Property Professionals Fisher Hargreaves Proctor have e-mailed clients and customers alike to warn that their site has suffered a security breach. Unidentified miscreants managed to gain access to the FHP user database. These details were then publicly posted on the internet.

The FHP website is maintained and run by Reach Marketing, who were (according to the e-mail) instructed to take down the site hosting the compromised credentials. This suggests that the attackers hosted the details with Reach Marketing, so it's quite possible that the attack was the result of a weakness in RM's website management system.

This, however, is conjecture as I can find nothing to suggest that Reach Marketing actually host websites. I'll be sending an e-mail to try and find out exactly what has happened.

FHP for their part have generated new random passwords for all their users and apologised for the inconvenience.

However, even with the few facts available, it begs one question - Why was this allowed to happen?

Security breaches happen, and I'm not holding either FHP or RM responsible for the breach itself. What concerns me is that the attackers were able to retrieve passwords. There's no apparent reason why FHP would need to store passwords in plaintext, they don't need to log into external services on the users behalf. Indeed, the FHP password appears to do nothing more than grant access to the site. So why wasn't it stored as a hash?

Read more…

This post was originally posted on Freedom4All, you can view the original in the Freedom4all archive

I begin with some bad news. The country singer Willie Nelson has been arrested at the age of 77 for possession of Cannabis. Six Ounces of Cannabis were found on his tour bus when it pulled into a police checkpoint in Texas, the singer was bailed for £1500. You can read (a little) more about this at the Telegraph. 

This, however, is not what this article is about. Readers will note that I have been elated at the effect that Cannabis has had on my life in recent months, so much so in fact, that I believe I began to forget just how difficult life had been prior to my use of this fantastic plant. 

Unfortunately, earlier this week, I was given a stark reminder of just how difficult life was. 

Read more…

Management love homogeneous networks; they reduce the amount of training needed, the number of IT Technicians to offer support and, of course, offer an opportunity to obtain bulk discount through volume licensing.

But in pursuing lower capital and maintenance costs, are these same managers opening their networks to attack?

This Whitepaper explores the risks inherent in a Homogeneous environment, and the steps that can be taken to help negate the resulting attack vectors.

Read more…

This post was originally posted on Freedom4All, you can view the original in the Freedom4all archive

We are told that the Misuse of Drugs Act exists in order to protect society from the ill effects of certain drugs. In fact, there is reason to believe that the original legislation in 1924 was more motivated by commercial interests than humanitarian ones. Especially given that in 1894 the British and Indian Hemp Commission decided against prohibition stating that social use of cannabis was acceptable. For the purposes of this article, however, we’ll give the Government the benefit of the doubt. 

The Government often reminds us that drugs are harmful and constitute a real and present danger to society. This is clearly a very bold statement to make, but does it apply to every use case? 

The Government would certainly like us to believe that it does, but my experience would suggest that the truth is a little different. 

Read more…

This post was originally posted on Freedom4All, you can view the original in the Freedom4all archive

The Catholic Group ‘Catholics Taking Action’ have successfully used Facebook to oppose the ‘Black Metal’ festival scheduled to run in Sydney, Australia next weekend. 

The facebook page states that a ‘satanic festival’ is scheduled to take place and that it is ‘disgraceful’. 

The advertising which features the insignia of the Church of Satan and an inverted crucifix is encouraging people to come and partake in an “unholy spell to be cast upon the city of Sydney” featuring the “ultimate of soul possessing occult revelations...unbridled blasphemy... [and] a union of all things unholy”. 

The group has elicited such support that the host – Returned & Services League – has withdrawn its support for the event. The organiser’s promoters have written that RSL have withdrawn from the event on forums here. 

They have blatantly cancelled with no prior notice and with no option of negotiation or compromise. They have sadly bowed under pressure from Christians who have lobbied them to cancel the show 

The posting notes the timing of the protest, which due to it’s late hour has left the organisers little time to seek out an alternative venue. The planned venue has been used in the past for numerous alternative gigs and one can easily see why the promoters are disgruntled. 

