Internet Kill Switch to Be Armed by DHS on Monday

[BrightAnarchist]

Damn...

"You know the internet kill switch given to Obama at the start of his Presidency, this is part of that infrastructure. On Monday they are testing it, or rather I should write "arming" it."

http://www.iberianet.com/forum/false-flag-alert---important---internet-kill/article_9033dfe2-c986-11e1-98f7-001a4bcf887a.html

[1713944298]

1713944298

[1713944298]

1713944298

[1713944298]

1713944298

[1713944298]

1713944298

[myrkul]

Time to switch to Tor?

[Garr255]

Time to switch to Tor?

No. Time to lay down some wire.

[myrkul]

Time to switch to Tor?

No. Time to lay down some wire.

Time to add routing to piratebox

Scrapped an entire post, because it said essentially this.

[Garr255]

Time to switch to Tor?

No. Time to lay down some wire.

Time to add routing to piratebox

On it! (not really)

I would say, "Time to start investing in and developing long range wireless communications hard and software." but wireless jamming is far too easy.

This takes us back to

Time to lay down some wire.

or "Time to find a new method of wireless communication."

Smoke signals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_telegraphy

[Jutarul]

I may give away a business idea here but what about a "phone" service as transport layer for the bitcoin protocol? Does that even make sense (because of bandwidth limitations).
I don't know how intimately internet and phone services are connected, but I guess this would bypass a kill switch for the internet.

[myrkul]

I would say, "Time to start investing in and developing long range wireless communications hard and software." but wireless jamming is far too easy.

They would have to jam every wifi router everywhere. Not what you would call a popular move.

[paraipan]

Time to switch to Tor?

No. Time to lay down some wire.

Time to add routing to piratebox

No need too, we already have out of the box solutions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.A.T.M.A.N.

https://launchpad.net/robin

http://wirelessmeshnetworksblog.blogspot.com.es/2010/04/r.html

http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=108212&sid=947dc4ba2daee968b27a34d1da7ce44d

Google search

[BrightAnarchist]

I think a fully alternative decentralized internet is needed in the long run. Tor and freenet are great, but they're built on existing physical infrastructure.

A p2p wireless meshnet is what we really need.

[finkleshnorts]

a couple of brief googlings rewarded me no recent articles on the subject.

I am aware, however, of a virus that is so widespread that when the govt caught the operator, the servers were subsequently maintained by the government temporarily. I am also aware that the govt will issue a timeline on the maintenance of these computers.

If this article is refering to the above scenario, it sounds to me like a conspiracy theory. Granted, occasionally those are needed.

[myrkul]

I am aware, however, of a virus that is so widespread that when the govt caught the operator, the servers are maintained by the government temporarily. I am also aware that the govt will issue a timeline on the maintenance of these computers.

Even without the conspiracy, the information that there is an openly government-maintained botnet should be worrisome.

[finkleshnorts]

I am aware, however, of a virus that is so widespread that when the govt caught the operator, the servers are maintained by the government temporarily. I am also aware that the govt will issue a timeline on the maintenance of these computers.

Even without the conspiracy, the information that there is an openly government-maintained botnet should be worrisome.

Good point.

[Bitcoin Oz]

We need our own communication satellites. I would send one up and sell small parts of the surface and call it a sovereign nation.

[Jutarul]

I think a fully alternative decentralized internet is needed in the long run. Tor and freenet are great, but they're built on existing physical infrastructure.

A p2p wireless meshnet is what we really need.

How do you propose to setup a global meshnet? Because that's what you want, right? Or at least the mesh should overlap with uncontrolled landlines which connect to the rest of the internet...

[Clipse]

The Internet is bigger than the USA, perhaps you should note that.

This seems on face value to affect US citizens similar to that of the great Chinese Firewall.

One last time, the USA isnt the INTERNET.

[myrkul]

I think a fully alternative decentralized internet is needed in the long run. Tor and freenet are great, but they're built on existing physical infrastructure.

A p2p wireless meshnet is what we really need.

How do you propose to setup a global meshnet? Because that's what you want, right? Or at least the mesh should overlap with uncontrolled landlines which connect to the rest of the internet...

