Google Maps Search

Google Maps Search

Phreaking

Phreaking is a slang term coined to describe the activity of a subculture of people who study, experiment with, or explore telecommunication systems, like equipment and systems connected to public telephone networks. The term "phreak" is derived from the words "phone" and "freak". It may also refer to the use of various audio frequencies to manipulate a phone system. "Phreak", "phreaker", or "phone phreak" are names used for and by individuals who participate in phreaking. Additionally, it is often associated with computer hacking. This is sometimes called the H/P culture (with H standing for Hacking and P standing for Phreaking). information on this site is for educational purposes only! Wyretap Network ©2007 - 2010

Disclaimer: The information on this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to encourage or teach you to break the law, that's what TV is for, albeit in a very flawed manner. The owner(s) of this website will not be held liable for anything you choose to do with the information contained on this site. If you want to learn how to rape, murder, loot, and commit acts of terror on a monumental scale, well, you won't find it here. Instead, tune-in to your nightly news and take a lesson from your 'elected' 'leaders'.

Social engineering techniques and terms

All social engineering techniques are based on specific attributes of human decision-making known as cognitive biases.[1] These biases, sometimes called "bugs in the human hardware," are exploited in various combinations to create attack techniques, some of which are listed here:
Pretexting
Pretexting is the act of creating and using an invented scenario (the pretext) to persuade a targeted victim to release information or perform an action and is typically done over the telephone. It is more than a simple lie as it most often involves some prior research or set up and the use of pieces of known information (e.g. for impersonation: date of birth, Social Security Number, last bill amount) to establish legitimacy in the mind of the target. [2]
This technique is often used to trick a business into disclosing customer information, and is used by private investigators to obtain telephone records, utility records, banking records and other information directly from junior company service representatives. The information can then be used to establish even greater legitimacy under tougher questioning with a manager (e.g., to make account changes, get specific balances, etc).
As most U.S. companies still authenticate a client by asking only for a Social Security Number, date of birth, or mother's maiden name, the method is effective in many situations and will likely continue to be a security problem in the future.
Pretexting can also be used to impersonate co-workers, police, bank, tax authorities, or insurance investigators — or any other individual who could have perceived authority or right-to-know in the mind of the targeted victim. The pretexter must simply prepare answers to questions that might be asked by the victim. In some cases all that is needed is a voice that sounds authoritative, an earnest tone, and an ability to think on one's feet.
Phishing
Main article: Phishing
Phishing is a technique of fraudulently obtaining private information. Typically, the phisher sends an e-mail that appears to come from a legitimate business—a bank, or credit card company—requesting "verification" of information and warning of some dire consequence if it is not provided. The e-mail usually contains a link to a fraudulent web page that seems legitimate—with company logos and content—and has a form requesting everything from a home address to an ATM card's PIN.
For example, 2003 saw the proliferation of a phishing scam in which users received e-mails supposedly from eBay claiming that the user’s account was about to be suspended unless a link provided was clicked to update a credit card (information that the genuine eBay already had). Because it is relatively simple to make a Web site resemble a legitimate organization's site by mimicking the HTML code, the scam counted on people being tricked into thinking they were being contacted by eBay and subsequently, were going to eBay’s site to update their account information. By spamming large groups of people, the “phisher” counted on the e-mail being read by a percentage of people who already had listed credit card numbers with eBay legitimately, who might respond.
IVR or phone phishing
This technique uses a rogue Interactive voice response (IVR) system to recreate a legitimate sounding copy of a bank or other institution's IVR system. The victim is prompted (typically via a phishing e-mail) to call in to the "bank" via a (ideally toll free) number provided in order to "verify" information. A typical system will reject log-ins continually, ensuring the victim enters PINs or passwords multiple times, often disclosing several different passwords. More advanced systems transfer the victim to the attacker posing as a customer service agent for further questioning.
One could even record the typical commands ("Press one to change your password, press two to speak to customer service" ...) and play back the direction manually in real time, giving the appearance of being an IVR without the expense.
The technical name for phone phishing, is vishing.
Baiting
Baiting is like the real-world Trojan Horse that uses physical media and relies on the curiosity or greed of the victim.[3]
In this attack, the attacker leaves a malware infected floppy disk, CD ROM, or USB flash drive in a location sure to be found (bathroom, elevator, sidewalk, parking lot), gives it a legitimate looking and curiosity-piquing label, and simply waits for the victim to use the device.
For example, an attacker might create a disk featuring a corporate logo, readily available off the target's web site, and write "Executive Salary Summary Q2 2009" on the front. The attacker would then leave the disk on the floor of an elevator or somewhere in the lobby of the targeted company. An unknowing employee might find it and subsequently insert the disk into a computer to satisfy their curiosity, or a good samaritan might find it and turn it in to the company.
In either case as a consequence of merely inserting the disk into a computer to see the contents, the user would unknowingly install malware on it, likely giving an attacker unfettered access to the victim's PC and perhaps, the targeted company's internal computer network.
Unless computer controls block the infection, PCs set to "auto-run" inserted media may be compromised as soon as a rogue disk is inserted.
Quid pro quo
Quid pro quo means something for something:
An attacker calls random numbers at a company claiming to be calling back from technical support. Eventually they will hit someone with a legitimate problem, grateful that someone is calling back to help them. The attacker will "help" solve the problem and in the process have the user type commands that give the attacker access or launch malware.
In a 2003 information security survey, 90% of office workers gave researchers what they claimed was their password in answer to a survey question in exchange for a cheap pen.[4] Similar surveys in later years obtained similar results using chocolates and other cheap lures, although they made no attempt to validate the passwords.[5]
Other types
Common confidence tricksters or fraudsters also could be considered "social engineers" in the wider sense, in that they deliberately deceive and manipulate people, exploiting human weaknesses to obtain personal benefit. They may, for example, use social engineering techniques as part of an IT fraud.
The latest type of social engineering techniques include spoofing or hacking IDs of people having popular e-mail IDs such as Yahoo!, GMail, Hotmail, etc. Among the many motivations for deception are:
Phishing credit-card account numbers and their passwords.
Hacking private e-mails and chat histories, and manipulating them by using common editing techniques before using them to extort money and creating distrust among individuals.
Hacking websites of companies or organizations and destroying their reputation.

