Poorly Regulated, High-Speed "Bomb Trains" Are One Crash Away from Devastating Towns in NYC Suburbs

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

Poorly Regulated, High-Speed "Bomb Trains" Are One Crash Away from Devastating Towns in NYC Suburbs

Poorly managed SSH keys pose serious risks for most companies

Poorly managed SSH keys pose serious risks for most companies
http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-89EKCgBk8MZdE.gif

Computerworld – Many companies are dangerously exposed to threats like the recently revealed Mask Advanced Persistent Threat because they
don’t properly manage the Secure Shell (SSH) cryptographic keys used to authenticate access to critical internal systems and
services.

A Ponemon Institute survey of more than 2,100 systems administrators at Global 2000 companies discovered that three out of
four enterprises are vulnerable to root-level attacks against their systems because of their failure to secure SSH keys.

Even though more than half of the surveyed enterprises had suffered SSH-key related compromises, 53% said they still had no
centralized control over the keys and 60% said they had no way to detect new keys introduced in the organizations. About 46%
said they never change or rotate SSH keys — even though the keys never expire.

Those findings reveal a significant gap in enterprise security controls, said Larry Ponemon, founder and CEO of the Ponemon
Institute. “It’s hard to believe that companies allow themselves to be so insecure,” he said. “This doesn’t appear to be a
situation where this vulnerability has to even be a vulnerability.”

SSH keys allow administrators to remotely login to and operate a system via a secure encrypted tunnel. Administrators use
such keys to authenticate access to critical database systems, application servers, cloud systems and security systems. SSH
keys are also used to authenticate machines running automated processes and services and to protect data in transit.

SSH keys never expire, meaning that once a key is used to authenticate access to a system, the same key can be used in perpetuity
unless it is changed. A hacker who acquires an unsecured SSH key can use it to gain access to the server or service to which
it is attached and then use that access to try and find more keys for jumping on to other systems in a network.

Because SSH keys provide administrator-level, fully encrypted access to enterprise systems, any compromise of the keys could
allow an attacker to gain complete control of a system while they remain hidden from view.

SSH uses an encryption key pair to enable a secure connection between two systems. One key is for the server and the other
for the client device that wants access to the server. An organization might have numerous SSH keys with access to a single
server.

Large enterprises can have tens of thousands of SSH keys on their network — most of which are poorly managed, said Kevin
Bocek, vice president of product marketing and threat research at security vendor Venafi, which commissioned the Ponemon survey.

Companies often have little knowledge about the presence of such keys on their networks and therefore do little to manage
them.

“SSH is really critical as a root-level access [tool],” Bocek said. “It is an encrypted channel that goes around traditional
host protections.”

By stealing SSH keys, attackers like those behind The Mask APT can impersonate admins, snoop around and take complete control
of a target’s network without being detected, he said. There are signs that National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden
might have used SSH keys or a similar digital certificate to access and steal documents without being detected, he said.

Netflash

Read more about Poorly managed SSH keys pose serious risks for most companies and other interesting subjects concerning NSA at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller Did the IRSs Head Mislead Or Did He Just Lead Poorly

Nothing quite like flipping through channels and landing on C-SPAN. Not only is it a great place to hear your favorite Jay-Z quotes recited by Marco Rubio, you also get to learn about the bizarro world that is our government agencies. Generally you would expect, indeed demand, leaders to have deep knowledge of their respective organizations including acceptable tasks, procedures, and a general philosophy and mission statement regarding how business is conducted. Not exactly the leadership the IRS had under Steven Miller. How can it be acceptable or even possible for the head of an agency to be so clueless with regards to his own agency? Yes, corporations are far from omniscient (i.e. JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon vs. the London Whale) with regards to their business, but surely they don’t pride themselves on ignorance. Yet not only is this commonplace in the public sector, it seems to be preferred. Perhaps the political risk is greater for a perceived “scandal” than it is for general incompetence. Alas, our collective moral finger-wagging attracts more fear than our admiration for efficacy. This hubbub with the IRS is quite revealing indeed. The leaders of the IRS not only shared their incompetence, they lauded it in a characteristically political manner. However, I feel the biggest failure in leadership was not that of any of the IRS heads, but rather of our favorite non-leaders of the day, Congress. Yes, our legislative branch and its inability to pass a comprehensive and intelligible tax code.

