As a person in the Network Security business--- we can get you.

I'm going to tell you right now....nothing, and I mean nothing is safe on the Internets and Mobile Networks.....

Social Networking... we can get you.

App's on your smartphones, we can get you.

Associating your device to a wireless access point.... we can get you...

Hard wired, wireless, 3g---4g... don't matter, we can get you.

The best way to get you is by simply physically stealing your shit.

You ever sit in a Starbucks and leave your laptop or IPad sitting on the table while you go take a pee? You'd be surprised at how many stories we hear of people doing exactly that. If we get your device, game over. We can root that device and get everything.

One device can compromise your companies entire network or make your personal life miserable.

All it took was a couple of knuckleheads like Mike Stark and Dan Wolfe to bring down Weiner.

My fellow DU'ers--- if you got shit you don't want others to have, think twice before using today's wonderful technology.

We can get you.

Can you force us to lie our balls off about it?

I am sincerely perplexed about supposed smart people not understanding this.

How do they not know that there is no privacy on the internet.

If anyone is determined enough and has the right resources available they are only limited by their own imagination.
I've had my own suspicions regarding some GOP election victories but I'll save comment on that for another time.

You will be brought down if you post shit like Weiner did on the nets. It's only a matter of time, especially if you have people out there wanting to bring you down.

In Weiners case, this wasn't a notorious hacking group.....this was just a few goobers who followed him.

Funny, I thought the pictures of his dick, shirtless pics and chatting with college girls got him in trouble.

Who knew it also required other knuckleheads?

:shrug:

but where did those pictures reside?

Nothing I've seen shows that others were involved.

in this case... Wolfe and Stack who watched Weiner like a Hawk.

These two are the guys who blew it all up.

I think you're missing my bigger point.. of course it was Weiner who put it out there...but as soon as he did... he was nabbed.

Read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/nyregion/conservative-group-scanned-weiners-posts-warned-women.html?_r=1&hp

stupid enough to leave an electronic footprint? then yeah...

As an old guy once told me, never put down anything in print that can be used against you...just apply that to the technology that's new to some folks..

and think they are having a private moment.. duh.. the whole world is watching in a sense. That is my feeling.

:shrug:

In the example of someone stealing your laptop. If the laptop's data is encrypted you won't be able to get it. Too bad encryption is still too complicated for most people to do.

Being a feral techno geek since the inception of color television there have been many attempts to savage my privacy both technically and in person. None have been successful and some have resulted in the actual reverse. They reach out and touch me and eventually realize I have a hook embedded within tasty and enticing bait.

myself talking about how I was glad I didn't have an iPhone, don't use 'apps' to get 'free' stuff (I know it's all just data mining) and I especially was glad I wasn't being tracked.

The student did not care if s/he was being tracked! Couldn't see what the big deal was!!

I know I am in a generational divide situation. I use just enough technology (like my laptop here) to get by, I have an old, crappy Nokia phone that only is used in an emergency, and I'M WORRIED. Most young folks aren't worried yet.

And a note for those who don't know the Dan Wolfe story, there is an article on the front page of the NYT about him, whoever he is, and even though I think the whole idea of putting shots of your crotch on any electronic device is stupid, there seems to be an element of this that stinks of 'entrapment', in my opinion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but if you think the advice is only for Grandma then you're a fucking fool.

My company is a multi-million dollar company--- why---because of Grandmothers???... I think not.

Not everyone is blessed with your brilliance.

Multi-million means there are 10 employees and one round of VC funding, or 20 employees and 2 locations. Please get over your bad self.

30 offices nationwide...a couple overseas.

we're sitting around 600 million right now but expected to be a billion in 2 years.

Now why is that...Grandmothers?

Dude---I run into know it all's like you everyday... the kind that er pisses in the face of Network Security.

You guys are a dime a dozen but when you're pushed on what you know, you don't know jack shit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ok....mine is Fortune-100. IPv6, TOR, encryption, doesn't really matter. In order to be useful, the data has to be converted to cleartext somewhere. So steal it from there.

And pass-phrases don't solve the fundamental problem, which is single-factor authentication. Making your password ridiculously long or random only helps against brute-force attacks that are easily detected. Properly-done two-factor authentication solves the problem. But that has it's own potential pitfalls as the recent compromise of RSA devices shows.

Nice. And, fwiw, I think you are full of it on your "story". :hi:

It's also a rules violation.

Personally I believe the OP gave good advice to a general audience and this is the General Discussion Forum, had you been so inclined you could have constructively supplemented his advice with some civil and sound advice of your own, thereby increasing the value of the thread, but no doubt you have your own internal challenges to overcome, good luck with that.

i've kept that for the most part in mind. but i'm an open book anyway, and not running for office. i am not afraid.

nt

ahh. the luddite way! not that i have any risky photos....

Unethical: We can completely protect your data. Give us money.

Ethical: We can make it really, really, really hard for someone to get your data, but we can't protect you from everything. Now that the unethical guy utterly failed, give us money.

honestly it's a thumb in the dike situation.

There are so many bad guy's out there or even hobbyists hackers and it's getting tougher every day.

No doubt---it is a battle.

Weiner tweeted the picture himself.

Of course the Intertubes are not secure., but you are aware of mobile encryption right?

And you mentioned "hard-wired", which I assume you are talking about terrestrial based circuits. So you don't think companies running an MPLS VPN are secure? How about a remote user connecting to the corporate VPN from a home Internet connection using a Cisco ASA?

Familiar with TLS at all?

If you protect the data in motion via encryption, then your attacker will just steal it when the data is unencrypted at rest.

That's not to say one shouldn't try. Making it as difficult as practical will reduce the number of people who can steal your data. But there's 7 billion people on the planet. At least one of them will have the funds, equipment and knowledge to get your data. You just have to hope they don't also have the motivation.

very effective. Honestly I'm not a deep dive specialist---more on the sales side but I've seen enough.

As far as mobile encryption--- We have a Mobile Security team that does nothing but Mobile.

What they can do to a smart phone is scary crazy. We use GOOD on our IPhones and it's sufficient enough for in-house emails, etc....

It's the other Apps that are problematic.

Mobile Security---Cloud Security--- big business for the future.

This thread got hijacked a bit by some Black Hat wanna be's--- but was meant more for a community service.

Speaking of Black Hat... coming up early August... should be a good one.

:hide:

never discount psychic abilities

I don't get that..

chatting up those who initially contacted him because they admired his politics. If he had not been Rep. Anthony Weiner, those women would not have contacted him in the first place.

He didn't want anonymous sex chat with anonymous women. He wanted sex chat with women who were being all impressed by his political power and celebrity.

I'm not a network security person, but in all my reading, they repeat the layers concept constantly.

Or threatning.

Why aren't you saying that on the news?

heh

But they can't figure out I am due beer and travel money. That is laughable. :rofl: