Welcome to my digital home! There are lots of articles you might find helpful buried in this site on topics such as modifying an Alfa Romeo 159, rebuilding a Lotus 7 (Robin Hood 2B), not to mention a ton of stuff on technology in general. It’s all here somewhere, so use the search function or navigate using the menu structure. if you want to talk, reach out via the contact function, I usually do answer!
Random Post Selection
InfoSecIf your planning on using Linux in a hostile environment, i.e. the Internet! then its worth thinking about some simple little tweaks to the TCP/IP stack in conjunction with some funky firewall madness to keep your box your own, and not end up “owned” too quickly!
Lets start with the TCP/IP stack. There are a number of quick easy wins here that can help defend against attacks through making the default behaviours of the stack more in-line with what we would like:
echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/rp_filter
echo "0" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/lo/rp_filter
echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/log_martians
echo "0" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/lo/log_martians
echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_ignore_bogus_error_responses
echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts
echo "0" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_echo_ignore_all
echo "0" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/accept_source_route
echo "0" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/send_redirects
echo "0" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/accept_redirects
echo "0" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/secure_redirects
echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_dynaddr
echo "10" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_fin_timeout
echo "1800" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_keepalive_time
echo "15" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ipfrag_time
echo "2048" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_max_syn_backlog
echo "32768 61000" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range
echo "2" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_synack_retries
Now, that little lot above needs some caveats. Firstly, use at your own risk! Secondly, As per usual, you often get a small performance hit when you start getting more secure, so test each tweak fully before you go into production. Once your happy with the ones you like, add then to your /etc/rc.local or other start up file of your choice.
The next step is to use iptables to help deal with dodgy looking traffic.
Step 1, set-up a bunch of new chains:
$IPTABLES -N CHECK_FLAGS
$IPTABLES -N ALLOW_ICMP
$IPTABLES -N SRC_EGRESS
$IPTABLES -N DST_EGRESS
Step 2, now lets get those chains to do something useful:
$IPTABLES -A CHECK_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags ALL FIN,URG,PSH -m limit
--limit 5/minute -j LOG --log-level $LOG_LEVEL --log-prefix "NMAP-XMAS:"
$IPTABLES -A CHECK_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags ALL FIN,URG,PSH -j DROP
$IPTABLES -A CHECK_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN,RST -m limit
--limit 5/minute -j LOG --log-level $LOG_LEVEL --log-prefix "SYN/RST:"
$IPTABLES -A CHECK_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN,RST -j DROP
$IPTABLES -A CHECK_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,FIN SYN,FIN -m limit
--limit 5/minute -j LOG --log-level $LOG_LEVEL --log-prefix "SYN/FIN:"
$IPTABLES -A CHECK_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,FIN SYN,FIN -j DROP
$IPTABLES -A ALLOW_ICMP -p icmp --icmp-type echo-reply -j ACCEPT
$IPTABLES -A ALLOW_ICMP -p icmp --icmp-type destination-unreachable
-j ACCEPT
$IPTABLES -A ALLOW_ICMP -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j ACCEPT
$IPTABLES -A ALLOW_ICMP -p icmp --icmp-type time-exceeded -j ACCEPT
for SRCNET in $EGRESS_NETS; do
$IPTABLES -A SRC_EGRESS -s $SRCNET -j DROP
done
for DSTNET in $EGRESS_NETS; do
$IPTABLES -A DST_EGRESS -d $DSTNET -j DROP
done
Step 3, Apply the prior two steps to your input, forward and output chains as needed:
$IPTABLES -A $CHAIN -i $EXT_INT -j SRC_EGRESS
$IPTABLES -A $CHAIN -i $EXT_INT -j DST_EGRESS
$IPTABLES -A $CHAIN -i $EXT_INT -p icmp -j ALLOW_ICMP
$IPTABLES -A $CHAIN -i $EXT_INT -p tcp -j CHECK_FLAGS
Variables. In all of the above, variables are used to save typing!, here are some of the important variables, the rest are fairly self explanatory:
EGRESS_NETS="
172.16.0.0/12
224.0.0.0/4
240.0.0.0/5
14.0.0.0/8
169.254.0.0/16
172.16.0.0/12
192.0.2.0/24
192.88.99.0/24
192.18.0.0/15
0.0.0.0/8
"
What we have just done is setup some new chains, apply some filters that can identify dodgy looking traffic and do something useful with it (limit it rather than drop it, as we don’t want to arouse suspicion with our attackers). Then apply all that nice Packet Mangling to each of our primary chains.
