secure surfing

Examples of Punycode in Phishing

Punycode is a term used to describe the transformation of IDNA protocol into ASCII codes. Only a limited number of ASCII numbers and characters are utilized in Punycode encoding: 0-9, A-Z, and also the hyphen (-), therefore making the ASCII characters in any Unicode string to be represented like that. In the case of non-ASCII characters, they are expressed by ASCII characters which are permitted in the labels of any host domain name. Different prefixes are utilized by different encoding methods and also any translation into Punycode is purely determined by the web browser of the internet user.

Phishing is a technique to trick internet users into going to fraudulent websites. Phishing websites are made to appear like the normal pages of popular websites like PayPal and eBay. People are invited to click links through spam mails to users of MSN, AOL, Yahoo, Gmail, etc. The spam messages may look very authentic, showing corporate logos and formats like the ones employed by those popular websites in their messages to customers. Typically, they request for verification of certain information, for example passwords and account numbers. For the fact that the e-mails look very legitimate, as many as 20% of unsuspecting recipients may respond, leading to Identity theft, financial losses, and other fraudulent activities.

What Is IP Spoofing And How Is A System Hijacked?

It should be no surprise to your that in the world of computer networking savvy computer technicians have the ability to mask their identity on the Internet with advanced techniques.  IP Spoofing, similar to caller ID blocking in telecommunications, refers to hackers disguising their IP address and network identification information to gain unauthorized access to other computers or networks.  When the targeted system is "spoofed" the system will display a message that a trusted source is trying to access their network.  Once the IP address is "spoofed" hackers can conduct criminal acts on your computer or network remotely. 

Internet Protocol spoofing initially became a problem in the 1980's.  While it was considered an accomplishment to crack an IP address and to conquer the protocol's weakness, it quickly became a problem and was a primary focus for security administrators thereafter.  In terms of spoofing, there are three different types of attacks:

Non-Blind Spoofing Attacks
When the attacker is actually on the same subnet as the system they are attacking this is considered a non-blind spoof.  This form of spoofing can cause session hijacking and can effectively allow the hijacker to bypass security to establish a connection using proxies and sequences. 

Blind Spoofing
Blind spoofing is a bit more advanced than non-blind methods.  Packets are sent to the machine the hijacker is targeting to get an idea of the sequence numbers in the network.  While sequencing is random, some hijackers can accurately predict sequences for access.  While some hijackers may not be able to gain a full connection, they can send data packets and viruses to the targeted machine.

Attackers are not concerned with completing full transactions on your network.  The primary focus of an IP spoofer is to consume bandwidth and resources.  By flooding the victim with packets of communication, traffic has effectively controlled your computer and a connection can be made. 

If you want to protect your computer or your network against IP spoofing it is important to take the proper precautions.  Proactive steps and security precautions are the only way to keep your IP address protected.  Ingress and egress filtering on your router is very important.  This will block private IPs and will not accept IP addresses with your sequence as the source.  Encryptions and authentication measures within your subnet are also important and can reduce attacks and vulnerability.  The truth of the matter is unless you are a spoofer yourself you are perhaps never fully protected.  Be aware of the security risks that exist and take proactive steps to protect your computer.
 

The Problems with Public Proxy Server

So you have found a nice free proxy server. Great! Well perhaps not!

There are many well known problems with free public proxy servers. Now it is true there are generally quite easy to find (especially if you know what you're looking) however the disadvantages can lead to an enormous waste of your time, and compromise your security and identity.

The biggest problem with public proxy servers they just are not reliable. Of course the principal reason for this is because so many people can use them, after all they are free proxy servers! With somebody people using them at the same time it's very easy for the server to get overloaded, thus leaving you with an extremely slow Internet connection. Even if you're lucky and managed to find a proxy server with very few users there is a strong chance that one of those few users is abusing it. Many Internet marketing packages include scrapers to find free proxy servers, packages such as scrapeboxand Xrumer need constant supply of proxies to operate. Just one extra user can easily swamp a single proxy. The fact that software packages such as Xrumer and scrapebox are using these proxies to spam the Internet means they are often blacklisted and can't be used for many websites.

