How To Unlock A Car With A Text Message
Don Bailey says he can unlock thousands of cars across the United States simply by sending a few texts from his Android phone.
And that's not even the scary part.
Bailey, a senior security consultant with iSEC Partners, said in an interview with CNN at the Black Hat security conference here at Caesars Palace that the same hack he has used to demonstrate unlocking and even starting a car via text message also could be used to attack industrial systems, the power grid and the water system.
"I could care less if I could unlock a car door," he said. "It's cool. It's sexy. But the same system is used to control phone, power, traffic systems. I think that's the real threat."
Bailey would not share details about which cars or which auto systems are vulnerable to the hack that he showed off publicly at the event.
The hack affects many kinds of devices that connect to cellular GSM networks, like the one used by AT&T. As cars and plenty of other stuff -- from pill bottles to trees, he said -- start connecting to cell grids and the Internet, Bailey said they become more vulnerable.
Certain electronic components that accept wireless signals are vulnerable to the hack, he said. Those components are in the cars Bailey said he can unlock remotely.
Again, he would not name which cars have them.
Strangely enough, Oprah Winfrey kinda-sorta inspired this research.
Bailey said he was watching an "Oprah" show about a device called the Zoombak, which the TV host said could be used by parents to track the locations of their kids.
"I heard that and thought, 'Oh dear God no. Please Oprah, no, no no!' " he said in a presentation at Black Hat. "This was my thinking: That's dangerous. That can definitely be owned. Let's own that thing."
In hacker-speak, "own" means to take control of a device.
Once he figured out how to take control of the kid-tracker, Bailey moved on to cars, which he said was more difficult but still not impossible.
"I couldn't just straight-up text message it and be like, 'Gimme yo' datas!' " he said, referring to the car parts. "So it was a little more work."
It's not all doom-and-gloom, though.
Bailey said manufacturers could purchase more expensive parts that would keep these types of hacks from being possible. He thinks industry associations should put out recommendations suggesting this approach, even though cost increases would be "highly significant."
"We have to," he said. "We have to find elegant ways to find that sweet spot between cost and security."
Black Hat is an annual gathering of hackers and security professionals in Las Vegas. Researchers hope that by showing off how to hack certain systems, the computer industry will take steps to make infrastructure and consumers safer. –CNN Tech
Don Bailey says he can unlock thousands of cars across the United States simply by sending a few texts from his Android phone.
And that's not even the scary part.
Bailey, a senior security consultant with iSEC Partners, said in an interview with CNN at the Black Hat security conference here at Caesars Palace that the same hack he has used to demonstrate unlocking and even starting a car via text message also could be used to attack industrial systems, the power grid and the water system.
"I could care less if I could unlock a car door," he said. "It's cool. It's sexy. But the same system is used to control phone, power, traffic systems. I think that's the real threat."
Bailey would not share details about which cars or which auto systems are vulnerable to the hack that he showed off publicly at the event.
The hack affects many kinds of devices that connect to cellular GSM networks, like the one used by AT&T. As cars and plenty of other stuff -- from pill bottles to trees, he said -- start connecting to cell grids and the Internet, Bailey said they become more vulnerable.
Certain electronic components that accept wireless signals are vulnerable to the hack, he said. Those components are in the cars Bailey said he can unlock remotely.
Again, he would not name which cars have them.
Strangely enough, Oprah Winfrey kinda-sorta inspired this research.
Bailey said he was watching an "Oprah" show about a device called the Zoombak, which the TV host said could be used by parents to track the locations of their kids.
"I heard that and thought, 'Oh dear God no. Please Oprah, no, no no!' " he said in a presentation at Black Hat. "This was my thinking: That's dangerous. That can definitely be owned. Let's own that thing."
In hacker-speak, "own" means to take control of a device.
Once he figured out how to take control of the kid-tracker, Bailey moved on to cars, which he said was more difficult but still not impossible.
"I couldn't just straight-up text message it and be like, 'Gimme yo' datas!' " he said, referring to the car parts. "So it was a little more work."
It's not all doom-and-gloom, though.
Bailey said manufacturers could purchase more expensive parts that would keep these types of hacks from being possible. He thinks industry associations should put out recommendations suggesting this approach, even though cost increases would be "highly significant."
