Fred Palma | Computer Scientist

From Computerworld by Steven

As everyone knows by now who follows technology news, the Financial Times reported that Google “is phasing out the internal use of Microsoft’s ubiquitous Windows operating system because of security concerns.” Some doubt this story, because they say that’s its vague about sources. Well, I asked, and the story is ‘mostly’ right. Google is switching away from Windows to Linux and Macs, but it’s not just because security.

I e-mailed Google and, according to a Google official, while “We’re always working to improve the efficiency of our business, but we don’t comment on specific operational matters.” That’s not much of a statement, but did you notice the key word there? It’s ‘efficiency.’

I then got on the phone, IM and e-mail with my friends at Google and they told me off-the-record pretty much what the Google employees told the Financial Times that “Many people have been moved away from [Windows] PCs, mostly towards Mac OS, following the China hacking attacks.” But, following that efficiency word around, I was also told that Linux was far cheaper than Windows and that many Google users preferred it, in any case, to Windows. While many others found Macs to just be more useful than Windows PCs.

Google’s internal users have eclectic tastes when it comes to Linux. Ubuntu was quite popular, but so was-surprise!–Google’s own Android; Fedora; openSUSE; and the newly released MeeGo. As for the Mac users, I got the impression there may be more MacBook Pro users at Google than there are at Apple.

The Linux users preferred it for all the usual reasons: It was faster, more secure, and more stable than Windows. In addition, it did everything they needed. As you might guess, Chrome is the Web browser of choice for Google Linux users, and many of them use Google’s SaaS (Software as a Service) applications like Google Docs. As one of them told me, “Why should I waste my time with Windows and all its pain in the ass junk when I can do everything I need to do with Chrome on Ubuntu?” The Mac users, in turn, sounded like most people who like Macs. They preferred its interface and applications to those of either Linux or Windows.

Now, some analysts claim that Google’s move away from Windows isn’t about security at all. Instead, they would have it that it’s all about Google positioning itself to do battle with Microsoft and Windows. I’m sure that’s part of it too, but for their claims that Windows is secure is just utter and total nonsense.Windows is insecure by design. Always has been, always will be. To pretend that Windows’ security costs and failures aren’t important to Fortune 500 companies is total balderdash.

Have these fools forgotten that China attacked Google and many other major companies only a few months ago? Do you think sticking with an operating system that’s has as many holes in as a fisherman’s net make sense? I don’t think so! As one staffer told me, “I am not going to be the next guy to hose the company because of Windows.”

Sure, Mac OS X has its security problems as well, but, in practice, it’s still more secure than Windows. As for Linux, it’s more secure than either one, and it’s always been much tougher to attack than the others.

There’s also been some silly talk about how Google can’t really mean that they’re switching away from Windows because so many of their users depend on Windows. Uh… what makes you think that just because the rank and file is moving to other operating systems means that the developers aren’t going to be using Windows machines? Heck, I’m about as pro-Linux desktop a person on the planet, and I use Windows PCs all the time for reviews. Of course, Google will still use Windows system for development and testing.

I’m also sure that there are some special applications that don’t exist on Linux and Macs that will still be running on Windows PCs. But, seriously, what work-a-day jobs can’t you do on a Linux PC or Mac these days? Are there any? I can go days without ‘needing’ to touch my Windows PCs.

My buddy Jason Perlow, who also runs multiple operating systems, has found that he can meet 80% of his computing needs without Windows and for the rest he uses virtualized Windows on Linux. That works for me, and it probably does for Google as well.

The bottom line is that Google wants to be both more secure and more efficient. To do that, it makes perfect sense for them to abandon Windows for Linux and Mac OS X. Come to think of it, it makes perfect sense for most companies as well.

Filed Under: Google, Linux, Microsoft, Windows Add Comment »

Georgia Tech’s College of Computing today announced that a group of its students and their professor have been awarded a Sustainable Vision Grant from the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA) to move LifeNet, a flexible ad hoc communications network, from the classroom into the marketplace. LifeNet allows one person to share network connectivity with others via their computer and is especially important for providing instant communications connectivity in post-disaster situations or in rural and developing areas. NCIIA Sustainable Vision Grant funds are awarded to education programs where breakthrough technologies are created and then commercialized for those people living in poverty in the US and abroad.

A lack of communication infrastructure is one of the major hurdles in responding to a disaster. LifeNet is a far-reaching, infrastructure-less wireless network that is formed out of consumer electronic devices such as laptops or smartphones. Each device acts as a host and a router, making a centralized governing body unnecessary. LifeNet offers a network that can grow incrementally by allowing any user to connect and disconnect from the network. The computers will stay connected as long as they are connected to at least one other device in the ad hoc network, thus creating a continuous flow of communication.

“Imagine the hours immediately following a disaster like the Haiti earthquake or even 9/11. Communication is the key to getting timely help which can ultimately save lives,” said Hrushikesh Mehendale, team leader for the student-led class project. “Connectivity requires infrastructure; but when it breaks down, we need an easy, affordable solution. We are grateful the NCIIA saw the potential implications for LifeNet in these situations and in developing countries.”

LifeNet is based on a new routing idea for highly transient networks first formulated by former student Ashwin Paranjpe and Professor Santosh Vempala two years ago, and developed into a usable solution by students in the College of Computing’s Computing for Good (C4G) class during fall 2009. The course is an educational movement that combines technology with activism. C4G centers on the concept of applying computing ideas to important societal problems via projects to improve quality of life where it is most needed. Many of today’s societal problems stem from a lack of information or a lack of resources, and LifeNet is one project that is starting to come to fruition.

The NCIIA, focused on taking university projects out of the classroom and into the market, awarded the team a $44,000 Sustainable Vision Grant, which is granted to social progress technologies with impact on people in poverty. Academics, venture capitalists and international development leaders choose the grant recipients. The NCIIA also requires winners to attend workshops to help make each project more marketable. At the workshop, teams learn how to build a business plan, financials, marketing and the art of the 30-second pitch. LifeNet was one of the projects chosen out of ten award winners to receive continued support and consultation from NCIIA.

“I was inspired by the team’s technology skills, but more so by their impactful, innovative ideas,” said Jennifer Jackson, NCIIA grants manager. “The team addressed this huge need with an entrepreneurial spirit. We are excited to see their progress and help make this technology a reality in the marketplace.”

Next for LifeNet is thorough testing and deployment. The NCIIA will help the team develop and create a nonprofit company to deliver the technology. Part of the team will travel to India to pilot the program and others are currently in talks with government agencies for the usefulness of the network in other areas. They will also attend a second conference later this month to further explore the science, business and technology opportunities of the project. A fully mature, reliable product is planned for June availability.

LifeNet Specifications

LifeNet, a flexible ad-hoc communications network, creates connectivity in remote, developing or disaster locations where communications is often unreliable or non-existent. It is an infrastructure-less, wireless network that can cover areas from a few hundred meters to a few kilometers in diameter and is formed out of consumer devices or nodes. Every node in the LifeNet network acts as a host and a router at the same time, making a centralized governing body unnecessary for operation. The network created by LifeNet can grow or decrease incrementally as users can connect or disconnect at their own will. Moreover, all devices across a LifeNet network can access the Internet if one device has connectivity. LifeNet is open source software using the free Wi-Fi spectrum and commodity Wi-Fi protocol for link layer communication and is a self-configuring Linux kernel module.

Experiments indicate that the system functions despite changes in topology and traffic, performance improves as the network scales up, and is easy to configure and maintain. Tests have been successful within a half-mile radius, even in urban settings with buildings, trees and other obstructions.
From Georgia Tech

Filed Under: Development Add Comment »

Ginga

FISL 10

Filed Under: Brazilian Software, Open Source Add Comment »

Scene: The White House Situation Room.