Another major disadvantage of any public proxy server, and really the biggest disadvantage of all, is that they generally do not provide true anonymity at all. The reason for this is because so many public free proxy servers are actually run by hackers and spammers, or various other organisations determined to obtain your details. these people can see all the traffic that goes through their proxy server, and can therefore extract any information from that they require.

So if you have any concern for your online privacy you will not even consider using a free proxy server, and will instead subscribe to a paid service from a reputable company such as Identity Cloaker.

Content Filtering: Australia

Since its foundation, Australia has been seen as a fairly liberal country, with an easy-going attitude towards just about everything. However, this is all about to change under the current administration, who are trying to push forward the Clean Feed internet filter for Australian internet users.

Private internet filters have been around for the last decade or so, but Clean Feed, if passed by law, would be the first national filter in the world.

We will look at the details of Clean Feed and examine its pros and cons and the potential fall out.

The proposal is a blanket censorship of thousands of websites deemed inappropriate by the Clean Feed body. This would replace the current practise of allowing each household to set their own censorship levels appropriate to the ages of internet users in their house. The kinds of sites being discussed include obviously sensitive material like pornography and drugs, but webpages discussing euthanasia, “inappropriate” political parties and over 18 rated games have also been discussed as being “RC” (refused classification). The idea is still being kicked around the Australian government, but current behind-the-scenes opinion indicates that the legislation is unlikely to get to a vote before the next general election.

The pros of this system are fairly obvious at first viewing. It aims to cut down on the amount of illegal material that is being seen and downloaded in Australia. By restricting offensive websites, younger internet users can be protected from entering sites that they didn’t mean to enter, or shouldn’t be looking at. The blanket ban on these websites removes the responsibility from internet providers and families for installing their own filters. These filters are increasingly easy to get around, and at a basic level can be simply uninstalled by a determined competent computer user, whilst a filter imposed by the internet provider and backed up by the government will be much tougher.

The Australian Labor Party minister who is campaigning for Clean Feed, Stephen Conroy, says that the filter will be carefully monitored, and regular meetings will be set up to discuss the status of controversial pages.

The cons of the Clean Feed filter are also fairly obvious. Campaigners against the programme call it “a kick in the teeth for civil liberties” and the filter has been likened to the 1984 Big Brother society, where the state controls what each individual is able to access. The general consensus amongst anti-Clean Feed protesters is that it should remain the responsibility of each family and each person to monitor their own internet usage, using their own moral compass for guidance as to what they should and shouldn’t be accessing. By allowing a higher organisation to dictate these classified sites, the general public are submitting to the moral standards of a select few non-elected individuals. The argument runs that these people are in no better and no worse position to choose what the nation should be able to access than anyone else in the country.

Another problem is where the line is drawn. In today’s increasingly sensitive society, where political correctness can cause situations to spiral way out of context, it seems unfair for the elected party to decide what counts as racism, or other inappropriate context.

Lastly, and possibly most damagingly, studies are being conducted into whether such a filter would actually provide any sort of protection. Claims that it would help tackle the rise in paedophiles using the internet as a tool for grooming have been rubbished, saying that most illegal communication happens privately, through social network sites and emails. Taking control of these would amount to a gross breach of civil liberties, and would constitute a criminal act by the government.

The potential fall out of a decision in favour of Clean Feed could be quite dramatic. Recent opinion polls have agreed with the notion of internet filters and making the web a safer places, but when asked if the government should be in charge of their internet usage, a large proportion of the interviewees said no. By pushing this legislation through, Stephen Conroy has the potential to kick up a hornet’s nest of angry Australians, which may cause the whole operation to backfire spectacularly.

As ever should Clean Feed ever get the go ahead our old favourite Identity Cloaker will be useful to break through the barrier and deliver a completely unfiltered Internet experience.