Mesh cells in northern New Hampshire and Maine, as well as Seattle, can connect to corresponding cells in Canada. Likewise at the Mexico border. And this works for pretty much any border, since border cities are extremely common.

[TECSHARE]

The Internet is bigger than the USA, perhaps you should note that.

This seems on face value to affect US citizens similar to that of the great Chinese Firewall.

One last time, the USA isnt the INTERNET.

Only, it kinda is. The US maintains most of the popular services most web users depend on most. A lot of people still have the USA is the greatest nation syndrome, but it doesn't change the fact that this will effect everyone globally.

[Clipse]

The Internet is bigger than the USA, perhaps you should note that.

This seems on face value to affect US citizens similar to that of the great Chinese Firewall.

One last time, the USA isnt the INTERNET.

Only, it kinda is. The US maintains most of the popular services most web users depend on most. A lot of people still have the USA is the greatest nation syndrome, but it doesn't change the fact that this will effect everyone globally.

Im sure it will affect people globally but not as the topic suggest ie. internet kill switch.

Most services related to US hosted companies have seperate hosts for their international clients, google/microsoft/putbignamehere

[Jutarul]

I think a fully alternative decentralized internet is needed in the long run. Tor and freenet are great, but they're built on existing physical infrastructure.

A p2p wireless meshnet is what we really need.

How do you propose to setup a global meshnet? Because that's what you want, right? Or at least the mesh should overlap with uncontrolled landlines which connect to the rest of the internet...

Mesh cells in northern New Hampshire and Maine, as well as Seattle, can connect to corresponding cells in Canada. Likewise at the Mexico border. And this works for pretty much any border, since border cities are extremely common.

good. But I suspect if they are serious about a kill switch they'd also consider jamming any meshes in those places...

[myrkul]

good. But I suspect if they are serious about a kill switch they'd also consider jamming any meshes in those places...

Well, when Egypt tried the kill-switch a while back, there were people providing wired access (ie international dial-up) across borders.

[Clipse]

What exactly does the US try to accomplish in case of killing the internet at will ?

Doesnt the US allready suffer from bad enough economy that they try to accelerate it now by killing all internet related businesses ?

[Red Emerald]

I don't think this author knows what he is talking about.

A virus went around awhile ago that routed traffic through a malicious DNS.  The US govt replaced the DNS server with their own.  They recently turned this server off.  I don't understand why people think this is a conspiracy or some sort of internet kill switch. There is no firewall or any thing like it.  They simply turned some DNS servers off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alureon
http://www.dcwg.org/

[notme]

It's easier to be scared than informed.

[finkleshnorts]

I don't think this author knows what he is talking about.

A virus went around awhile ago that routed traffic through a malicious DNS.  The US govt replaced the DNS server with their own.  They recently turned this server off.  I don't understand why people think this is a conspiracy or some sort of internet kill switch...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alureon
http://www.dcwg.org/

That's what it was.

[Jutarul]

good. But I suspect if they are serious about a kill switch they'd also consider jamming any meshes in those places...

Well, when Egypt tried the kill-switch a while back, there were people providing wired access (ie international dial-up) across borders.

True. there will always be opportunities to create holes and get information in and out. But nothing on the scale to support a persistent network like bitcoin.

[Clipse]

good. But I suspect if they are serious about a kill switch they'd also consider jamming any meshes in those places...

Well, when Egypt tried the kill-switch a while back, there were people providing wired access (ie international dial-up) across borders.

True. there will always be opportunities to create holes and get information in and out. But nothing on the scale to support a persistent network like bitcoin.

You just used the word "nothing" in the same sentence as "bitcoin".

[sadpandatech]

I don't think this author knows what he is talking about.

A virus went around awhile ago that routed traffic through a malicious DNS.  The US govt replaced the DNS server with their own.  They recently turned this server off.  I don't understand why people think this is a conspiracy or some sort of internet kill switch...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alureon
http://www.dcwg.org/

That's what it was.

+20

Still, not a bad opportunity to talk about communication alternatives.

[myrkul]

Still, not a bad opportunity to talk about communication alternatives.

Indeed.

[2112]

Still, not a bad opportunity to talk about communication alternatives.

