Just as the US government created the military-industrial and now intelligence complex, it's also
creating a malware-industrial complex.
"The U.S. government is developing new computer weapons and driving a
black market in “zero-day” bugs. The result could be a more dangerous
Web for everyone."
Wonderful.
"One reason is that a freshly discovered weakness in a popular piece of
software, known in the trade as a “zero-day” vulnerability because the
software makers have had no time to develop a fix, can be cashed in for
much more than a reputation boost and some free drinks at the bar.
Information about such flaws can command prices in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars from defense contractors, security agencies and
governments."
Just great.
"“On the one hand the government is freaking out about cyber-security,
and on the other the U.S. is participating in a global market in
vulnerabilities and pushing up the prices,” says Soghoian, who says he
has spoken with people involved in the trade and that prices range from
the thousands to the hundreds of thousands. Even civilian
law-enforcement agencies pay for zero-days, Soghoian says, in order to
sneak spy software onto suspects’ computers or mobile phones."
You can't make this stuff up.
"Exploits for mobile operating systems are particularly valued, says
Soghoian, because unlike desktop computers, mobile systems are rarely
updated. Apple sends updates to iPhone software a few times a year,
meaning that a given flaw could be exploited for a long time. Sometimes
the discoverer of a zero-day vulnerability receives a monthly payment
as long as a flaw remains undiscovered. “As long as Apple or Microsoft
has not fixed it you get paid,” says Soghioan."
This just keeps getting better.
"Some small companies are similarly up-front about their involvement in
the trade. The French security company VUPEN states on its website that
it “provides government-grade exploits specifically designed for the
Intelligence community and national security agencies to help them
achieve their offensive cyber security and lawful intercept missions.”
Last year, employees of the company publicly demonstrated a zero-day
flaw that compromised Google’s Chrome browser, but they turned down
Google’s offer of a $60,000 reward if they would share how it worked.
What happened to the exploit is unknown."
And better.
"The new focus of America’s military and defense contractors may concern
some taxpayers. As more public dollars are spent researching new ways to
attack computer systems, some of that money will go to people like The
Grugq to discover fresh zero-day vulnerabilities. And an
escalating cycle of competition between U.S and
overseas government agencies and contractors could make the world more
dangerous for computer users everywhere."
Another arms race.
"The ease with which perpetrators of a computer attack can hide their
tracks also raises the risk that such weapons will be used, Shenoi
points out. Worse, even if an attack using malware is
unsuccessful, there’s a strong chance that a copy will remain somewhere
on the victim’s system—by accident or design—or accidentally find its
way onto computer systems not targeted at all, as Stuxnet did. Some
security firms have already identified criminal malware that uses
methods first seen in Stuxnet (see “Stuxnet Tricks Copied by Criminals”)."
You can't keep the genie in the bottle.
Justin Raimondo on the
French invasion of Mali.
"If the French invasion – or, rather, re-invasion – of Mali is really aimed at expunging Al Qaeda, then perhaps they ought to be attacking the Algerians: Professor Jeremy Keenan, of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, says
the Algerians have longtime links not only to Ag Ghaly, but also to
important Al Qaeda figures, including Abdelhamid abou Zaid. The
Algerians, he says, have an interest in supporting the "specter" of Al
Qaeda looming in the Sahel because it increases their value to the US – and promises to reap a bonanza in military and economic aid. "
Here's another reason the war on terror can never be won by war.
"What in the name of all that’s holy is going on here? Why this war?
Economically depressed, riven by deep social, ethnic, and political
divisions, France is suffering from a crisis of national self-esteem.
The attempt by the Socialist government to impose a program of
confiscatory taxation – up to 75 percent of income – while ushering in a regime of austerity
on the populace is proving immensely unpopular. With forces on the far
left and the far right fast gaining traction, the "centrist" Socialists
of Francois Hollande are desperate to refurbish their image as soft and indecisive. After the assault on Mali, Hollande will no longer be known as "Flanby," after a gelatinous dessert."
"Mali is Africa’s third largest producer of gold, and the recent discovery
of vast unexploited sources of oil on traditional Tuareg stomping
grounds should give us some idea of the commercial motives behind the
French incursion. Yet it isn’t just greed that motivates the new
Napoleons: you’ll note the French have been increasingly self-assertive
of late, always the first to call for intervention in this or that
"crisis," from Libya to Syria and now taking the lead
in Mali. This burst of nationalistic fervor is very convenient for the
French political class, which presides over a near bankrupt museum of
past glories and little else. What better way to divert attention away
from such a sorry fate than to gin up a convenient war in which, once
again, the mystic virtues of "French civilization" emerge victorious to
universal applause?"
All foreign wars tend to be about domestic politics and often resources.
"Here is a perfect lesson in how a local authority with no popular
mandate – the Malian "government," in this instance – can gin up a
"terrorist" scare in order to maintain its tenuous hold over its own
people. Just as, during the cold war, local tyrants from Argentina to
Vietnam ginned up Western intervention in the name of the "war on communism," so their 21st century equivalents are following the same pattern."
Great comparison.
Claim that Bush had a
secret intelligence agency closely allied with the Israeli Prime Minister that promoted the US invasion of Iraq.
"According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence
sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of
Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with
the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.
The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up
by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA
information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives
in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White
House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.
The ideologically
driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the
official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved
powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and
the CIA by establishing a justification for war."
"The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House
not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a
parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in
Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration
with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to
authorise. "
Here's another example of Israel dragging the US into a counterproductive war.
"Mr Tenet has officially taken responsibility for the president's
unsubstantiated claim in January that Saddam Hussein's regime had been
trying to buy uranium in Africa, but he also said his agency was under
pressure to justify a war that the administration had already decided
on. "
This is why Bush gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom.
"The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr
Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud
party.
In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential
Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin
Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would
have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would
have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe."
It looks like that's well on its way to happening.
The people the US and NATO put in charge of Libya
arrested four people on suspicion of promoting Christianity in Benghazi.
"Last year, the International Committee of the Red Cross had to suspend
its activities in Benghazi after assailants launched attacks on its
offices. The aid group was accused by some in Libya of distributing
Bibles and proselytizing."
Don't you love our government?
Pat Buchanan explains how US forces in South Korea motivated North Korea to
develop a nuclear bomb and ballistic missiles to deter those forces. This is another example where US aggression had made us less safe.