I provide all of this advice for free, with no guarantees, any use of the above code should be with full testing prior to its use in a production environment. Enjoy!Related Images: [...]
RH2B Build DiaryAfter first getting into the Hoody, I realised that I would have to modify the steering column mounting position as I was just too big for the seating position that had been set by the original builder.
Factor in the new seats and the larger steering wheel, and this became pretty critical to me being able to drive it again! The steering wheel mounted to a steel plate hung off a chassis cross member, with a brace bar back to a side chassis rail. Moving it was as simple as drilling some new M10 holes in that mount point a little higher up, and then attacking a lot of metal with a die grinder until I had sufficient clearance to get the column up an inch!
A little more leg room.
Its often the easiest of changes that have the biggest impact. For instance being able to take your foot off the clutch while turning a corner seemed pretty useful to me 🙂
ready to grind!
One issue I found was that due to the mk1 centre clocks, I was unable to engage main beam anymore (left stalk pushed forward), however this is a temporary issue as I intend to design and 3dprint a new stalk that has an extra long bend in the middle to gain me the additional half an inch of clearance I need to get that function back. The future is now!
Related Images: [...]
GeneralWell, after the change of room size the RP6G2’s lack of low frequencies eventually pushed me to go the extra mile and get the KRK10s. Initial feedback on it? Its got so much bass! I know that’s the whole point of it, but wow, I like bass and even I struggle with this sometimes. So much so that I actually bought the Boss FS-5L latched foot switch so that I could bypass the sub from time to time and allow the full range of frequencies back to the RP6G2’s!!!!
So….. what does all this mean?
Well, first off the KRK10s is one hell of a good sub, well built, sounds great and can really pump out some power, so much so, it rattles all of the radiators in every room of the house when its wound up! that said, it more than matches the RP6G2’s and compliments them well. The unit itself acts as the hub of your system, so you route your main outs to the unit from your source, then plug each of the other 2 speakers into the sub. My preference for this was to use TRS Balanced Jacks from my mixer to the Sub, then XLRs from the Sub to each speaker. A good, cheap cable provider I use regularly is: Vision Sounds on eBay, they are quick to process, cheap to buy and decent quality, so that works for me!
The KRK10s comes with a built in Crossover, with a knob on the back to set the Crossover frequency. I have played with this for a while now, and for me, I find that the best option is to keep some of the bass going to the RP6G2’s and let the sub handle the low stuff. To that end, I tend to have my crossover point at around 50Hz, which lets the RP6G2’s handle the punch in a beat while the KRK10’s handles the roll. I find this approach keeps the imaging better in my opinion.
The built in amp comes with the same +-6db of gain through a control knob on the rear. Mine is set to -4db and that still, on some tracks and sources, overpowers the RP6G2’s at 0db gain! For this reason, I find that it is very useful to have an EQ of sorts in the mix so you can compensate for different sources. I make use of an Alesis MultiMix8:Firewire to bring each of my audio sources together, which gives me a low/med/high EQ on each channel (except the Firewire output, but that’ a whole different article!).
The final, but very useful feature that comes with this unit is a bypass ability. You can plug in any latch-able foot pedal, but the Rokit site recommends the Boss FS-5L. I have the FS-5L and agree with them, its well built, but not so hard a switch that you can’t use it by hand if you want it on your desk. The reason for the bypass is actually quite a good one. Sometimes, you need to remove the bass effect of the sub and revert back to just the bass of the RP6G2’s. To do this without a bypass and making use of an EQ, you would taint the bass feed to the RP6G2’s and actually not give an accurate image, however, the bypass, when engaged, simply kills the Sub, bypasses the EQ and outputs a full range signal to the RP6G2’s leaving you with a nifty way of getting an accurate frequency reproduction for those absolute moments of audio clarity!
If your seriously thinking of adding a KRK10s to your setup, here are some tit bits of advice for you:
Buy the Boss FS-5L Latched Foot switch at the same time to give you the ability to bypass the sub easily when needed
If possible put at least a basic 3 band EQ between your source and the entire setup, as the ability to gently retard the bass is very handy
Make sure you have no neighbours attached, above, below or to the side of you, or you will quickly make some new enemies!