Moon bounce is the word. Let them shoot the Moon down to disable the radio and laser links!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=10241.msg539358#msg539358
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46656.msg555899#msg555899
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53371.msg636246#msg636246

Support the free trade on Earth by banking on the Moon!

[myrkul]

Support the free trade on Earth by banking on the Moon!

Don't you mean banking off the moon? 

[sadpandatech]

http://www.aes-intellinet.com/

there are many different methods. I like the moon idea. Sadly I am not familair enough with how succeptable UHF and VHF bands are to jamming.

a redundant mesh system with multiple channels and or freq is a must imho.

Where are all the radioheads at around here?


edit; that beings something to mind. All those fancy smart meters that are bieng installed, and run on very, very low power. Those could be reconfigured to use for custom mesh networks as well...

[2112]

a redundant mesh system with multiple channels and or freq is a must imho.

I don't get the fixation on mesh systems here on this forum. Bitcoin is a broadcast system! It now uses peer to peer mesh to emulate a global broadcast because the currently publicly available routing infrastructure doesn't support multicast. So the peer to peer is more of a workaround.

By "doesn't support multicast" I mean "openly". Most of the current ISPs are in conflict of interest because they support multicast internally to provide TV over IP; so they are motivated to hush it down and disable at the customer-premises level.

[sadpandatech]

my fixation on mesh is probably my lack of knowledge on what the negatives are. And I'm not refering to Bitcoin exclusivly but to all communications.

When I think of mesh, I imagine friendly nodes that not only send and receive data for a particular node but also rebroadcast data for any friendly nodes in range. And, I'm thinking of systems that could function without the coprorate or government owned infrasructures in place.

[novusordo]

https://projectmeshnet.org/, http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan, and https://raw.github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/master/rfcs/Whitepaper.md may be of interest to you good fellows.

[2112]

my fixation on mesh is probably my lack of knowledge on what the negatives are. And I'm not refering to Bitcoin exclusivly but to all communications.

Well, I'm not trying to blame you personally, or anyone else here.

The main drawback of various mesh technologies is completely nontechnical. Currently it became fashionable to rephrase all old multi-level marketing blurbage using the new terminology of mesh communication. It is a new way to fleece new suckers.

[sadpandatech]

@OP before I forget. The proported false flag virus, is said to be the Stuxnet. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/confirmed-us-israel-created-stuxnet-lost-control-of-it/

@2112  I gotcha, m8

@novusordo  Thanks for the links. Reading through some of that whitepaper. Interesting proposal he has, though I'm not sure what exactly he is suggesting. It reads almost like onion routing but missing soemthing.. Someone that knows their head from their ass in this area would have to take a peek. He has some really nice links in there as well. I notice he points out Bitcoin because of some of its features. namely, peer-to-peer networking, digital signatures and cryptographic proof.

[Red Emerald]

@OP before I forget. The proported false flag virus, is said to be the Stuxnet. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/confirmed-us-israel-created-stuxnet-lost-control-of-it/

Well if this it really was stuxnet then I should revise my previous post.

A virus went around awhile ago that routed traffic through a US Govt DNS.  They recently turned this server off. It isn't really a conspiracy, more of a cyberweapon gone awry.  There is no firewall or any thing like that.  They simply turned some DNS servers off.

I don't think this DNS changer is stuxnet though.

[sadpandatech]

 

@OP before I forget. The proported false flag virus, is said to be the Stuxnet. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/confirmed-us-israel-created-stuxnet-lost-control-of-it/

Well if this it really was stuxnet then I should revise my previous post.

A virus went around awhile ago that routed traffic through a US Govt DNS.  They recently turned this server off. It isn't really a conspiracy, more of a cyberweapon gone awry.  There is no firewall or any thing like that.  They simply turned some DNS servers off.

I don't think this DNS changer is stuxnet though.

aye, we're definitely talking about two different incidences. I'm going to reply as I orginally would have before I gave this some more thought.