The IRS has a long tradition of targeting political groups. While it is true that the IRS were targeting conservative groups with extra scrutiny, from someone with the IRS’s point of view … it made sense.  501c4 groups have long been viewed with suspicion as recipients of unfair tax exemptions (including by Mitch McConnell). It follows, by that same logic, that the IRS would indeed target those groups. When, over the last four years, a number of groups sprung up claiming tax-exempt status, it probably did make sense to target them, perhaps to catch a few that could be viewed as purely political organizations and not deserving of the tax-exempt status.

This doesn’t absolve the IRS, of course, which had no right to take it upon itself to decide who received such exemptions. However it was in the absence of good leadership that the agency moved down this path. The true disappointment here is a tax system that allows for such a gray area. Not only does it clearly fail in efficiency and encouraging investment, it also fails to promote the behavior (i.e. charitable giving) that it intends to.   

During these troubling times in our political process, we may be a little skeptical of government as a whole. But let me suggest placing our demand for efficacy and prudent management on equal footing with our disdain for scandal. Perhaps we could encourage future IRS chiefs to loudly proclaim that they know what’s going on in their agency when they’re summoned before Congress. And perhaps a streamlined tax system would allow us to cut the IRS staff by half, and that way maybe the next commissioner will know what’s actually going on.

PolicyMic

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller Did the IRSs Head Mislead Or Did He Just Lead Poorly

Nothing quite like flipping through channels and landing on C-SPAN. Not only is it a great place to hear your favorite Jay-Z quotes recited by Marco Rubio, you also get to learn about the bizarro world that is our government agencies. Generally you would expect, indeed demand, leaders to have deep knowledge of their respective organizations including acceptable tasks, procedures, and a general philosophy and mission statement regarding how business is conducted. Not exactly the leadership the IRS had under Steven Miller. How can it be acceptable or even possible for the head of an agency to be so clueless with regards to his own agency? Yes, corporations are far from omniscient (i.e. JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon vs. the London Whale) with regards to their business, but surely they don’t pride themselves on ignorance. Yet not only is this commonplace in the public sector, it seems to be preferred. Perhaps the political risk is greater for a perceived “scandal” than it is for general incompetence. Alas, our collective moral finger-wagging attracts more fear than our admiration for efficacy. This hubbub with the IRS is quite revealing indeed. The leaders of the IRS not only shared their incompetence, they lauded it in a characteristically political manner. However, I feel the biggest failure in leadership was not that of any of the IRS heads, but rather of our favorite non-leaders of the day, Congress. Yes, our legislative branch and its inability to pass a comprehensive and intelligible tax code.

The IRS has a long tradition of targeting political groups. While it is true that the IRS were targeting conservative groups with extra scrutiny, from someone with the IRS’s point of view … it made sense.  501c4 groups have long been viewed with suspicion as recipients of unfair tax exemptions (including by Mitch McConnell). It follows, by that same logic, that the IRS would indeed target those groups. When, over the last four years, a number of groups sprung up claiming tax-exempt status, it probably did make sense to target them, perhaps to catch a few that could be viewed as purely political organizations and not deserving of the tax-exempt status.

This doesn’t absolve the IRS, of course, which had no right to take it upon itself to decide who received such exemptions. However it was in the absence of good leadership that the agency moved down this path. The true disappointment here is a tax system that allows for such a gray area. Not only does it clearly fail in efficiency and encouraging investment, it also fails to promote the behavior (i.e. charitable giving) that it intends to.   

During these troubling times in our political process, we may be a little skeptical of government as a whole. But let me suggest placing our demand for efficacy and prudent management on equal footing with our disdain for scandal. Perhaps we could encourage future IRS chiefs to loudly proclaim that they know what’s going on in their agency when they’re summoned before Congress. And perhaps a streamlined tax system would allow us to cut the IRS staff by half, and that way maybe the next commissioner will know what’s actually going on.

PolicyMic

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller Did the IRSs Head Mislead Or Did He Just Lead Poorly

Nothing quite like flipping through channels and landing on C-SPAN. Not only is it a great place to hear your favorite Jay-Z quotes recited by Marco Rubio, you also get to learn about the bizarro world that is our government agencies. Generally you would expect, indeed demand, leaders to have deep knowledge of their respective organizations including acceptable tasks, procedures, and a general philosophy and mission statement regarding how business is conducted. Not exactly the leadership the IRS had under Steven Miller. How can it be acceptable or even possible for the head of an agency to be so clueless with regards to his own agency? Yes, corporations are far from omniscient (i.e. JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon vs. the London Whale) with regards to their business, but surely they don’t pride themselves on ignorance. Yet not only is this commonplace in the public sector, it seems to be preferred. Perhaps the political risk is greater for a perceived “scandal” than it is for general incompetence. Alas, our collective moral finger-wagging attracts more fear than our admiration for efficacy. This hubbub with the IRS is quite revealing indeed. The leaders of the IRS not only shared their incompetence, they lauded it in a characteristically political manner. However, I feel the biggest failure in leadership was not that of any of the IRS heads, but rather of our favorite non-leaders of the day, Congress. Yes, our legislative branch and its inability to pass a comprehensive and intelligible tax code.

