The Art of Intrusion

Just finished reading the book written by the well known and respected hacker Kevin D. Mitnick.

The Art of Intrusion : The Real Stories Behind the Exploits of Hackers, Intruders & Deceivers

The book was

• fun reading since it was a collection of stories about intrusions some of which went on like hollywood action movie. But at times, I felt that there was some repetition in the themes.
• I picked up some cool hacker lingo and some new insights into the possible attack vectors.
• Most of the attacks that Kevin describes was made possible by either default/bad passwords or misconfigured systems. It felt like hacking most of the times does not seem to be difficult thing at all.

Overall, it is a very good weekend read for anyone interested in security. I have not read his other book "The Art of Deception" and I don't plan to as my book pipeline is booked at least for a year.

My next read is going to be "Sources of power" by Gary Klein and I am already looking forward to it.

Superstitious Microsoft: Skipping Office 13?

The Microsoft Office product team uses code names for each release which is different from the Official product name. For example, the current release is internally referrred to as "Office 12" and the previous one was referred as "Office 11".

Following the tradition, the next version will have to be referred as "Office 13". Rumor has it that due to superstition surrounding the number "13", the next version might be referred to as "Office 14" instead. Here is the Wikipedia link on the Supersitions surrounding 13.

My take on this is that, I feel like working with bunch of idiots for believing in these. Whoever is making these calls is completely fked up for not believing in the value of hard work, innovation which is what matters.

Scott McClellan and White house bullshit

I always find it hillarious to watch the white house press conference especially for the bullshitting the spokesperson does. This one was very amusing. I copied the transcript from http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000977098 since I didn't want to lose the content if the URL disappears. Scott stuck to the standard line of "you are asking a question related to an ongoing investigation blah blah blah". Someone should have asked him about for example about his pet to see if he respond subconsiously and said "you are asking about an ongoing....". One thing I appreciated about this exhange was that I have never seen bold questioning before by the press. Here is the exchange:

Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?
MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....

Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?
MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?
MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?
MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?
MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?
MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?
MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.
MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?
MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?
MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...
MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?
MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?
MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?
MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?
MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?
MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions....***

Q: There’s a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and that if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there’s an investigation or not.So are you saying that he’s not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And we’re just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.***

Q: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what transpired inside the White House at the time?
MCCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor.

Q: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be optimal to release as much information and make it as open…
MCCLELLAN: It’s the same type of question. You’re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and I’m not going to do that.

Q: I’d like you to talk about the communications strategies just a little bit there.
MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that’s what he expects people in the White House to do.

Q: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with…
MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve already responded.

Q: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make a request of you specifically?
MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who’s involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing.

Microsoft will pay more if you quit and then rejoin

There are things that I don't have an explanation for. For example, campus hires for the test org join at level 59 now. I don't have a problem with what the entry levels are. This was a recent change and entry levels were lower earlier (It was 57 I think).

What I don't understand is why some of my colleagues with few years experience (with some holding master's degree) started at a lower level because of the then policy are treated unfairly and have a lower level (or the same level) and pay compared to the new hires? I am not talking about low or average performers in my team. I am talking about a few good people who are smart and hard workers who worked their ass off for the last couple of years and got 2 level raises only to be put on par with a new hire!!!

I came to know about this unfair practice when one of the tester who has been working for MS for the last couple of years whom I respect vetted her frustration about this. She even mentioned that she wasn't allowed to interview a campus new hire for test team since because she had a lower level than what new hires would get. One of the leads refused her the opportunity to do the interview on this basis!!!

If only the ratings & salary are public, I am sure Microsoft will be up for a lot of lawsuits for things like this.

"Keep the dream alive" spam

I believe a lot of employess like me received an email (or SPAM?) today from a group called DREAM (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dreamsft/) talking about the some of the abusive practices in the performance review process. I really wonder where they got all the employee's emails? I don't think it is an insider job and if it was, it is very bad.

My take on these claims is that there is some truth (not the whole truth) to it and it is not entirely baseless. Not a day goes by without me wondering about why the entire process is so secretive. I have my concerns about the review process and want some openness and fairness. If the performance review process is objective, why such a secrecy? I go even farther and suggest the following:

• Make the performance ratings public. What is wrong with knowing who performed better and why they are better? Maybe someone could learn a thing or two by following the super performer.
• Make the employee's commitents public. I would be very happy to learn about what everyone plans to achieve and see if I could colloborate with others. Otherwise, there is guaranteed to be duplication of efforts.
• Banish the stack ranking. It is a subjective process mostly and is not a documented process by HR. Since there is no guidence from HR about this (which is crucial to your rating), either formalize the process or make it transparent

UPDATE: After this mail got sent out, I asked one of the manager in my team on what he thought. To my surprise, he thought stack ranking is the way to go and even mentioned that holding one before the employee gets a chance to write a review and make his case is perfectly alright!!!!!!!

