iPad Security Hole Exposed

Today the New York Times released an blog that details how 114,000 3G iPad owners personal information was hacked. According to the blog, the list contains people from "military personnel, staff members in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and people at the Justice Department, NASA and the Department of Homeland Security." Also several top executives from fortune 500 companies were apart of the list. The group called Goatse Security, discovered the exploit when they were on the AT&T website and found that when you entered in an iPad's number you could get the owner's email address. From there they were able to develop a script that would guess the algorithm AT&T used to come up with the ID numbers.

Should AT&T be held accountable for this exploit? Should your email address be considered private? I think AT&T should have done their due diligence when designing their website and realized that someone could easily have come up with a way to guess customer's ID numbers. As a result, I think AT&T needs to make a formal apology to their customers and remove that feature from their website. However, from the list of users provided in the blog it appears most user's included their work email addresses which theoretically might be searchable. I do not think the publication of these email addresses is too big of a deal.


Reference: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/att-exposes-e-mail-addresses-of-114000-ipad-owners/?emc=eta1/

Why No One Should Use A Windows Machine

For many years all I ever knew about was Microsoft Windows. My first desktop was a Windows 3.0 machine. I thought it was the greatest operating system ever. As the years went by I upgraded to Windows 95 then ME and finally to Windows XP. However it was not until 2006 that I discovered the wonders of a MAC. Gone were the days of Super Tuesday where Windows would release 20 different security patches because someone found another vulnerability. The OS X platform is not perfect and can be hacked just like a windows machine, however the shear number of updates every week was a nightmare. Every Windows system needs to have an anti-virus installed plus the firewall enabled and it a nightmare to manage. It comes as little surprise to me that this week Google announced it would be phasing out Microsoft Windows use because of new security concerns associated with Microsoft Explorer. Google will now start implement MAC OS and Linux systems because their operations in China were hacked. According to Google anyone who wants a windows machine needs to get approval from the CIO. Do you think Microsoft is being singled out? Is Google simply conducting a PR campaign to distance themselves from Microsoft? I think Google is just fed up with Windows and all of the problems associated with them.

Over the past decade Microsoft’s dominance in the PC world has started to slide considerably. Many security events have forced users and companies to adopt what they perceive as more secure operating systems. However, given the number of windows machines in the marketplace it could be said that their systems are under a more critical eye than others. If Apple had as many or machines in the market would their operating systems hold up better? In my opinion I think so, because their software architecture is more sound. Only time will tell if Microsoft will be able to further secure their operating system or if another operating system will emerge and conquer everyone out there including Apple. I personally think Apple’s operating system will be the one emerge as the industry leader within the next ten years.


References:
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/black-hat-hacker-reveals-your-macs-not-safe-you-think
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10793367

Facebook Simplifies Its Privacy Controls

Today Facebook decided to simplify their privacy controls after several weeks of push back from users, they have decided to modify their privacy controls. Some of the new controls include:

• Restricting personal information so it can only be visible by friends, friends of friends, or everyone on the internet
• Changing its directory structure so only minimal information comes out when someone searches for other people
• Easier controls to turn on/off Facebook’s controversial ‘instant personalization’ feature

According to Facebook they implemented their original privacy controls in order to enhance the user's experience and provide them with the most accurate advertising possible. However, there is a fine line between a personalized experience and privacy. Was Facebook truly acting in their user's best interest or were they just making it easier for their competitors to mine their data? Many companies have started to turn to Facebook in order to see what precedence they set; because as the article states, "Facebook is a very large canary in the coal mine.”

I do not think Facebook acted in bad faith when they enabled their original privacy policies. They are trying to reshape the way social media conducts itself and what/how we deal with 'personal' information. There is nothing inherently 'dangerous' about someone joining a social networking site, because the user controls how much information they are willing to share with the rest of the world. If you do not want everyone to know that you are married with three kids and their names are John, Tom, and Sam; then don't publish this information. Also make sure that you advise your friends that would do not want any personal information about you to be shared online. Furthermore, if you do not like Facebook's privacy policy then leave Facebook and go to MySpace, LinkedIn, or another social site that suits your needs.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/technology/27facebook.html?ref=business

Big Pharma Fined for Over Marketing

Last month AstraZeneca was fined $520 million dollars for illegally marketing its schizophrenia drug, Seroquel. According to the federal investigation, AstraZeneca admitted to aggressive marketing practices that have expanded the new market of antipsychotic drugs for children and the elderly. Unfortunately, AstraZeneca is not the first company to be caught with unethical marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry but the fourth. The largest fine lobbied by the United States against a pharmaceutical company was in 2009 against Pfizer. Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion dollars in September 2009 for the off-labeling of the painkiller Bextra. The fine also covered $301 million for the illegal labeling of Geodon, an antipsychotic drug.

In the United States the antipsychotic drug industry is now the largest market segment, passing cholesterol-lowering drugs; this industry accounts for $14.6 billion of the nation's $300 billion drug industry.

In my opinion this push for antipsychotic drugs only solidifies the United States overmedication of children. Many children who come from broken homes or are labeled as 'problematic' need to be counseled instead of being forced to take these medications because it is the proverbial 'quick fix'. Unfortunately, if we do not regulate pharmaceutical companies everyone in the United States will be on some form of anti-psychotic medication for any old reason. These companies are tapping into our collective desires to exploit our fears. As Norman Bates once said, "We all go a little crazy sometimes", but that doesn't mean we have to just pop some pills and forget about our problems.

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27drug.html