All in all, I am genuinely blown away with my overall investment into the Rokit camp, and will happily pick up an ERGO when funds can justify the ÂŁ500 price-tag!
KRK10s Specs:
225 Watt (peak) Powered Sub woofer for Studio Use
SPL: 110dB Music and 113dB Peak
10” High-Excursion Glass Aramid Composite Woofer
Frequency Response: 34Hz – 50Hz to 130Hz Variable (+/- 1.5 db)
Variable and Sweepable Low Pass Filter
80Hz High Pass Filter
Radically Curved Front Baffle Design for Amazing Performance
Front-firing port provides low frequency extension without boundary coupling
Bypass Control using Standard Foot switch
Related Images: [...]
LiveMixeshttps://jabawoki.com/wp-content/mp3/Jabs_20102001_Progressive_House.mp3
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Related Images: [...]
InfoSecI was recently asked to comment on the new Chip & Pin attack created by Prof Ross Anderson from Cambridge University. In my original comment released to the press I make an assertion in relation to a change in process that “breaks the circuit” of this attack – see below:
Jay Abbott, director in charge of Threat & Vulnerability Management, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), said:“Essentially, what the scientists have come up with is a very effective and simple way of exploiting weaknesses in the system.
However, it is important to bear in mind that the fraud requires a very specific scenario to become effective.
“A simple process change by the retailer of asking for the card holder to hand over the card would break the circuit, although this isn’t always possible as sometimes the card reader is fixed to a point on the other side of the counter.
“At present, the customer is accountable for the fraud as banks argue that PIN verified transactions are secure. Given this attack demonstrates a clear method of bypassing the PIN system, this assertion by the banks stands on shakier ground.”
With the original comment came a caveat, which as you would normally expect, was not quoted by the media, this caveat was that the process change suggested brought with it the opportunity for cards to be skimmed, which was in fact one of the original reasons behind the Chip & Pin changes. In fact, the change works in the favour of the retailer rather than the consumer, however, before you hang me, allow me to demonstrate the rationale behind this.
Consider first that Chip & Pin is in fact “two factor” authentication, which anyone in the security business will explain is more secure than “one factor” authentication. The first factor is the card itself or the “chip” in this instance, the second factor is the “Pin” which in this context operates as a pass code. Given both elements are authenticators in their own right, both are required, and as such any attack must include them both. The attack designed by Prof Ross Anderson targets the Pin aspect of the authentication, and relies on the original card accessed through a series of technology components that have to be connected together in some way. The method shown in this attack makes use of concealment to hide these components on the person of the attacker, and relies on a custom built “attack” card with wires hidden up the sleeve of the attacker, back to the other components involved. The obvious way to therefore detect and prevent this attack at the retailer is by separating the card from the attacker, thus showing the wires and revealing the ruse.
The cloning of cards must be treated separately as the current methods of cloning (that I am aware of at this point in time) only create “yes cards” which would not work in this attack scenario as they are not true copies and would be detected by the PoS equipment as fraudulent. As I understand it, there is no economically viable way of cloning Chip & PIN Cards effectively at this time. Any cloning would still focus on the magnetic stripe data, which can be easily cloned, but is not accepted by the retailers (usually) when a Chip & PIN card is presented. This of course is at the discretion of the retailer and out of the control of the consumer or the banks.
This brings us to the counter argument, specifically in relation to the increased risk of your card getting skimmed/cloned by the retailer when you hand it over. Een if it were viable to clone the chip cards, given that a card skimmed by a retailer would typically not get the pin as well (this of course is not always the case), using the now cloned card would have to make use of Prof Ross Anderson’s attack method, which if the aforementioned process change was implemented, would not work, so in effect increasing the risk of cloning, but decreasing the risk of a successful attack using the cloned card and “breaking the circuit”.
This of course relies on the premise that the use of the cards magnetic strip is in fact not viable, and therefore if anything, reinforces the use of Chip & PIN ironically. Of course in real life the Magstrip is regularly used, but that, again is outside the scope of this discussion and considered irrelevant in the face of the specific discussion around Prof Andersons attack.
There is always of course the argument for using a small form factor wireless transmission device to remove the need for wires, but given the form factor of a credit card and the inability to alter this form factor without raising suspicion, I am personally unsure that significant enough range for a TX/RX comms loop could be achieved given the power that could be implemented into a credit card sized device.
