Security firm RSA took millions from NSA: report

What's an encryption backdoor cost? When you're the NSA, apparently the fee is $10 million.

Intentional flaws created by the National Security Agency in RSA's encryption tokens were discovered in September, thanks to documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It has now been revealed that RSA was paid $10 million by the NSA to implement those backdoors, according to a new report in Reuters.

Two people familiar with RSA's BSafe software told Reuters that the company had received the money in exchange for making the NSA's cryptographic formula as the default for encrypted key generation in BSafe.

"Now we know that RSA was bribed," said security expert Bruce Schneier, who has been involved in the Snowden document analysis. "I sure as hell wouldn't trust them. And then they made the statement that they put customer security first," he said.

RSA, now owned by computer storage firm EMC Corp, has a long history of entanglement with the government. In the 1990s, the company was instrumental in stopping a government plan to include a chip in computers that would've allowed the government to spy on people.

It has also had its algorithms hacked before, as has RSA-connected VeriSign.

The new revelation is important, Schneier said, because it confirms more suspected tactics that the NSA employs.

"You think they only bribed one company in the history of their operations? What's at play here is that we don't know who's involved," he said.

Other companies that build widely-used encryption apparatus include Symantec, McAfee, and Microsoft. "You have no idea who else was bribed, so you don't know who else you can trust," Schneier said.

In a statement issued Sunday, RSA said it "categorically" denied recent reports.

"We have worked with the NSA, both as a vendor and an active member of the security community. We have never kept this relationship a secret and in fact have openly publicized it," the company said in a statement. "Our explicit goal has always been to strengthen commercial and government security."

The statement goes on to rebut a number of claims, including that the company knowingly introduced a flawed numbers generator into its encryption libraries.

via CNet

Why You Should Care About the Death of Net Neutrality

5 Cryptocurrencies that Could Rival Bitcoin

2013 has been quite the year for Bitcoin. We have seen exponential growth in Bitcoin’s exchange rate and extensive coverage in the media. Another phenomenon we have witnessed this year is the proliferation of alternative cryptocurrencies, five of which we’ve provided below. What all of these cryptocurrencies have in common is that they rely on a decentralized network to keep track of transactions, and their scarcity and security is based on cryptography.

Note: All figures from coinmarketcap.com

Litecoin

Price: $25.26
Market Capitalization: $600 million

Of all the competing cryptocurrencies, Litecoin is the most similar to Bitcoin. It has been thought of as silver to Bitcoin’s gold, or MasterCard to Bitcoin’s Visa. It has also managed to gain the second-highest market capitalization next to Bitcoin. One key difference includes a different hashing algorithm designed so that mining Litecoins won’t result in a similar hardware arms race to the one Bitcoin is currently involved in. Litecoin mining these days involves rigs of video cards, or GPUs, similar to how Bitcoin mining was a few years ago, until its ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits) were designed from the ground up to mine Bitcoins. Litecoins also feature faster confirmation times due to shorter and faster block rewards. Litecoin is scheduled to produce 84 million Litecoins, four times as much as Bitcoin’s 21 million.

Peercoin

Price: $6.26
Market Capitalization: $131 million

Peercoin’s distinguishing feature is that it uses a method called proof of stake as part of its mining, or as Peercoiners often like to say, “minting.” Proof-of-stake rewards minters for the Peercoins they hold over time. This is measured in “coin days,” one coin day being equivalent to holding one coin for one day, similar to how a kilowatt hour is defined as using a kilowatt over the course of one hour. So the more coins you hold over a longer time, the more Peercoins you receive through minting. This is in contrast to most cryptocurrencies’ proof-of-work mining, which rewards miners based on how much computing power they contribute to the keeping track of transactions. Peercoin also uses proof-of-work mining in conjunction with proof-of-work minting, although Peercoin is programmed to eventually rely only on proof-of-work mining. The maximum limit for the number of Peercoins is 2 billion, which is so much higher than Bitcoin’s 21 million that it encourages inflationary pressure, which counterbalances the deflationary pressure caused by everyone trying to mint Peercoins by holding onto them.

NXT

Price: 4.1 cents
Market Capitalization: $40 million

Nxt is most similar to Peercoin in that is utilizes proof of stake to generate more coins, but unlike Peercoin, it uses proof of stake exclusively. The only way to get more Nxt coins is to hold them or exchange them in a process dubbed “forging,” in contrast to Bitcoin mining and Peercoin minting. This has a “green” appeal in that it requires no massive, power-consuming hardware rigs, just a small program that will run on pretty much any modern computer. This also has the practical appeal of not requiring users to invest in the extra hardware and electricity. Instead, you merely exchange something for your initial Nxt coins. Nxt’s developers also pride themselves on having written the Nxt code from scratch, while most alternative cryptocurrencies were developed from using Bitcoin’s code as a basis.

Namecoin

Price: $6.73
Market Capitalization: $52 million

Namecoin is similar to other cryptocurrencies, but with the additional feature of being a way to register domain names. Instead of .com or .net, Namecoin domain names have the .bit extension. Any method of registering and controlling a domain name is called a domain name system, or DNS. The current method of domain name registration is regulated by a nonprofit organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. Because ICANN is a centralized organization, it ultimately has power over domain names and can shut down websites for political or other reasons. But because Namecoin is a decentralized network, no one is in control of it. Just like Bitcoin is a decentralized network that takes the power away from banks and other financial institutions, Namecoin is a decentralized network that takes the power away from ICANN or any other centralized DNS organization. Namecoin is also traded for its own sake, just like Bitcoin. It’s just like any other cryptocurrency but with the added feature of a decentralized DNS system, which amounts to more “intrinsic value,” which everyone is looking for.