"We have to," he said. "We have to find elegant ways to find that sweet spot between cost and security."
Black Hat is an annual gathering of hackers and security professionals in Las Vegas. Researchers hope that by showing off how to hack certain systems, the computer industry will take steps to make infrastructure and consumers safer. –CNN Tech
<><><>*<><><>
Alabama Defends Its Immigration Law
Officials criticize federal suit to stop state from enforcing its tough statute
Alabama officials Tuesday criticized a Justice Department lawsuit challenging the state’s tough new immigration law, arguing that the federal government’s failure to enforce its own immigration statutes had forced the states to do so.
Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard, a Republican, said the legislation — signed into law in June by Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley — will survive any court challenge. A federal judge in Phoenix has blocked implementation of an Arizona immigration law for more than a year after a similar challenge from the Obama administration in 2010.
“Make no mistake, this lawsuit will not undo Alabama’s immigration law. If the court finds problems with parts of the law, tweaks can be made,” Mr. Hubbard said. “But Alabama is not going to be a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. Alabama will have a strict immigration law and we will enforce it.”
Alabama State Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh said the federal government has “looked the other way” on the issue of immigration law enforcement, allowing Alabama’s illegal immigrant population to increase by nearly 400 percent over the past decade.
“With almost one out of every 10 Alabamians looking for a job, we need to make sure that legal Alabama residents are not being passed over for employment in lieu of those who are here illegally,” Mr. Marsh said.
The Justice Department lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, restated the Obama administration’s strongly held view that setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration law was a federal responsibility. The department argued that the Alabama law, known as H.B. 56, “undermines the federal governments careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives.”
The brief makes clear that, while the federal government values state assistance and cooperation, a state cannot set its own immigration policy, much less pass laws that conflict with federal enforcement of immigration laws.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the problems of immigration law enforcement cannot be addressed through a “patchwork” of state laws.
“To the extent we find state laws that interfere with the federal governments enforcement of immigration law, we are prepared to bring suit, as we did in Arizona,” he said.
A federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments in the suit Aug. 24.
Both supporters and critics of Alabama’s law have described it as the toughest in the nation. It requires public schools to determine the immigration status of students; orders police to detain those they suspect of being in the country illegally when stopped for any reason; and makes it a crime to knowingly transport or harbor someone illegally in the country.
The law, scheduled to go into effect Sept. 1, also imposes penalties on businesses that knowingly employ someone without legal resident status.
The Alabama law was authored by House GOP Majority Leader Micky Hammon, who told reporters after the lawsuit was filed that the Obama administration and federal officials have “turned a blind eye toward the immigration issue and refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty to enforce laws already on the books.
“Now, they want to block our efforts to secure Alabamas borders and prevent our jobs and taxpayer dollars from disappearing into the abyss that illegal immigration causes,” he said.
The Justice Department argued that the Alabama law could result in the “harassment and detention of foreign visitors, legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens who may not be able to readily prove their lawful status.” In addition, the department said, it will place “significant burdens on federal agencies, diverting their resources away from dangerous criminal aliens and other high-priority targets.”
The Washington-based Service Employees International Union, one of the nation’s largest labor unions, applauded the lawsuit and called on Congress to begin working on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. –The Washington Times
Officials criticize federal suit to stop state from enforcing its tough statute
Alabama officials Tuesday criticized a Justice Department lawsuit challenging the state’s tough new immigration law, arguing that the federal government’s failure to enforce its own immigration statutes had forced the states to do so.
Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard, a Republican, said the legislation — signed into law in June by Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley — will survive any court challenge. A federal judge in Phoenix has blocked implementation of an Arizona immigration law for more than a year after a similar challenge from the Obama administration in 2010.
“Make no mistake, this lawsuit will not undo Alabama’s immigration law. If the court finds problems with parts of the law, tweaks can be made,” Mr. Hubbard said. “But Alabama is not going to be a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. Alabama will have a strict immigration law and we will enforce it.”
Alabama State Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh said the federal government has “looked the other way” on the issue of immigration law enforcement, allowing Alabama’s illegal immigrant population to increase by nearly 400 percent over the past decade.