Supporters of the event have, not unsurprisingly, set up their own facebook page.

Is it right?

We all have the right to hold our own beliefs and opinions, and we all reserve the right to be offended by what others say and do. Do we have the right, however, to control what others do? 

Do we have the right to prevent others from participating in a relatively harmless activity? Can we afford ourselves such a level of arrogance that we may hold our own beliefs above those of everyone around us? 

This is exactly what ‘Christians Taking Action’ have chosen to do. Because they believe that their religion is the only true way, they have actively acted in order to prevent others from attending a gig that they believe to be ‘satanistic’. The event’s organisers may have referred to satanism in their advertising, but this matters little; 

Do we believe it right to try and prevent the building of Mosque’s in our communities (and we’re not saying it doesn’t happen.). Do we believe it tolerant to try and keep the Jews out of our community? 

So why is it considered right for a group to try and disrupt a legal event because they believe it to be ‘illegal’? The actions of Christians Taking Action are nothing but censorship. As such, they should not be tolerated. 

Everyone is free to hold their own beliefs and opinions, but no-one has the right to try and enforce those beliefs on any other. 

This post was originally posted on Freedom4All, you can view the original in the Freedom4all archive

One of the ‘weapons’ wielded against Cannabis is the ‘link’ to crime. Supporters of prohibition argue that Cannabis related crime is increasing, which is often supported by statistics. 

But there’s a causal link here that is often omitted: the very prohibition that the supporters are attempting to justify. 

I can quite honestly and accurately state that Cannabis related crime rose dramatically in 1971. Why? was there a sudden outbreak of crime in society? 

Or could it be that before 1971 cultivation and possession of Cannabis was not a crime per se. So although the statistics would suggest that Cannabis use was more prevalent and damaging in the years following 1971, the reality is quite different.

Read more…

This post was originally posted on Freedom4All, you can view the original in the Freedom4all archive

Few will have missed the news that the site Fitwatch was taken offline at the request of the police. The site has called it a “pathetic attempt” and many have criticised the move as censorship. The Police, for their part, claimed that the site was “attempting to pervert the course of Justice”. 

So which argument is correct? Did Fitwatch slip up, or have the Police attempted to suppress a critical voice? 

Fitwatch

There’s little doubt that Fitwatch crossed a line in their post. Not only did they advise participants of the Milliband protest to discard their clothes, they also hinted that lying could be a good defence. 

DONT assume that because you can identify yourself in a video, a judge will be able to as well. ‘That isn’t me’ has got many a person off before now. 

If you accept that this is an incitement to perjury, the authors have clearly strayed from the safe path of “offering legal advice”. The statement seems to be pretty self-explanatory so we’ll assume that Fitwatch was indeed advising participants to lie under oath. 

The site has also advised readers to change their appearance in order to help evade detection. At worst, this is a grey area. It would be a very different society if you could be arrested for telling someone to shave their head! 

DO think about changing your appearance. Perhaps now is a good time for a make-over. Get a haircut and colour, grow a beard, wear glasses. It isn’t a guarantee, but may help throw them off the scent. 

The Police 

We’ll give the Police the benefit of the doubt and assume that the content Fitwatch posted was actually “attempting to pervert the course of justice”. 

Even with this concession, did the Police overstep their bounds? Why were they able to have Fitwatch taken down without recourse to a court? 

A Complicated Matter

This is where the issue starts to get complicated. In asking the hosting provider to take Fitwatch offline, the Police did nothing (legally) wrong. The Hosting provider did not need to comply, and could have refused to suspend the account until they were issued with a court order. 

The problem, for the webhost, is an issue of publicity. Violent protests have been rebranded by the Police as “Domestic Extremism”, a phrase which in most minds surely conjurs up images of terrorists. As the Web Host, would you want to be portrayed as supporting “Domestic Extremism”? 