Again, in my original comments to the press I clearly stated that the system needed to be fixed, and that the attack was effective, so this is not me suggesting that we should brush this under the carpet, in fact it is simply looking at what we can potentially do NOW to protect the system, while its eventual upgrade is debated and planned.
Don’t forget, in this context I am just as much of a concerned consumer as you.
Related Images: [...]
LiveMixesIn celebration of my birthday I thought I would take a trip back to my roots and put out a big room trance mix for you all. Enjoy!
Track listing:
1 ALEX M.O.R.P.H. feat. Michael – Wanna Be (Album Extended Vocal Mix)
2 Cosmic Gate feat. Emma Hewitt – Not Enough Time (Extended Mix)
3 Dash Berlin feat. Emma Hewitt – Waiting (Original Mix)
4 Fabio XB & Andrea Mazza – Light To Lies (Gareth Emery Mix)
5 John OCallaghan feat. Audrey Gallaher – Big Sky (Markus Schulz AX Remix)
6 Rex Mundi feat. Susana – Nothing At All (Original Mix)
7 torcycle – As The Rush Comes (Daniel Kandi & Anton Firtich Divine Remix)
8 Myon & Shane 54 feat. Aruna – Helpless (Monster Mix)
9 Roger Shah & Tenishia feat. Lorilee – Im Not God (Roger Shah Mix)
10 Medina – You And I (Dash Berlin Mix)
11 Marco V – Unprepared (Extended Mix)
https://jabawoki.com/wp-content/mp3/Jabawoki_Uplifting_Trance_Vibes_10022011.mp3
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Related Images: [...]
LiveMixesAnoter day another mix…… back in the style of electro madness!
David Guetta feat. Kelly Rowland – When Love Takes Over (Electro Extended Mix)
Melleefresh, Deadmau5 – Sex Slave (Original Mix)
Costello – Girls Speak Louder (Donique Mix)
Alexis, Darmon, Eran Hersh, George F – Girls Who Like Girls (Original Living Room Club Mix)
Larry Tee Feat. Roxy Cottontail – Lets Make Nasty (Afrojack Remix)
Jewlez – Get Down (Original Mix)
Pain, Gubellini – Shake It Up feat. Darook Mc (Maurizio Gubellini & Stefano Pain Main Mix)
Martin Solveig – Poptimistic (Bingo PLayers Vox)
Mowgli – London To Paris (Original Mix)
Laidback Luke, Lee Mortimer – Blau! (Original Mix)
Funkagenda – H3lix (Original Club Mix)
Wolfgang Gartner – Latin Fever (Original Mix)
Starkillers – Bitch Ass Trick (Original Version)
Incidentally, this is my first recorded mix on the APC40 with Ableton 🙂
https://jabawoki.com/wp-content/mp3/Jabawoki_DirtyFriday_05032010.mp3
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Related Images: [...]
LiveMixesOldschool Hard House from the archives
https://jabawoki.com/wp-content/mp3/Jabawoki_06052002_HardTrance.mp3
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Related Images: [...]
LiveMixesIn honour of the legend that is Deadmau5 this mix is dedicated to his work and the awesome sounds that result from it.
01) Toca Me (Deadmau5 mix) – Fragma
02) I Want You (Deadmau5 mix) – Carl Cox
03) Afterhours – Deadmau5 & Mallefresh
04) Hey Baby – Deadmau5 & Mallefresh
05) Harder Better Faster on Drugs – Deadmau5 vs Daft Punk
06) Dont You Want To Feel (Deadmau5 mix) – Drugstore Era
07) Finished Symphony (Deadmau5 mix) – Hybrid
08) Tiny Dancer (Deadmau5 mix) – Marco Demark Feat Casey Barnes
09) Longest Road (Deadmau5 mix) – Morgan Page
10) Super Skunk (Deadmau5 mix) – Noir
11) Cherry Twist (Deadmau5 mix) – The Crystal Method
12) Dirty Sexy Club Music (Deadmau5 mix) – Filter Freq
13) Burn (Deadmau5 mix) – Prime 33
14) No Pressure (Deadmau5 mix) – One Plus One
15) God Is A DJ (Deadmau5 mix) – Faithless
https://jabawoki.com/wp-content/mp3/Jabawoki_Strictly_Mau5_04042011.mp3
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Related Images: [...]