Here is the e-mail that got sent out to many employees:

From: A DREAM [mailto:dreamsft07@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:27 AMTo: keep_his_dream_alive@yahoo.comSubject: Your rating, salary, and bonus may have all been decided by the time you read this email ...

Make your performance review count – stop stack ranking abuse!

That’s right - your review rating, salary, and bonus may have already been decided by the time you read this email. How? Through a process known as stack ranking, your managers may have already met and decided it before ever reading your performance review. Without objective performance data and feedback, your managers rely on gut instincts to decide your fate. Unfortunately, these instincts are often wrong and highly subjective. After stack rankings have been established, review ratings, salary, bonus, and stock grants are assigned accordingly. Even though stack rankings can have the single most impact on determining an employee’s rating and compensation, the process is not documented in the employee handbook, nor are employees allowed to know their stack ranking or appeal them.

If stack rankings are so unfair and subjective, why do managers continue to rely on them? For one, it is a very convenient way for managers to bypass the performance review process and determine the all important numbers in a short meeting. No waiting for employees to write their reviews, read them, provide comments, and talk to them to make sure they are in mutual agreement. Instead, managers simply assign employee a rank and see how they fair with the rest of the team. In cases of disagreement, higher ranking managers, who may have no knowledge of your performance, have veto power and can favor the employees they like best. Keep in mind each 4.0/4.5 rating requires a 2.5 to balance out the curve even if the difference in performance is negligible. One employee is given lavish rewards while the other gets nothing but a warning that their job is in jeopardy. All this without the inconvenience of having to read the employee’s performance review to ascertain if their performance is unacceptable.

The other reason stack rankings are popular is the fact that they are remarkably effective in maintaining the status quo. Minorities groups are significantly underrepresented in the ranks of management at Microsoft. By allowing managers to make performance management decisions based primarily on personal preference and not actual documented performance, managers will tend to favor those who they are most familiar and comfortable with. Since there are far fewer minority managers participating in stack ranking meetings they are out voted than their Caucasian peers, This unfortunately makes stack ranking an effective self perpetuating method for preserving a status quo imbalance that ultimately denies minority employees with equal pay and promotional opportunity in the company.

So what can you do to stop stack ranking abuse? Plenty:
· Talk to your manager and find out if and how they use stack ranking. Don’t take “no” or “that’s confidential” as an answer. If stack ranking is used, ask when they are done. In most cases they are done weeks before performance reviews are turned in so that managers can submit numbers to HR on schedule. If so, tell your manager that you consider this practice unfair and insist that they adhere to Microsoft’s performance management policy by using performance reviews as the basis for making decisions. Also find out your rank and if you can appeal it.
· Write to your business unit VP and the VP of HR and tell them you want stack ranking abuse to halted once and for all. Tell them that the stack ranking process cannot be secretive and must be standardized across the company and documented in the employee handbook. Also, stack rankings, if used, must be done following the completion of employee performance reviews and not before so that managers have access to the most objective and current information on individual employee performance.
· If you receive a poor performance review or are denied a promotion that you deserve as a result of stack ranking, don’t accept it – fight it. If your manager is not willing to do anything about it, you can file a complaint directly with the HR Employee Relations Investigation Team. Better yet, if you believe there are possible grounds for discrimination against you, contact state or federal agencies such as the WA State Human Rights Commission or EEOC who can ensure your civil rights are protected.

This message is brought to you by DREAM, employees for Diversity & Racial Equality At Microsoft. If you would like more information on stack ranking abuse or any other topics related to protecting civil rights, diversity, and fighting discrimination at Microsoft, please visit our web site at http://www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/dreamsft

...Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

That is what the Fifth amendment says and it is fair enough. But the U.S supreme court's ruling last week expanded the power of government to grab land for private projects just blew my mind away! For example, now it is possible for the city to take your land (and of course pay the compensation) to build a shopping mall instead just because it might produce jobs and tax revenues.

This just leads the way for the people with money/power to force people out of their homes easily since any commercial development will ofcourse produce jobs/revenues. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned in her dissent in this decision: "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

The government and the consitution is there to protect the minorities and the powerless. But these rulings simply expand the powers of the powerful and this is not what the framers intended.

The Downing street memo

Check it out at http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

America is considered one of the most advanced and open societies. But I am constantly amazed by the amount of censorship that happens (either by whitehouse or self-sensored due to business interests) in the press. The press covers things what it wants to cover without the consideration for the people's need to know which is why there was no watergate after the original watergate. These days the press has become more of a mouth piece for whitehouse in U.S which is why I rely on BBC and other foreign press for the information. http://news.google.com/ is my new friend since it brings news from multiple sources.

I am not sure how many people know of the book series Censored 2005 : The Top 25 Censored Stories (Censored) published every year by Sonoma state university on stories that never made it to the public because of the censorship. I read the 2004 release and couldn't believe that I am living in an open society!

As for the authenticity of the memo, I don't care. From the beginning, I had the strong belief that this war was the war of choice than the war of necessity. So this is nothing new to me.