“With almost one out of every 10 Alabamians looking for a job, we need to make sure that legal Alabama residents are not being passed over for employment in lieu of those who are here illegally,” Mr. Marsh said.
The Justice Department lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, restated the Obama administration’s strongly held view that setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration law was a federal responsibility. The department argued that the Alabama law, known as H.B. 56, “undermines the federal governments careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives.”
The brief makes clear that, while the federal government values state assistance and cooperation, a state cannot set its own immigration policy, much less pass laws that conflict with federal enforcement of immigration laws.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the problems of immigration law enforcement cannot be addressed through a “patchwork” of state laws.
“To the extent we find state laws that interfere with the federal governments enforcement of immigration law, we are prepared to bring suit, as we did in Arizona,” he said.
A federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments in the suit Aug. 24.
Both supporters and critics of Alabama’s law have described it as the toughest in the nation. It requires public schools to determine the immigration status of students; orders police to detain those they suspect of being in the country illegally when stopped for any reason; and makes it a crime to knowingly transport or harbor someone illegally in the country.
The law, scheduled to go into effect Sept. 1, also imposes penalties on businesses that knowingly employ someone without legal resident status.
The Alabama law was authored by House GOP Majority Leader Micky Hammon, who told reporters after the lawsuit was filed that the Obama administration and federal officials have “turned a blind eye toward the immigration issue and refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty to enforce laws already on the books.
“Now, they want to block our efforts to secure Alabamas borders and prevent our jobs and taxpayer dollars from disappearing into the abyss that illegal immigration causes,” he said.
The Justice Department argued that the Alabama law could result in the “harassment and detention of foreign visitors, legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens who may not be able to readily prove their lawful status.” In addition, the department said, it will place “significant burdens on federal agencies, diverting their resources away from dangerous criminal aliens and other high-priority targets.”
The Washington-based Service Employees International Union, one of the nation’s largest labor unions, applauded the lawsuit and called on Congress to begin working on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. –The Washington Times
<><><>*<><><>
Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid Recipients, Including Families With Children Will Lose Under Debt Deal
August 2, 2011 - Today, President Obama signed into law a bill that raises the United States debt limit, but after the dust settled from all the political wrangling these past few months, it appears the plan permits cuts to some social programs that many families with children rely on today.
Under the measure, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other social services, including those for families and children, will not be part of the $917 billion in the initial round of cuts.
However, they may later on. In short, in exchange for authority to raise the debt limit by $2.1 trillion, $2.1 to $2.4 trillion dollars in deficit reductions must be made. Those reductions will come from cuts in domestic and defense spending programs.
Social services, including those that some families and children rely on, are not safe from being cut under a second phase of the new law. Under that phase, the measure creates a bi-partisan committee, being called a Super Committee by Policy wonks, that will be half Democrats and half Republicans.
This Super Committee will get together, come up with a deficit reduction plan and will recommend an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts, bringing the total deficit reduction to $2.4 trillion.
“The legislation puts no restriction on what the Super committee can do,” said Principal Deputy Director for the National Economic Council Jason Furman during a call with reporters yesterday. “They can undertake spending reform, spending reductions, comprehensive tax reform, can close individual tax loop holes, they will have no constraints on their actions and the goal for that room would be to come together and undertake balance reduction.”
The Commission can cut from domestic or military spending, but many are concerned that many of the cuts will be to entitlement programs like social security, Medicare and other programs that help low-income to middle class families.
Others say the cuts in social programs are needed because government entitlement programs have gotten out of control and have created a culture of dependency among Americans.
Still, some say it is not fair that the low and middle class will bear the brunt of the cuts while the richest Americans will not be forced to contribute to reducing the deficit through an increase in their taxes.
They are fearful the Supercommittee, which will be made up of 12 people selected by Congressional leadership, may make drastic Draconian cuts to social programs.
However, since the committee will be made up of half Democrats, it is unlikely those members will permit cuts to domestic social programs only.
If there is a stalemate and the Super Committee is unable to agree on a plan, the law authorizes automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion dollars to come from domestic and military spending.
This trigger exempts Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other low-income social programs from cuts.
The Committee will be formed quickly and will have until this Thanksgiving to come up with a proposal to send to Congress. Congress will then have until December 11, 2011 to vote and approve the Committee's plan.