  The DNS Changer Virus (actually a few different viruses, TDSS, TidServ, and a few other names) was detected over a year ago and at its peak was estimated to infect roughly 3 million PCs globally. The group that wrote them was busted back in Nov of 2011. Since then, the FBI took down the rogue DNS servers and a court order was given to ISC to replace them with their own as it was more effective than trying to reach every victem (which is a down right pain in the ass). From a technical aspect this is not as complicated as it would sound. Since the FBI had bustd the group they had access to all information relevant to the virus and its network. To fix it the ICS simply took over ownership of the DNS IP addresses that any infected computers would be pointed to. So instead of an infeced computer going to a spam or adware site(which was about all this thing was reported to be doing), they would instead continue on to the correct IP address seemlessly.

 Between then and now many antivirus makers had added detection of dns changing variants. The concern came recently when the court order to have ICS operate the band-aid DNS servers expired. At that point it was estimatd roughly 300k PCs globally were still infected. A very small number in comparison to the number expected to be infected with much nastier things. When the band-aid servers were taken down on the 9th a very small number of computer users would then find that they were not able to access any websites. Odds are pretty high that these last computers would likely be infected with all sorts of crap anyhows.(my humble opinion)

  Stuxnet on the other hand, that's a whole other monster. What was orginally reported as some 'unknown' origin, nasty 'worm' that was attempting to sabotage very specific hardware in Iran was later found to be of government origin. The consiracy part comes into play in that the media first started reporting on it in a light that would make an Internt Kill Switch be a viable method for the government (then thought to not be involved) to stop such a threat. And the story continues with it, in the now known Flame trojan....

-=After Reading=-
  After reading more on the DNS changer, I can see where the suspicion comes from. It would appear on the surface that the FBI could have been testing its capabilities in directing internet traffic to where ever it wants. I have a hard time with that because they would not need to risk putting the virus out there. Where it can be known and machines can be secured against it. They could already do that without using some bogus shell company to bust and then later having another agency setup the DNS servers that the FBI would have to have had already in place if the conspiracy was true. We could probably debate more on the topic, but that seems the most obvious reason to me.

[myrkul]

Three things happened last night, at nearly the same time... the board went down, the price went nuts, and a FUD article on SR went up on Gawker.

So, coincidence, or conspiracy?

[neptop]

Let me throw something in too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsukuku

[ribuck]

I would say, "Time to start investing in and developing long range wireless communications hard and software." but wireless jamming is far too easy.

Spread-spectrum wireless communication is very hard to jam.

[sadpandatech]

I would say, "Time to start investing in and developing long range wireless communications hard and software." but wireless jamming is far too easy.

Spread-spectrum wireless communication is very hard to jam.

most definitely agree. And this white paper linked to from your aritcle, neptop is a very good read.

Let me throw something in too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsukuku

Scalable Mesh Networks and the Address Space Balancing problem

{tinfoil zone ahead}
Most certainly, it will take a good mixture of technologies to harden against the new "Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions," the order revokes Executive Order 12472, which was issued in April 1984 and defined the National Communication System (NCS).
 Homeland Security will "satisfy priority requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources..."

The issue it not that it is assumed this orer is directly stating that to 'secure' and 'harden' NCS communications will require 'temporary' removal of civilian capabilities. It's that it will require that in order to fulfill its goals. My view on it is not so much that the government has it out for us. It is that in 'protecting' us they will find need to restrict us unduely and the only available government 'propaganda' in such a situation will not be enough to satisfy our human desire to also grant our own security.

cheers

[unclemantis]

I would say, "Time to start investing in and developing long range wireless communications hard and software." but wireless jamming is far too easy.

Spread-spectrum wireless communication is very hard to jam.

most definitely agree. And this white paper linked to from your aritcle, neptop is a very good read.

Let me throw something in too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsukuku

Scalable Mesh Networks and the Address Space Balancing problem

{tinfoil zone ahead}
Most certainly, it will take a good mixture of technologies to harden against the new "Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions," the order revokes Executive Order 12472, which was issued in April 1984 and defined the National Communication System (NCS).
 Homeland Security will "satisfy priority requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources..."

The issue it not that it is assumed this orer is directly stating that to 'secure' and 'harden' NCS communications will require 'temporary' removal of civilian capabilities. It's that it will require that in order to fulfill its goals. My view on it is not so much that the government has it out for us. It is that in 'protecting' us they will find need to restrict us unduely and the only available government 'propaganda' in such a situation will not be enough to satisfy our human desire to also grant our own security.

cheers

http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox