South Ossetia: The First Cyber/Physical War?

By | November 22, 2011

image

BBC picture

Wikipedia is doing a good job of chronicling the war in South Ossetia; its mention of several apparent cyberattacks on both sides makes me wonder whether this is the first instance of a physical war being accompanied by a cyberwar? All those listed on Wikipedia are not parallel attacks, i.e. they are not part of an actual physical war.

So far the attacks have been by Georgian supporters on two Ossetian media sites, and attacks by supporters of South Ossetia on the Georgian National Bank website and the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (which was reportedly splashed with a collage of of Saakashvili and Hitler photos.) The Georgian news site, Civil Georgia that reported the attacks on the South Ossetian websites itself now appears to be down.

Some attacks appear to preceded the war, suggesting that they were part of a deliberate build-up ahead of the entry of Russian troops into South Ossetia. On July 21 the Georgian president’s website was attacked. I wasn’t able to access the website as of early Aug 9. While tensions have been growing between Georgia and Russia for several weeks, it seems clear that the botnet involved in this attack was set up for this purpose only a few weeks ago.

Of course, none of this means that it’s done at an official level. But it’s interesting that at a time the Georgians and the South Ossetians would presumably like to get their sides of the story out, they can’t because their websites, official and unofficial, are down.

As the Georgian ambassador to the UK put it to Al Jazeera:

“Georgia has been attacked by a formidable force, it is a brutal attack with the use of air force, tanks and even the trademark cyber attack.”

“If this is not an all out war what is?” he asked.

War in South Ossetia (2008) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Update on Aug 12: some more links

http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2008-August/063820.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10014150-83.html

Six Degrees of Networking

By | August 7, 2008

A recent report by Microsoft researchers had breathed life back into something that looked like a myth: the idea that we’re only six people away from everyone on the planet. Six Degrees of separation, as it’s called, suggested that someone we knew would know someone else who would know someone else who would know someone else who would know someone else who would know the person we’re trying to reach. It’s called the small world experiment, and we like it because it makes the world seem smaller, somehow, more cozy.

That idea is more than 40 years old. And most people had begun to think it wasn’t true. Of course, then, there were only 3.5 billion people on the planet. Now it’s nearly double that. I’m not a mathematician, so I’m not actually sure whether that makes it easier or harder.

Anyway, the idea wasn’t doing terribly well until recently, when researchers from Microsoft gobbled up 30 billion chats on Microsoft’s instant messaging system between some 240 million people around the world and concluded that the average path length between any messenger user and another is 6.6.

What the Microsoft guys have really discovered is that the Internet has created a new kind of connection. The Internet is all about connecting computers to other computers; we just happen to be sitting at their keyboards.

Facebook, for example, is a very efficient tool for turning even the most scatterbrained recluse into a social networker. If you’ve ever used Facebook, you’ll know that it can reassemble the disparate networks of friends, colleagues, relatives and childhood foes alarmingly quickly. I now have 399 friends on Facebook, and they span the globe and a lifetime of boozy lunches and cigarettes behind the squash courts. A little application on the side will constantly nudge me with suggestions for people I might know but haven’t added.

But these networks are about more than recreating the bulging address book of half-forgotten friends you would occasionally send Christmas cards to. Other services, liked LinkedIn, try to leverage connections to build business networks. I have a modest 518 connections on LinkedIn, and another 194 invitations still awaiting a reply, but I have no idea who most of them are. They might be people I once met, interviewed, emailed, or, more likely, contacts of people I once met, interviewed or emailed, or even just people who thought I was a cool guy and wanted to be linked to me.

Of course, they’re not interested in me so much as who I know: And vice versa. If I want to reach someone at the Daily Telegraph, for example, I could reach more than 35 of them through people in my network, who either know someone there, or know someone who knows someone who is there.

I found that simply by typing in the name of the company. It took me 30 seconds and cost me nothing.

The reality is that the Internet makes our networks very efficient, so that the line gets blurred between what these connections actually mean. Are we gathering friends and business connections because we’re interested in these people, or because we want to a) show off or b) start selling them vacuum cleaners or sending them our CV? Perhaps it’s always been like that. There was always someone who seemed keener to know you for your friends than a fascination with your collection of tie-dye t-shirts.

But things are different. Those of us plugged into the net—or our cellphone—for much of the day are already familiar with how we unconsciously layer and maintain our networks—whether it’s on tools like twitter, or Facebook, or Skype, or Windows Messenger. Back in 1967, when the six degrees separation experiment took place, they used letters to explore the connections between people. The quickest took four days: 232 of the 296 letters never reached the destination.

Now we have 100 different ways to connect almost immediately to anyone else on the planet—who happens to be on a network. We may think they’re the same, but they’re different worlds. We’re connected to people, not because of any innate sociability of social skill, but because of the awesome power of the Internet.