The IRS has a long tradition of targeting political groups. While it is true that the IRS were targeting conservative groups with extra scrutiny, from someone with the IRS’s point of view … it made sense.  501c4 groups have long been viewed with suspicion as recipients of unfair tax exemptions (including by Mitch McConnell). It follows, by that same logic, that the IRS would indeed target those groups. When, over the last four years, a number of groups sprung up claiming tax-exempt status, it probably did make sense to target them, perhaps to catch a few that could be viewed as purely political organizations and not deserving of the tax-exempt status.

This doesn’t absolve the IRS, of course, which had no right to take it upon itself to decide who received such exemptions. However it was in the absence of good leadership that the agency moved down this path. The true disappointment here is a tax system that allows for such a gray area. Not only does it clearly fail in efficiency and encouraging investment, it also fails to promote the behavior (i.e. charitable giving) that it intends to.   

During these troubling times in our political process, we may be a little skeptical of government as a whole. But let me suggest placing our demand for efficacy and prudent management on equal footing with our disdain for scandal. Perhaps we could encourage future IRS chiefs to loudly proclaim that they know what’s going on in their agency when they’re summoned before Congress. And perhaps a streamlined tax system would allow us to cut the IRS staff by half, and that way maybe the next commissioner will know what’s actually going on.

PolicyMic

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?

Steven Miller Did the IRSs Head Mislead Or Did He Just Lead Poorly

Nothing quite like flipping through channels and landing on C-SPAN. Not only is it a great place to hear your favorite Jay-Z quotes recited by Marco Rubio, you also get to learn about the bizarro world that is our government agencies. Generally you would expect, indeed demand, leaders to have deep knowledge of their respective organizations including acceptable tasks, procedures, and a general philosophy and mission statement regarding how business is conducted. Not exactly the leadership the IRS had under Steven Miller. How can it be acceptable or even possible for the head of an agency to be so clueless with regards to his own agency? Yes, corporations are far from omniscient (i.e. JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon vs. the London Whale) with regards to their business, but surely they don’t pride themselves on ignorance. Yet not only is this commonplace in the public sector, it seems to be preferred. Perhaps the political risk is greater for a perceived “scandal” than it is for general incompetence. Alas, our collective moral finger-wagging attracts more fear than our admiration for efficacy. This hubbub with the IRS is quite revealing indeed. The leaders of the IRS not only shared their incompetence, they lauded it in a characteristically political manner. However, I feel the biggest failure in leadership was not that of any of the IRS heads, but rather of our favorite non-leaders of the day, Congress. Yes, our legislative branch and its inability to pass a comprehensive and intelligible tax code.

The IRS has a long tradition of targeting political groups. While it is true that the IRS were targeting conservative groups with extra scrutiny, from someone with the IRS’s point of view … it made sense.  501c4 groups have long been viewed with suspicion as recipients of unfair tax exemptions (including by Mitch McConnell). It follows, by that same logic, that the IRS would indeed target those groups. When, over the last four years, a number of groups sprung up claiming tax-exempt status, it probably did make sense to target them, perhaps to catch a few that could be viewed as purely political organizations and not deserving of the tax-exempt status.

This doesn’t absolve the IRS, of course, which had no right to take it upon itself to decide who received such exemptions. However it was in the absence of good leadership that the agency moved down this path. The true disappointment here is a tax system that allows for such a gray area. Not only does it clearly fail in efficiency and encouraging investment, it also fails to promote the behavior (i.e. charitable giving) that it intends to.   

During these troubling times in our political process, we may be a little skeptical of government as a whole. But let me suggest placing our demand for efficacy and prudent management on equal footing with our disdain for scandal. Perhaps we could encourage future IRS chiefs to loudly proclaim that they know what’s going on in their agency when they’re summoned before Congress. And perhaps a streamlined tax system would allow us to cut the IRS staff by half, and that way maybe the next commissioner will know what’s actually going on.

PolicyMic

Steven Miller: Did the IRS"s Head Mislead, Or Did He Just Lead Poorly?