Ultimately, it’s up to the Webhost to decide who they do business with. If they suspect criminal activity, they are free to suspend the account and report it. Some will say that JustHost were a little overenthusiastic in this case, others will say they are justified. The fact remains that it’s entirely their choice; 

The problem lies elsewhere

The cause of the problem lies in UK Law. The Police should not be allowed to request that a site be taken offline at all. Procedures exist to have a ‘takedown’ ordered by the Judiciary, this should be the only recourse available to any arm of the Government. Any other arrangement poses too great a risk of abuse. 

Whilst Freedom of Speech must be protected, it would be naive not to admit that true Freedom of Speech does not exist (as such) in the UK. As a society we tolerate certain restrictions for a variety of reasons, but the key difference between this and the MET’s actions is highlighted in this example; 

In the UK you are perfectly at liberty to shout “FIRE” in a crowded theatre. We all accept, however, that we must accept responsibility for the consequences of doing so. This is the level of Freedom of Speech that we enjoy in the UK, there are certain things that we understand should not be said. Nothing, however, actually prevents us from saying these things (and yes, there are exceptions) 

What the MET tried to do is to prevent Fitwatch from saying what they wanted. Or, to be more accurate, they tried to prevent you from ‘listening’. 

This cannot be tolerated, the Police cannot and should not have the power to arbitrarily restrict the individual right to free speech. As we saw above, it’s quite possible that Fitwatch did cross a line, but it should not be in the Police’s power to act against this directly. They should be required to ask a court to order the takedown. 

When a court makes a decision, it is a matter of public record. If the Police make such a decision there’s no guarantee that the reasoning will be fully recorded. 

Conclusion

Although Fitwatch probably crossed the line between legal advice and encouraging illegal actions, the action taken by the Police is less than exemplary. What’s too stop a conservative Police officer from requesting the takedown of a website he disagree’s with? How is the Webhost to know whether the request is one which should be enacted? Far more accountability is available when the decision is made by a court. 

In reality, all the effort put into this by the Police has done but one thing: opened them to criticism. Fitwatch is back, on new webhosting, and is carrying further details of the move here. 

This post was originally posted on Freedom4All, you can view the original in the Freedom4all archive

The Home Office have been known to justify the wide availability of alcohol as being for ‘Cultural and Historical reasons’. In fact, this seems to be their default response as to why alcohol is legal and cannabis is not. 

But what do they actually mean, is their position tenable? 

The simple translation is that “too many people do it to ban it”. Funnily enough, we saw this same position when the smoking ban was imposed, but when used to argue against the legalisation of Cannabis it’s nothing more than a red herring. 

Ask yourself this: you’re caught doing 36 in a 30MPH speed limit. Would a court accept your argument that it’s OK because so many people do it? Erm No. 

In fact, can you think of a single thing you could effectively defend by saying “well, loads of other people do it?”. Personally, I can’t. The argument seems to be reserved exclusively for the Home Office. 

Lets assume, for a minute, that it is an acceptable argument. So, it follows that if a lot of people smoke cannabis it should be decriminalized. Except, of course, the Government have thought of that. By attempting to enforce strict prohibition, the Government have ensured that not all users will be willing to stand and be counted. Although I’m open about my Cannabis use, I have to remain anonymous to protect my loved ones. I don’t doubt that many others feel the same way. 

So, while Cannabis remains illegal, it is impossible to know how many people actively use cannabis. The Government has deliberately blinded itself from this so that it does not need to reverse it’s prohibitionist stance.

What can be done? 

The only way to effect change is to ensure we can stand and be counted another way. Only by educating each individual MP as to the failure of the Governmets prohibition can we show that enough people support the decriminalization of cannabis. This is why I regularly call for you to write to your MP. The more letters they receive, the sooner the Government will recognise that we do not support their ‘war on drugs’ or the harm it has called. 

Isn’t it funny how we hear calls for referendums on the smallest thing, yet the Government doesn’t dare to ask the populace if we think their prohibition is working? 

Social media is experiencing huge growth, more and more people are both using social networks such as Facebook and running their own blogs and websites. This, however, has led to a worrying trend of companies using the content of personal blogs to discipline it's employee's.

Read More...........

This whitepaper was originally written for Virya Technologies here.