This Phish Has Teeth

Phishing attacks used to be relatively easy to spot. The message that claimed to be from your bank showed the logo of a bank you've never heard of. Hovering the mouse cursor over a link immediately revealed the ploy. The message appeared to have been written by someone who had flunked third-grade English. Well, things have changed and today's phishing attacks can fool just about anyone. A recent white paper by Webroot explained the changes and raised some questions so I reached out to Chip Witt, the company's director of product management for enterprise and OEM clients.

I asked Chip to define "phishing" just to ensure we're all on the same page.

If your computer doesn't support Flash, you'll find the interview here.

The white paper Chip Witt and I discussed is called Phishing 2.0 and you can download it from here and for more information about Webroot, visit Webroot.com.

Yes, You Still Have to Stow the Laptop

It appears that the FAA is on the verge of making some significant changes in rules that will allow airline passengers to continue using their smart phones and tablets during takeoff and landing. Larger devices such as laptops will still need to be stowed. This is a long overdue common-sense decision.

I've been reading Cockpit Confidential, a book by pilot Patrick Smith. One of the questions Smith addressed in his book is this one: "What is the lowdown on cell phones and portable electronic devices? Are they really dangerous to flight?"

People want a simple, fits-all answer. Unfortunately, there isn’t one. It depends on the gadget and how and when that gadget is used. ... In theory, an old or poorly shielded computer can emit harmful energy. However, the main reasons laptops need to be put away for takeoff and landing is to prevent them from becoming high-speed projectiles during a sudden deceleration or impact and to help keep the passageways clear if there’s an evacuation. ... From an interference perspective, it’s tough to take a prohibition [against tablets] seriously now that many pilots are using tablets in the cockpit. The projectile argument would appear similarly specious: nobody wants an iPad whizzing into his or her forehead at 180 miles per hour, but hardback books are just as heavy, if not heavier. ... Can cellular communications really disrupt cockpit equipment? The answer is potentially yes, but in all likelihood no, and airlines and the FAA are merely erring on the better-safe-than-sorry side.

This is condensed from a considerably longer answer, which you'll find here.

The new rules should allow airline passengers to use personal electronic devices to read, play games, watch movies, and listen to music when planes are on the ground or flying below 10,000 feet. Currently all such devices must be turned off at those times.

Passengers will still not be allowed to send text messages, browse the Web, or check their e-mail after the plane’s doors have been closed. These activities will still be allowed on planes that have a built-in Wi-Fi network, but that is turned on only when the plane is above 10,000 feet. The use of cell phones to make voice calls is not addressed and, therefore, will continue to be disallowed.

The recommendation follows a year-long review of the technologies involved. It recommends that airlines demonstrate that their planes will not be harmed by electronic interference. Because many airlines have already installed on-board Wi-Fi, they've already completed that requirement.

Short Circuits

Beware the WhatsApp Fraud

WhatsApp Messenger is a mobile instant messaging subscription service for smart phones that allows users to send text messages, images, video, and audio messages. It runs on Android, BlackBerry, IOS, Windows Phone, and a few other devices. There is no version of WhatsApp for desktop or notebook computers, but that doesn't stop fraudsters from sending messages that claim to be from the service.

You probably wouldn't click on this, but a surprising number of people do.

The voice messaging component is relatively new and Trend Micro says that people have been receiving messages such as this one. What happens if you click the inviting "Listen" link?

You'll be taken to a malware site that's designed to figure out what type of computer or smart phone you're using and attempt to install malicious software.

Windows users will receive a Java file that so far doesn't seem to do anything. Possibly it's one component of a multi-part attack. These are attacks that download seemingly harmless pieces that don't become dangerous until everything is present. Or it might be that the malicious Java file (browser_update_installer.jar) is intended for those who access their emails via an application that depends on Java.

On an Android device, users will be told that they need to update their Web browser and, if you agree, the malware will be loaded and then the malware will send text messages to specific phone numbers and it will attempt to convince the user to download another app.