Event: A massive cyber attack has turned the cellphones and computers of tens of millions of Americans into weapons to shut down the Internet. A cascading series of events then knocks out power for most of the East Coast amid hurricanes and a heat wave.

Is the assault on cellphones an armed attack? In a crisis, what power does the government have to order phone and Internet carriers to allow monitoring of their networks? What level of privacy can Americans expect?

A war game, sponsored by a nonprofit group and attended by former top-ranking national security officials, laid bare Tuesday (02/16/2010) that the U.S. government lacks answers to such key questions.

Half an hour into an emergency meeting of a mock National Security Council, the attorney general declared: “We don’t have the authority in this nation as a government to quarantine people’s cellphones.”

The White House cyber coordinator was “shocked” and asserted: “If we don’t have the authority, the attorney general ought to find it.”

The Bipartisan Policy Center, which focuses on issues such as health care, energy and cybersecurity, staged the war game to demonstrate to a complacent public the plausibility of an attack that could in many ways be as crippling as the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes. Organizers said they wanted to prod Congress and the Obama administration to act.

“We were trying to tee up specific issues that would be digestible so they would become the building blocks of a broader, more comprehensive cyber strategy,” said Michael V. Hayden, former CIA director and the principal creator of the “Cyber ShockWave” simulation.

During the war game, held over four hours at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, three wide-screen monitors flashed maps of the United States showing network coverage and electric power ebbing. The breakdown was covered by a faux news network, GNN. Senior administration officials watched the reporting of the unfolding crisis — 40 million people without power in the eastern United States; more than 60 million cellphones out of service; Wall Street closed for a week; Capitol Hill leaders en route to the White House.

Former senior officials from Republican and Democratic administrations participated in the war game, as did one former senator. Jamie S. Gorelick, a deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton, pressed the issue of individual privacy. In a crisis, she said, “Americans need to know that they should not expect to have their cellphone and other communications to be private — not if the government is going to have to take aggressive action to tamp down the threat.”

She recommended that the Obama administration seek legislation for comprehensive authority to deal with a cyber emergency.

Participants also wrangled over how far to go in regulating the private sector, which owns the vast majority of the “critical” infrastructure that is vulnerable to a cyber attack. Stewart Baker, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security who played the “cyber coordinator” on Tuesday, said that the private sector was not prepared to defend against a cyber act of war and that the government needed to play a role.

“People have trouble understanding warnings,” said John McLaughlin, who served as acting CIA director in 2004 and who played the director of national intelligence. “It was only after Sept. 11 that people could visualize what was possible. The usefulness of the simulation is it will help people visualize [the threat].”

Former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart, who played a presidential adviser during the simulation, said it was immaterial whether the attack was an act of war; it had “the effect” of an act of war, he said.

Lockhart said that people would be scared by the simulation but that “that’s a good thing.” Only then, he said, would Congress act.

Sponsors, most of whom made financial donations that ranged up to $150,000, included General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, PayPal, Symantec, SMobile Systems, Georgetown University and Southern Co. The Chertoff Group contributed guidance, not money. The BPC, sponsors and CNN contributed to production costs.

By Ellen Nakashima from Washington Post

Filed Under: security Add Comment »

Australia’s biggest banks, telcos, and utilities have handed sensitive data to government for the protection of critical infrastructure (CI) against terrorism and natural disasters.

The rare move, which began in 2009, makes the country one of a few in the world with a centralised national critical infrastructure protection model.

The Critical Infrastructure Protection Modeling and Assessment (CIPMA) program was launched in 2007 and received a $23.4 million funding boost to 2012 in last year’s budget.

It is spearheaded by the Federal Attorney-General which received a $15.2 million share and its research department Geoscience Australia which scored $800,000.

The CIPMA program is also an initiative of the Trusted Information Sharing Network formed to examine the relationships and dependencies between CI systems and how failures in one sector affect other sector operations.

A spokesperson from the Attorney General’s Department responding to Computerworld questions said the program is on time and budget, and owes its success to the industry’s willingness to trust the government with highly sensitive data.

