<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2725133</link>
		<description>Comments by svcghost</description>
<item>
<title>Naked Security : Man who tricked women into taking hacked webcams into shower is jailed</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/25/jail-hacked-webcams-shower#IDComment408587122</link>
<description>Thanks Graham. That&amp;#039;s right, I&amp;#039;m pretty sure I remember reading that the webcam cannot be activated without the green light turning on as it is designed to do so in hardware, not software. Don&amp;#039;t quote me on that though. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/25/jail-hacked-webcams-shower#IDComment408587122</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : Windows malware found in iOS App Store. Say what?!</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/25/windows-malware-found-in-ios-app-store-say-what/#IDComment408584242</link>
<description>How could this have happened on accident? Is it possible the malware on the developer&amp;#039;s computer was targeted at App Creation programs? Or was it just by chance that these files attached to whatever files related to the app coding process? </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:05:29 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/25/windows-malware-found-in-ios-app-store-say-what/#IDComment408584242</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : Man who tricked women into taking hacked webcams into shower is jailed</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/25/jail-hacked-webcams-shower#IDComment408582308</link>
<description>How did they end up catching this guy? </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/07/25/jail-hacked-webcams-shower#IDComment408582308</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : Fraudsters spam out scams via SMS text messages</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/05/08/spam-scams-sms#IDComment356492357</link>
<description>ah the classic .com subdomain </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 May 2012 15:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/05/08/spam-scams-sms#IDComment356492357</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : VMware confirms hackers stole source code</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/04/26/vmware-confirms-hackers-stole-source-code#IDComment348273190</link>
<description>What kind of file is this? Do we know? </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:05:38 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/04/26/vmware-confirms-hackers-stole-source-code#IDComment348273190</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : The LulzSec boat sails away. Was it worth the ride? Should you care?</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/27/the-lulzsec-boat-was-it-worth-the-ride/#IDComment167689884</link>
<description>All that is gone is the constant updating on the LulzSec twitter account. There are still other &amp;quot;international&amp;quot; LulzSec groups DDoSing and trying to deface sites / steal information (e.g. LulzSecITALITY). Those working with the old LulzSec account on twitter are now helping Anonymous (e.g. AnonymousIRC feed on twitter). Nothing has changed. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/27/the-lulzsec-boat-was-it-worth-the-ride/#IDComment167689884</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : LulzSec hacks Arizona police over immigration issues</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/24/lulzsec-hacks-arizona-police-over-immigration-issues/#IDComment166176763</link>
<description>No doubt it&amp;#039;s gone from lulz to terrorism here. Can anyone answer my question here: why is there Twitter still up? It is a huge distribution and gathering tool for them making them all more powerful.  Perhaps Twitter is working with law enforcement to take them down? Or are they just stupid? </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:06:41 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/24/lulzsec-hacks-arizona-police-over-immigration-issues/#IDComment166176763</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : Ryan Cleary charged with LulzSec DDoS attack on SOCA and other websites</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/22/ryan-cleary-charged-with-lulzsec-ddos-attack-on-soca/#IDComment165894293</link>
<description>Nice catch. How&#039;d they do it? I&#039;d like to know if he really is affiliated with LulzSec.</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:03:04 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/22/ryan-cleary-charged-with-lulzsec-ddos-attack-on-soca/#IDComment165894293</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : LulzSec? Hackers? Here&#039;s a real challenge...</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/16/lulzsec-hackers-heres-a-real-challenge/#IDComment163197613</link>
<description>True about their revelations about poorly constructed databases and server-side code, but you can&amp;#039;t say the same about their DDoSing. Nobody likes DDoS, it is almost always at first unpreventable. Given the number of active zombies in a botnet, any website can go down. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/16/lulzsec-hackers-heres-a-real-challenge/#IDComment163197613</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : World Cup DDoS blackmailer sentenced to jail</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/16/world-cup-ddos-blackmailer-sentenced-to-jail/#IDComment163196196</link>
<description>Let this be a lesson to you LulzSec </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:13:47 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/16/world-cup-ddos-blackmailer-sentenced-to-jail/#IDComment163196196</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : CIA website brought down by DDoS attack, LulzSec hackers claim responsibility</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/15/cia-website-down-hackers-lulzsec/#IDComment163041474</link>