That said, some thing never change. The Microsoft study also found that people on instant messaging tend to communicate more with people of the same background. That makes sense. But there was one area where this wasn’t true: cross-gender conversations, as they put it, are both more frequent and of longer duration than conversations with users of the same reported gender. In short, most instant messaging is about flirting. I’m guessing that was probably true back in 1967 too.

Old Content Still Gets Readers Excited

By | November 22, 2011

image

Here’s evidence that online publications should try to re-use—and make accessible—old content. The most emailed story on the BBC website at the moment—Aug 5 2008—is actually a story from January 2004:

image

which is this one:

image

I have no idea why it is—although the subject matter is pretty compelling, I must admit. (The gadget, it turns out, is not half the price it was back then. You can find it here; the BBC link no longer works.)

Bottom line: Some stories are just too good to allow to grow old.

Update, Aug 23: Further to comments, I don’t think this is deliberate self-promotion. I noticed another story near the top of the most emailed list again today, which didn’t offer anyone any obvious commercial benefit. It was on raining fish, a story from 2004:

image

The Splog Thickens

By | November 22, 2011

I was amused, and somewhat perplexed, to read on BuzzMachine yesterday about a bizarre splog—spam blog to the rest of us—which copies text and then converts it to synonyms. Jeff explains: 

New splog tricks

In my ego searches, I just saw a splog that copied text of mine but ran it through ridiculous almost-synonym replacements. I’m assuming this is done to fool Google into thinking it is original content and perhaps to fool the text cops folks like the AP hire.

I still can’t quite work out what the function of this is. But I did come across another one on one of my own ego searches. It took me a bit of time to figure out where it came from. (It’s from Betsy Weber’s blog.)

Here’s the splog text, with the original in italics first. My questions:

  • How the hell does group become “Washington entranceway”?
  • and member become “sorority girl”?
  • I kind of like the fact that loose wire blog has become “Unfixed Twist Blog” and the WSJ has become the “Commodity Exchange Annual”;
  • But somehow which you can see here became “which her philander play against hither”.
  • And the last two paragraphs are so full of weirdness I don’t know where to start.

Join the New Screencast Group on Facebook

Clique with the Untouched Screencast Colligate in reference to Facebook

Are you addicted to Facebook like I am? I recently joined and find myself checking my Facebook page daily! Facebook is a great way to keep up with friends all over the world. Anyone can join Facebook for free.

Are them addicted up to Facebook freak out on You double sideband? Yourselves before heaped and decree myself checking my Facebook serve weekly newspaper! Facebook is a severe want as far as bear in cooperation with friends under the sun the people. Anyone heap up build up Facebook so footloose.

I was excited to see that Amit Agarwal from the Digital Inspiration Blog recently started a new group in Facebook all about Screencasting (link will not work unless you are a member of Facebook). I’m excited to learn and swap tips with fellow members in the group. I’m in very good company – I know expert screencasters, Beth Kanter and Long Zheng have joined the group. Plus, technology expert Jeremy Wagstaff of the Loose Wire Blog and Wall Street Journal is in there too! Remember Jeremy? He wrote a great directory of screencast resources which you can see here.

I was chafing over against run in that Amit Agarwal off the Radical Direct communication Blog previously started a fashionable Washington entranceway Facebook all nigh about Screencasting (deduction plan not lick excepting alter are a sorority girl re Facebook). Ba’m fidgety into go into training and trading tips with fellow members fellow feeling the peer group. Ba’m in very noble cohort- I savvy technical expert screencasters, Beth Kanter and Unrelenting Zheng force twin the collect. And, craft informed in Jeremy Wagstaff re the Unfixed Twist Blog and Commodity exchange Annual is ultra-ultra there inter alia! Think back Jeremy Yourselves wrote a commanding business directory upon screencast capital goods which her philander play against hither.

You cannot access the Screencasting group without being a member on Facebook. But, it’s painless to sign up for Facebook. Click here to register. And, if you join, feel free to add me as a friend!

You cannot access the Screencasting dig up except existing a belonger wherewith Facebook. Unless that, ego’s Mickey Mouse so do a tour in behalf of Facebook. Go as of now up bound. And, if number one knit, glance freely in contemplation of figure out you now a playmate!

Hope to see you join Facebook and in the Screencasting group to share your tips and tricks! Now I have an excuse to go into Facebook while at work. 😉

Hope into smell subliminal self link up Facebook and in the Screencasting detail up to quantum your tips and tricks! The present hour Better self buy an breast-beating up to talk Facebook lastingness at advanced work.

So could someone explain the point of these? There are no ads on the page—it’s a WordPress.com blog, so there can’t be. And, more importantly, what kind of synonym engine are these guys using?

I’m off to register unfixedtwist.com and, while I’m at it, numberoneknit.com.

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » New splog tricks