Windows 7 – Improved Security?

When Microsoft debuted Windows Vista on January 30th, 2007 it was clear that they had made online security one of their top priorities with this operating system. In fact, Windows Vista was the most secure Microsoft operating system to date.

So how did the Microsoft team approach the security issue when they decided to create Windows 7? Well first, they decided to take into consideration suggestions from Vista users to see what they could possibly improve with their online security features. These suggestions allowed the programmers to make the system more user friendly when it came to the security features.

Microsoft developed Windows 7 according to the Security Development Lifecycle (SDL). The goals of SDL are to minimize the number of security related design and coding defects, and to reduce the harshness of the defects that remain. This alone doesn’t make the system unique from Vista, as Vista was also developed according to the SDL. But seeing how Vista’s online security features were Microsoft’s best yet, it was clear that Windows 7 needed to be molded from that version.

Along with implementing the SDL into this new system, Microsoft also included such Vista key security features as Data Execution Prevention (DEP), Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), Kernel Patch Protection, and Mandatory Integrity Levels.

So now you’re scratching your head asking yourself, “Then what makes this operating system special? Looks like it is just Windows Vista repackaged with a new look and name, but same security features.”

Though it’s true Windows 7 shares some of the same features as Vista on the security standpoint, it is also fair to say that some of those same features have been tweaked a little, improving their performance and reliability. Such as the Enhanced UAC you will find with Windows 7.

The UAC, or User Account Control, gives the administrators more power over what features and applications to grant access to when it comes to certain guest users and employees. UAC is what controls those pesky, annoying security prompts that you see pop up from time to time. Vista users gave this feature some heavy negative feedback, thus forcing Microsoft to re-think the way this feature works. They have worked out all the kinks and have reduced the number of applications and operating system tasks that trigger the prompts. Now if you access User Accounts in the Control Panel you can even adjust this feature to your liking and customize it to fit your own security needs.

Everyone knows you need more than just a password these days to protect yourself and your computer. Heck, nowadays most web sites require that you make your password at least so many letters long, include so many numbers, and on top of that you not only have to create a security question and password but also pick a picture from a series of graphics to be tied to your account. Windows 7 actually upped the ante when it comes to password protecting your computer. They have implemented better driver support and more reliable fingerprint reading across different hardware platforms. So now you don’t have to worry about some computer hacker logging into your computer to access all of your important files because if you have fingerprint access enabled on your computer, no one but you can get into your computer.

Windows 7 preserves Vista's data-protection technologies, such as EFS (Encrypting File System) and support for AD RMS (Active Directory Rights Management Services). Microsoft tinkered with those technologies to make them perform a little better, and they notably improved on Vista's BitLocker drive encryption technology, and it adds BitLocker to Go for encrypting data on separable media. You see, Windows vista was capable of protecting the volumes and drives that were part of the computer, but it could not do the same for removable drives. That’s part of the reason Windows 7 differs from Vista in that it is capable of protecting all of the files on your removable drives with BitLocker to Go. It’s a nice feature that will surely add more needed protection to your important files which you may keep on things such as Floppies, Jump Drives, or disc.

Also, with BitLocker to Go, administrators can block anyone from adding information to their removable files or even from removing information if those files are accessed. BitLocker requires Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to store BitLocker encryption keys and smooth the progress of the encryption and decryption of the BitLocker-protected data. Many desktops and laptops do not come with a TPM chip, but that doesn’t mean it’s the end of the world for you and your internet safety. Microsoft has included the option to use BitLocker Drive Encryption without a compatible TPM, though it’s not a cake walk in order to access it. Though the lack of a TPM chip can create a small road block, it can be overcome.

So in closing I must say that I am very impressed with the online security features within Windows 7. Like I discussed above, the final product does mimic Vista in the features implemented within the operating system, but most of those features have been slightly modified in order to offer the Windows user a safer and easier way of obtaining protection when surfing the net.