Dogecoin

Price: 0.045 cents
Market Capitalization: $11 million

Dogecoin is a cryptocurrency inspired by the “Doge” Internet meme. Compared with the other cryptocurrencies, Doge is most similar to Litecoin. It uses scrypt, the same cryptographic function as Litecoin. A total of 100 billion Dogecoins will ever be mined, which is even more than Peercoin, yet because the block reward is so large and frequent (every minute), Dogecoin miners have already mined almost 25 billion Dogecoins, almost 25% of the total. While Doge gets my vote for the best Internet meme of 2013, you would think that a cryptocurrency wouldn’t manage to go far based on novelty. Yet Dogecoin’s market capitalization is almost $7 million. Wow.

Read More @ DailyReckoning.com

Check Out All The Things Google Has Bought Lately

Google just made a big, bold acquisition, scarfing up red-hot home-automation gadget company Nest for $3.2 billion.

Nest was founded by the guy who designed Apple's iPod. Nest products look like Apple products. Nest products are beloved by people who love Apple products. Nest products are sold in Apple stores.

Nest, in short, looked like a perfect acquisition for Apple, which is struggling to find new product lines to expand into and has a mountain of cash rotting away on its balance sheet with which it could buy things.

But Apple didn't buy Nest.

Google did.

And this appears to continue a pattern in which — in the bitter head-to-head battle between Apple and Google — Google is fixing its weaknesses (hardware) much faster than Apple is fixing its own weaknesses (software and services).

At first glance, in other words, it appears that Google's aggressiveness has once again caught Apple snoozing. And now a company that looked to be a perfect future division of Apple is gone for good.

Nest, of course, isn't the only company that Google has snapped up lately.

Kim Bhasin of the Huffington Post just tweeted this list of "things Google has bought lately," which is from Wikipedia. As you can see, over the past year, Google has bought no fewer than 21 companies. In addition to home automation products, Google has bought and is now developing and/or selling, among other things...

• Humanoid robots
• Traffic detection software
• Airborne wind turbines
• Computer vision
• Robot arms
• Robot wheels, and
• Gesture recognition technology

Source: Business Insider

MUST KNOW INFO: Autonomous Killer Robots, Coming Soon

US 'superweeds' epidemic shines spotlight on GMO

The United States is facing an epidemic of herbicide-resistant "superweeds" that some activists and researchers are blaming on GMOs, an accusation rejected by industry giants.

According to a recent study, the situation is such that American farmers are "heading for a crisis."

Many scientists blame overuse of herbicides, prompted by seeds genetically modified to resist them.

"In parts of the country, weeds resistant to the world's most popular herbicide, glyphosate, now grow in the vast majority of soybean, cotton, and corn fields," many of which were planted with seeds resistant to the weedkiller, said the study published in the journal Science in September.

Earlier this month, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it was considering the release of new genetically-engineered seeds that are resistant to multiple herbicides.

But "weeds that can shrug off multiple other herbicides are also on the rise," the study said.

Nearly half (49 percent) of all US farmers said they had "glyphosate resistant weeds" on their farms in 2012, according to the most recent review from agri-business market research firm Stratus.

That's up from 34 percent of farmers in 2011.

Glyphosate is the name of the most frequently used herbicide in the United States and was created by agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto in the 1970s.

Today, the US company markets it as Roundup while, among other versions, competitor Dow Chemical sells a similar product under the name Durango.

Monsanto also launched the first genetically modified seeds that tolerate glyphosate in 1996 and, in its earnings call this past week, mentioned the issue of weed resistance.

Still, the industry refuses to accept any responsibility for the "superweed" phenomenon.

"Herbicide-resistant weeds began well before GM crops," said a Monsanto spokeswoman.

A USDA spokesman told AFP the phenomenon has "been going on for decades, and has happened subsequent to the development of herbicides."

"It happens naturally with all herbicide modes of action. The plants select for resistance over time," he said.

But Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety, an anti-GMO non-profit, said "GE crops greatly speeded up" the issue.

link to phys.org

That's a view shared by researchers such as Charles Benbrook of the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.

Heavier doses of herbicides were used on fields that now harbor glyphosate-resistant weed, he noted.

A study published on the website of Pioneer, DuPont's GE seed unit, found that "glyphosate had been used for over 20 years prior to the introduction of glyphosate-resistant crops without any resistance issues."

But eventually, resistant weeds developed—"first in areas where glyphosate had been applied multiple times per season for many years," the study said.

Vicious Circle

The USDA, backed up by researchers, emphasizes that genetically modified organisms as such are not the source of "superweeds."

Instead, they blame "weed management tactics chosen by farmers" who have in large numbers adopted genetically modified seeds alongside glyphosate marketed by Monsanto and its competitors.

A spokesman for Dow Chemical said "the problem is that past herbicide-tolerant cropping systems led to overuse of glyphosate, because growers saw no other strategy offering them comparable value."

Benbrook described a vicious cycle, saying "resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on genetically-engineered crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent."

"Many experts in the US are projecting that the approval of new multiple herbicide tolerant crops will lead to at least a 50 percent increase to the average application of herbicide," he added.

Earlier this month, the USDA announced that, at the request of Dow Chemical, it would study allowing genetically engineered seeds on the market that can tolerate several herbicides at once—including a controversial weed killer 2,4-D that several scientific studies have blamed for cancer and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, sometimes called Lou Gehrig's disease.

Source: Phys.org

As UFO Sightings Increase, Dr Steven Greer Makes Compelling Case For Alien Life

Abby Martin talks to UFOologist Dr. Steven Greer about his work with the Disclosure Project, an organization that has collected testimonies from over one hundred US government officials concerning the existence of extra-terrestrial life.