“Identifying, tracking the cascading effects of [CI] and quantifying these consequences is a key rationale for establishing the CIPMA program,” the spokesperson said.

“Direct relationships with industry means that there is a high level of trust to enable the provision of accurate data for modelling and analysis.”

The department would not elaborate on what scenarios are being tested or what organisations are participating but said all scenarios use factual data and produce realistic results, something few countries have the ability to do.

Participants with approval can use the data to defend Australia in the annual international wargame Cyberstorm, which pits countries against each other including the US, UK and New Zealand in a mock online attacks on CI.

They can also use the models to cut internal costs by examining supply chain data and manufacturing processes.

About 4Tb of CI data will be stored in central databases, eliminating the need to retrieve information from knowledge experts who may be unreachable in a disaster.

System Dynamic Models are used to examine stock and flow data in CI such as network connectivity and the energy output of generators, to create an amalgamated output to be fed into a People, Building and Infrastructure profile. Data is then broken down into demographic, economic and business profiles, and statistical divisions to create unique disruption footprints.

An ASIO T4 approved security system protects stored data which includes highly secretive industry information entrusted to CIPMA.

The Attorney-General’s Department is establishing a panel of additional technical providers for the 2010 service delivery phase, following an expression of interest process. Work will be guided from the results of a pending interim review.

The CIPMA program is one of many actions that have been taken by authorities in recent times to counter the growing number of threats from cyber space, including those such as those undertaken this week by a group calling itself ‘Anonymous’, whichlaunched a denial of service (DoS) attack on two government websites to protest the Federal Government’s plans to introduce mandatory ISP-level Internet content filtering.

The attack, named “Operation Titstorm”, hit the Australian Parliament House and the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) websites.

In January, the Federal Government moved to step up its cyber warfare defence capabilities with the opening of the Cyber Security Operations Centre (CSOC) announced as part of the Defence White Paper released last year.

The centre, housed inside the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) headquarters in Canberra, will provide critical understanding of the threat from sophisticated cyber attacks, according to the minister for defence, senator John Faulkner.

In November 2009, Computerworld revealed the CSOC had already reached some operational capability but an acute lack of information on the offensive capabilities being developed remains with the government and Defence department refusing to divulge details.

There is also little clarity around its governance or oversight mechanisms, a circumstance that sparked calls from academics and information security analysts for greater public debate and disclosure.

Also in early November, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) confirmed that Internet-based attacks have been used by hostile intelligence services to gain confidential Australian Government and business information. That same month the Government created a new national computer emergency response team, CERT Australia.

From: computerworld.com.au

Filed Under: security 2 Comments »

From Free Tecnology Academy
GNU/Linux Advanced Administration
The GNU/Linux systems have reached an important level of maturity, allowing to integrate them in almost any kind of work environment, from a desktop PC to the sever facilities of a big company.
In the module called “The GNU/Linux operating system”, the main contents are related with system administration. This book is the main documentation for the module.

We will learn how to install and configure several computer services, and how to optimise and synchronise the resources.

The activities that will take place in this module cover the studied topics in a practical approach, applying these concepts in real GNU/Linux systems.

Authors: Remo Suppi Boldrito, Josep Jorba Esteve
Coordinator: Josep Jorba Esteve
Licenses: GNU Free Documentation License, Creative Commons Attribute ShareAlike License
Information: 545 Pages; 18.8 Mb

Filed Under: Linux Add Comment »

Remove all .svn folders in a directory tree:

find . -name “.svn” -type d -exec rm -rf {} \;

Filed Under: Development Add Comment »

Slony-I is a “master to multiple slaves” replication system supporting cascading and slave promotion. The big picture for the development of Slony-I is as a master-slave system that includes the sorts of capabilities needed to replicate large databases to a reasonably limited number of slave systems. “Reasonable,” in this context, is on the order of a dozen servers. If the number of servers grows beyond that, the cost of communications increases prohibitively, and the incremental benefits of having multiple servers will be falling off at that point.

Filed Under: Database Add Comment »