A wide demographic of women, children and families rely on aid, especially now in this economy where the unemployment rate is above 9%. In times of economic boom, cuts may not hurt as much, but these days even a minor reduction in assistance could be detrimental to many families.
We will know by Thanksgiving what ends up on the chopping block and what the Super committee ultimately recommends.
The President and the Democrats in Congress were unable to get revenue increase in the form of a tax increase through this negotiated deal. However, the White House is counting on the fact that the Bush Tax Cuts – just extended last December- will expire on January 1, 2013. That is the same day, many of the cuts to spending will go into effect.
Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett said emphatically during the call that President Obama intends to veto any proposal that comes to his desk that would extend the Bush tax cuts further beyond January 1, 2013.
For a simplified version of the budget deal, check out my Jenebaspeaks blog piece, “The Final Approved US Debt Ceiling Deal Broken Down for the Average Man”, which explains the nuances of the deal in simple term that your third grader should be able to understand. –The Washington Times
August 2, 2011 - Today, President Obama signed into law a bill that raises the United States debt limit, but after the dust settled from all the political wrangling these past few months, it appears the plan permits cuts to some social programs that many families with children rely on today.
Under the measure, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other social services, including those for families and children, will not be part of the $917 billion in the initial round of cuts.
However, they may later on. In short, in exchange for authority to raise the debt limit by $2.1 trillion, $2.1 to $2.4 trillion dollars in deficit reductions must be made. Those reductions will come from cuts in domestic and defense spending programs.
Social services, including those that some families and children rely on, are not safe from being cut under a second phase of the new law. Under that phase, the measure creates a bi-partisan committee, being called a Super Committee by Policy wonks, that will be half Democrats and half Republicans.
This Super Committee will get together, come up with a deficit reduction plan and will recommend an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts, bringing the total deficit reduction to $2.4 trillion.
“The legislation puts no restriction on what the Super committee can do,” said Principal Deputy Director for the National Economic Council Jason Furman during a call with reporters yesterday. “They can undertake spending reform, spending reductions, comprehensive tax reform, can close individual tax loop holes, they will have no constraints on their actions and the goal for that room would be to come together and undertake balance reduction.”
The Commission can cut from domestic or military spending, but many are concerned that many of the cuts will be to entitlement programs like social security, Medicare and other programs that help low-income to middle class families.
Others say the cuts in social programs are needed because government entitlement programs have gotten out of control and have created a culture of dependency among Americans.
Still, some say it is not fair that the low and middle class will bear the brunt of the cuts while the richest Americans will not be forced to contribute to reducing the deficit through an increase in their taxes.
They are fearful the Supercommittee, which will be made up of 12 people selected by Congressional leadership, may make drastic Draconian cuts to social programs.
However, since the committee will be made up of half Democrats, it is unlikely those members will permit cuts to domestic social programs only.
If there is a stalemate and the Super Committee is unable to agree on a plan, the law authorizes automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion dollars to come from domestic and military spending.
This trigger exempts Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other low-income social programs from cuts.
The Committee will be formed quickly and will have until this Thanksgiving to come up with a proposal to send to Congress. Congress will then have until December 11, 2011 to vote and approve the Committee's plan.
A wide demographic of women, children and families rely on aid, especially now in this economy where the unemployment rate is above 9%. In times of economic boom, cuts may not hurt as much, but these days even a minor reduction in assistance could be detrimental to many families.
We will know by Thanksgiving what ends up on the chopping block and what the Super committee ultimately recommends.
The President and the Democrats in Congress were unable to get revenue increase in the form of a tax increase through this negotiated deal. However, the White House is counting on the fact that the Bush Tax Cuts – just extended last December- will expire on January 1, 2013. That is the same day, many of the cuts to spending will go into effect.
Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett said emphatically during the call that President Obama intends to veto any proposal that comes to his desk that would extend the Bush tax cuts further beyond January 1, 2013.
For a simplified version of the budget deal, check out my Jenebaspeaks blog piece, “The Final Approved US Debt Ceiling Deal Broken Down for the Average Man”, which explains the nuances of the deal in simple term that your third grader should be able to understand. –The Washington Times
No comments:
Post a Comment