InfoSecThere is often a lot of talk about this concept, specifically in the white hat vs black hat debate that has gone on for what seems like forever now. I have, as you would expect, my own take on this. Lets start with a history lesson and the basics. White Hats are the “good guys” and Black Hats are the “bad guys”, why? because back in the good old days of spaghetti westerns, good guys always wore White Hats and the bad guys wore Black Hats, it’s that simple! Of course, in the scripted world of the western, it was that simple, the bad guy was that easy to spot and the good guys rode off into the sunset, but back in the real world it’s a little more difficult to identify.
The line between Black and White is often understood to be the law itself, i.e. if you’re a hacker, cracker or even a “skidie”, your hat changes colour the minute you go from having permission to do something to not having permission. Â I however wager that if we were to exact that understanding on every security expert in this field of expertise, today, it would be a near 100% perfect sea of Black Hats.
So the question becomes, if that’s the case, are we all really the “bad guys”? I put to you a different concept, I different way of thinking about this that, personally, I think fits much better.
First of all let’s forget about hats and the law and look at a couple of basic concepts. Motivation is the activation or energization of goal-oriented behaviour and  is defined as intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation comes from rewards inherent to a task or activity itself – the enjoyment of a puzzle or the love of playing whereas Extrinsic motivation comes from outside of the performer. Money is the most obvious example, but coercion and threat of punishment are also common extrinsic motivations.
Another point of consideration is Goal orientation, often seen as an aspect of an individual’s motivation. An individual’s goal orientation describes the goals that they choose and the methods used to pursue those goals. One of the most common conceptualizations of goal orientation is the three factor model, that is, individuals can be described in terms of goal orientation based on three factors:
mastery,
performance-approach, and
performance-avoid.
Individuals with a mastery goal orientation seek challenging tasks and value learning. Highly performance-approach oriented individuals seek tasks that allow them to demonstrate the skills they already possess, and highly performance-avoidant tend to avoid tasks where they may fail and thus appear incompetent.
The final aspect to consider in this equation is an agent’s intention in performing an action. In so much as his or her specific purpose in doing so, the end or goal that is aimed at, or intended to accomplish. In recent years, there has been a large amount of work done on the concept of intentional action in experimental philosophy. This work has aimed at illuminating and understanding the factors which influence people’s judgments of whether an action was done intentionally. For instance, research has shown that unintended side-effects are often considered to be done intentionally if the side-effect is considered bad and the person acting knew the side-effect would occur before acting. Yet when the side-effect is considered good, people generally don’t think it was done intentionally, even if the person knew it would occur before acting. The most well-known example involves a chairman who implements a new business program for the sole purpose to make money but ends up affecting the environment in the process. If he implements his business plan and in the process he ends up helping the environment, then people generally say he unintentionally helped the environment; if he implements his business plan and in the process he ends up harming the environment, then people generally say he intentionally harmed the environment. The important point is that in both cases his only goal was to make money. While there have been many explanations proposed for why the “side-effect effect” occurs, researchers on this topic have not yet reached a consensus.
So now we understand a little about motivation, goals & Intentions, what really makes the “bad guy” bad? Well its worth adding into themix that the “good guys” and “bad guys” all have the same level of skill, they all learned it the same way and they all have the same aptitude (loosely speaking of course). In fact during the learning process its probably fair to wager that on occasion everyone ended up, purely through exploration, somewhere they shouldn’t have been. Â Does this make us all “bag guys”?
I certainly do not think so. In my opinion, motivation, goals & intent are what separate the good from the bad, and in this context the “White Hats” from the “Black Hats”. Let’s look at an example. the CERT Coordination Centre came up with an interesting classification matrix, which I have provided below as a diagram:
In the above diagram, we see six types of attacker (as well as a virtual 7th type that could be all 6 in a different context), six types of motivation and four goals. It is assumed in this classification, as insinuated by the word “Attacker”, that we are dealing with the “bag guys” or Black Hats here, however, I would argue that the first type, “Hacker” has a motivation and goal that is not negative or in fact malicious in any way, so should they also be considered a “bad guy”?  Its fair to say, someone hell bent on the quest for knowledge in that particular classification may take a devil may care approach that could have a negative impact on the systems they are exploring, but again, is this malicious intent, or just carelessness?
In summary I put it to you that there are no White Hats, or Black hats in the world today, just Shades of Grey, and that only motivation, goals and intent separate those of us trying to help from those who have a more nefarious purpose.
Related Images: [...]