zetter, Kim (28 May 2012). "Meet 'Flame,' The Massive Spy Malware Infiltrating Iranian Computers". Wired. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  8. ^ a b c Lee, Dave (4 June 2012). "Flame: Attackers 'sought confidential Iran data'". BBC News. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
  9. ^ Murphy, Samantha (5 June 2012). "Meet Flame, the Nastiest Computer Malware Yet". Mashable.com. Retrieved 8 June 2012.
  10. ^ a b "Flame malware makers send 'suicide' code". BBC News. 8 June 2012. Retrieved 8 June 2012.
  11. ^ Hopkins, Nick (28 May 2012). "Computer Worm That Hit Iran Oil Terminals 'Is Most Complex Yet'". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  12. ^ Erdbrink, Thomas (23 April 2012). "Facing Cyberattack, Iranian Officials Disconnect Some Oil Terminals From Internet". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  13. ^ a b Kindlund, Darien (30 May 2012). "Flamer/sKyWIper Malware: Analysis". FireEye. Archived from the original on 31 May 2012. Retrieved 31 May 2012.
  14. ^ a b "Microsoft releases Security Advisory 2718704". Microsoft. 3 June 2012. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
  15. ^ Sotirov, Alexander; Stevens, Marc; Appelbaum, Jacob; Lenstra, Arjen; Molnar, David; Osvik, Dag Arne; de Weger, Benne (30 December 2008). "MD5 Considered Harmful Today". Retrieved 4 June 2011.
  16. ^ Stevens, Marc (7 June 2012). "CWI Cryptanalist Discovers New Cryptographic Attack Variant in Flame Spy Malware". Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica. Retrieved 9 June 2012.
  17. ^ Cohen, Reuven (28 May 2012). "New Massive Cyber-Attack an 'Industrial Vacuum Cleaner for Sensitive Information'". Forbes. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  18. ^ Albanesius, Chloe (28 May 2012). "Massive 'Flame' Malware Stealing Data Across Middle East". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  19. ^ "Flame virus: Five facts to know". The Times of India. Reuters. 29 May 2012. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 30 May 2012.
  20. ^ Nakashima, Ellen (June 19, 2012). "U.S., Israel developed Flame computer virus to slow Iranian nuclear efforts, officials say". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 20, 2012.
  21. ^ a b c d "Flame Virus: Who is Behind the World's Most Complicated Espionage Software?". The Daily Telegraph. 29 May 2012. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  22. ^ "Resource 207: Kaspersky Lab Research Proves that Stuxnet and Flame Developers are Connected". Kaspersky Lab. 11 June 2012.
  23. ^ Erdbrink, Thomas (29 May 2012). "Iran Confirms Attack by Virus That Collects Information". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 30 May 2012.
  24. ^ Silverstein, Richard (28 May 2012). "Flame: Israel’s New Contribution to Middle East Cyberwar". Tikun Olam. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  25. ^ Tsukayama, Hayley (31 May 2012). "Flame cyberweapon written using gamer code, report says". The Washington Post. Retrieved 31 May 2012.
  26. ^ "Iran: ‘Flame’ Virus Fight Began with Oil Attack". Time. Associated Press. May 31, 2012. Retrieved 31 May 2012.
  27. ^ "Flame: Israel rejects link to malware cyber-attack". 31 May 2012. Retrieved 3 June 2012.
View page ratings
Rate this page
What's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
<a href='http://o.o-clk.com/www/delivery/afr.php?zoneid=118&cb=5552' target='_blank'><img src='http://o.o-clk.com/www/delivery/afr.php?zoneid=118&cb=5014&n=adc4e6a8' border='0' alt='' /></a>
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)