The Real ID Coming Soon!!!

The Real ID Coming Soon!!!

Monday, December 14, 2009

Personalised vaccines could protect all children


Personalised vaccines could protect all children
07 December 2009 by Charlotte King
Magazine issue 2737. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
For similar stories, visit the Epidemics and Pandemics and Genetics Topic Guides
CHILDREN whose genetic make-up means they may not be protected by the standard form of a vaccine could in future be given a personalised shot. This is the prospect raised by the discovery of gene variants that seem to predict whether an individual will produce enough antibodies in response to a vaccine to protect them against disease.
Vaccines expose the immune system to a deactivated version of a disease agent. This prompts the production of specific antibodies, which will bind to the real disease-causing agent if the vaccinated person is later exposed to it. Though all of us usually get the same vaccines in the same doses, not everyone produces enough disease-specific antibodies in response. As a result, between 5 and 20 per cent of people vaccinated against hepatitis B, and between 2 and 10 per cent of those vaccinated against measles, will not be protected if they ever encounter these viruses.
Various factors determine who goes unprotected, but it is clear that genes play a major role. Finding out which gene variants lead to an abnormally weak vaccine response could allow people with these variants to be given alternative immunisations. These might take the form of higher doses of the standard vaccine, or a modified version of it.
To work out which genes help determine the immune response to common childhood vaccines, Berran Yucesoy of the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Morgantown, West Virginia, and her colleagues focused on genes that code for cytokines. These cell-signalling molecules help to produce antibodies and recruit infection-fighting cells.
Yucesoy's team analysed the DNA of 141 healthy babies aged between 11.5 and 14 months, searching for variations in 11 cytokine genes. They then gave the babies routine vaccines for hepatitis B and pneumococcus and a standard diphtheria-tetanus-whooping cough combination vaccine, and measured the levels of antibodies in their blood.
When the team analysed their results, they found single-letter variations in seven of the cytokine genes that were more common in infants who produced low levels of antibodies in response to certain vaccines. Most variants were associated with antibodies to just one disease, although in one case, the same variant was associated with fewer antibodies to tetanus and more to pneumococcus (Vaccine, DOI: 1016/j.vaccine.2009.09.076).
The researchers still have to confirm their results in a larger population of children, and to demonstrate that these gene variants translate into a lack of disease protection. But if the results stand up, infants' genes could be routinely screened for these variants before vaccination. If a child has some of the variants, the missing cytokines could be added to the vaccine formulation. Another option would be to add immune stimulants or give a higher dose of vaccine, to increase the response from the intact cytokine genes.
"Although the findings of the paper need confirming, it is possible that, in future, knowledge of an individual's genetic background might allow doctors to use vaccinations especially designed to get the optimum response for someone with that particular genetic background," says Hilary Longhurst, an immunologist at St Bartholomew's Hospital in London.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)