An unwary IOS user who clicks the link will see a download progress bar, but the operating system's restrictions will block installation of the app. Trend Micro says phones have been "jailbroken" may be susceptible to the attack.

Subscribing to Publishers' Backlist Books

E-books are usually priced in the $10 to $20 range, but the online service Scribd thinks that people would be willing to pay $10 per month for access to backlist books. ($9.95 - can't you just say $10?) That's "backlist", not "blacklist", by the way. Scribd's website has 80 million visitors monthly and hopes to create a Netflix-like subscription service for books.

HarperCollins has signed up for the service. Although the idea isn't exactly new in the publishing industry, this is the first time that it's begun to look like a reality.

There's even competition. Oysterbooks.com opened last month, offering access to more than 100,000 books for that same $10 ($9.95) per month. Publishers have watched how music, television programs, and even radio have changed in a digital age and they realize that publishing must continue to change, too.

The trouble at this time for Scribd is that only one major publisher has signed on. The model could fall apart if each publisher tries to set up its own service at $10 per month. That probably wouldn't fly. This is a place where the cable television model (everybody gets everything whether they want it or not) will be the way to success.

Scribd says that subscribers may store up to 10 books at at time and read them on mobile apps, computers, and e-readers. And maybe you're wondering what a publisher's backlist is. Essentially it's a publisher's list of older books that are still in print. In other words, your $10 subscription fee won't buy the latest offerings and best sellers, but it will give you access to books from a year or two ago.

No More Comments on the Popular Science Website

The online content director of Popular Science, Suzanne LaBarre, recently wrote on the magazine's website that effective immediately comments will no longer be accepted. The Internet is supposed to be about free and open discussion, but as anyone who has read the comments on just about any website it probably well aware, discussions that begin reasonably are quickly overwhelmed by trolls (the people who love to stir up trouble) and spambots (the automated applications that send spam). Unfortunately, this is the wave of the future.

LaBarre wrote, "It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter."

Although the site has many "delightful, thought-provoking commenters," the message says, "even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story." This isn't just one person's opinion, by the way. University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard led a research team in which 1183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject.

Then those in the research project were divided into 2 groups. One read "epithet- and insult-laden comments" and the others read "civil comments". Brossard and her co-author Dietram Scheufele wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times to explain the results. They found that uncivil comments polarized readers and often changed participants' opinions of the story.

In explaining the decision at Popular Science, LaBarre wrote, "If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the 'off' switch."

It's sad that the anti-science crowd has forced Popular Science to make this change, but it's understandable at a time when people who know nothing about science seem to feel that their ignorance has value that is equal to someone else's study, research, and knowledge. Science isn't perfect and it never will be; scientists know this, though, and that's why our understanding of how things work continues to evolve.

Thanks to DailyKos.com for this chart that illustrates the differences between science and pseudoscience.

The Apple Spaceship

Thumbing (electronically) through the San Jose Mercury News this week, I encountered an article by Patrick May about Apple's new (PICK ONE: space ship, dough-nut, flying saucer, rounded pentagon, bicycle tire, hula hoop) that's about to start being built. Maybe. It's being referred to as the building that will be "Silicon Valley's most iconic landmark." Public discussions that could determine the building's fate began this week. It's an amazing structure.

The Mercury News says the image is an artist's rendering of Apple's Campus 2 project in Cupertino. (Photo from City of Cupertino)

In the article, May says The building project, which [Cupertino Mayor Orrin] Mahoney says is now rivaled only by One World Trade Center in New York City in terms of scope and size, is designed by world-famous architect Sir Norman Foster. With its four stories and 2.8 million square feet expected to house up to 14,200 employees, the architectural extravaganza is sure to draw tourists from around the world, planting Silicon Valley firmly on the map of ultracool corporate addresses.

But first the planning commission must approve the design. And there are concerns about traffic on I-280. The article says that amenities include three restaurants, totaling 120,000 square feet, along with a corporate auditorium of 120,000 square feet, fitness centers, and a large testing-and-data center.

Read May's article on the Mercury News website.

Wow.