<description>Very true. That being said, CIA site is back up. DDoS&amp;#039;s also can&amp;#039;t go on forever.</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/15/cia-website-down-hackers-lulzsec/#IDComment163041474</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : CIA website brought down by DDoS attack, LulzSec hackers claim responsibility</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/15/cia-website-down-hackers-lulzsec/#IDComment163017818</link>
<description>They&amp;#039;re hiding behind zombie computers in their botnet. So how do they determine who is controlling them? I wouldn&amp;#039;t be surprised if they are using a zombie to control another zombie. No doubt all their actions are being made like this (even Twitter updates). </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:43:33 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/15/cia-website-down-hackers-lulzsec/#IDComment163017818</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : CIA website brought down by DDoS attack, LulzSec hackers claim responsibility</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/15/cia-website-down-hackers-lulzsec/#IDComment163016981</link>
<description>DDoS sucks. It&amp;#039;s way too easy to achieve. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/15/cia-website-down-hackers-lulzsec/#IDComment163016981</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : Poll: Do you find LulzSec&#039;s activities amusing?</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/15/poll-do-you-find-lulzsecs-activities-amusing/#IDComment162982973</link>
<description>Okay so they caused cia.gov to be hung up.. just how much DDoS to a web server until the CIA / FBI gets pissed off and does something about it? This stuff happens every day but &amp;quot;Lulzsec&amp;quot; appears to be the only group that boasts about it like morons. 5-20 years jail time worth it? </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:54:50 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/15/poll-do-you-find-lulzsecs-activities-amusing/#IDComment162982973</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : Poll: Do you find LulzSec&#039;s activities amusing?</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/15/poll-do-you-find-lulzsecs-activities-amusing/#IDComment162942668</link>
<description>I&amp;#039;m not sure I understand. How has nothing happened to them yet?  </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/15/poll-do-you-find-lulzsecs-activities-amusing/#IDComment162942668</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : Firefox 4.0 is launched</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/03/23/firefox-4-0-is-launched#IDComment137292766</link>
<description>I think that leads us all to question your choice in websites. Of course FF4 can&amp;#039;t detect all sites with malware on them. That&amp;#039;s not possible. And your AV was disabled? Lol.  It definitely does show improved speed though, you&amp;#039;re right about that. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:50:45 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/03/23/firefox-4-0-is-launched#IDComment137292766</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : Firefox 4.0 is launched</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/03/23/firefox-4-0-is-launched#IDComment137160639</link>
<description>Thanks for the update. Just updated to FF4. I like it. :) </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/03/23/firefox-4-0-is-launched#IDComment137160639</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : What&#039;s in a domain name?</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/03/19/whats-in-a-domain-name/#IDComment136288851</link>
<description>True, but you can&amp;#039;t say 100% of users would use the same method to update stuff. Being a security advocate, you must get used to thinking as a general user (maybe they&amp;#039;ll use the automatic updater, maybe they&amp;#039;ll try to look for the update online, etc.). </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:56:46 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/03/19/whats-in-a-domain-name/#IDComment136288851</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : Security firm RSA warns that its servers have been hacked</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/03/18/security-firm-rsa-warns-that-its-servers-have-been-hacked/#IDComment136155812</link>
<description>Nah. The system isn&amp;#039;t run by RSA. The authentication method is actually quite common. It&amp;#039;s called a security token: &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_token&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_token&lt;/a&gt; </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Mar 2011 02:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/03/18/security-firm-rsa-warns-that-its-servers-have-been-hacked/#IDComment136155812</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Naked Security : Security firm RSA warns that its servers have been hacked</title>
<link>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/03/18/security-firm-rsa-warns-that-its-servers-have-been-hacked/#IDComment135985951</link>
<description>And that&amp;#039;s not even taking into consideration the dangers of theft of biometric authentication (cutting off hands, ripping out eyeballs - yes this HAS happened). </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2011 05:36:39 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/03/18/security-firm-rsa-warns-that-its-servers-have-been-hacked/#IDComment135985951</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>