Showing posts with label as. Show all posts
Showing posts with label as. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Alan Rufus was also known as Alan the Red Good name
Alan Rufus was also known as Alan the Red Good name
This is Richmond, California.
It was named in 1854 by Edmund Randolph; after his home city of Richmond, Virginia.
This is Richmond, Virginia.
It was named in 1737 by William Mayo, because it reminded him of his home town of Richmond, in Surrey. I find it a little hard to see it myself, but theyve both probably changed a bit since then.
This is Richmond, Surrey.
You may recognise it from having had people cycle past it very fast a couple of weeks ago. It was named in 1501 by Henry VII, after the town of Richmond, in Yorkshire, of which he was Earl.
This is Richmond, Yorkshire.
It was named in 1071 by Alan Rufus, after the village of Richemont in Normandy.
This is Richemont, Normandy
It was named once upon a time by someone history has forgotten, either because it was on a fertile hill; or - and this is the one I hope- because it was on a mound which belonged to Richard. If the latter, it seems to me this forgotten medieval Frenchman must be one of the most commemorated people in history, given that hes the origin of the first syllable of not only all the above places, but also the fifty or so other Richmonds in the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Jamaica.
What can we conclude?
-That the people who get to name settlements arent as imaginative as we might like.
-That as they get older and more influential, men get soppy about the place they come from. (Or are Earl of.)
-That Richards mound casts a long shadow.
-That I am no longer allowed to check things on Wikipedia when Im supposed to be writing.
P.S. There is an Edinburgh Festival special episode of John Finnemores Souvenir Programme now up on iPlayer. Hope you like it! The new series begins next month. Also, there is an excellent new radio show, also on iPlayer, called Before They Were Famous, in which the very funny Ian Leslie imagines the early careers of various writers; and also kindly allows me to do some of their silly voices. Watch out, professors of linguistics, for my subtle differentiation of the Czech Kafka from the Russian Dostoyevsky. Gulp. I normally do links, but I have already spent far too much time searching for photos of obscure French villages. Theyre on iPlayer, basically. Google it.
Available link for download
Saturday, March 25, 2017
AMP v PTO Casts Doubt on Patent Eligibility of Purified as Opposed to Isolated Biomolecules
AMP v PTO Casts Doubt on Patent Eligibility of Purified as Opposed to Isolated Biomolecules
On January 5, 2001, the US PTO published Utility Examination Guidelines explaining its long-standing policy of treating "isolated and purified" DNA molecules as patent eligible. Throughout the Guidelines, the PTO consistently refers to these patent-eligible DNA molecules as both isolated and purified, but never explicitly attributes distinct meaning to the two terms. Instead, I think most people have interpreted the terms (as used by the PTO in this context) as essentially redundant, similar to someone referring to a contract provision as "null and void."
If anything, the PTO guidelines might be interpreted as treating "purification" as a more demanding requirement than "isolation." For example, at one point the guidelines state that "an inventors discovery of a gene can be the basis for a patent on the genetic composition isolated from its natural state and processed through purifying steps that separate the gene from other molecules naturally associated with it,” perhaps implying that mere isolation will not be sufficient unless the DNA molecule is not subsequently purified through processes that separate the gene from other molecules.
In practice, it is my experience that the PTO and most practitioners have interpreted "purification" and "isolation" as essentially redundant. While most "gene patents" recite DNA molecules that are "isolated," "isolated and purified," or "recombinant," there are a substantial number of issued patents that simply recite "purified" DNA molecules. See for example US Patent Nos. 5,780,262, 6,262,247, 6,399,371, 6,448,042 and 6,555,347. The PTO also routinely issues patents on other purified biomolecules, particularly proteins, based no doubt on the assumption that as a general matter purification of a biomolecule from its native environment is sufficient to confer patent eligibility. See for example US Patent Nos. 6,258,556 and 6,284,236.
In the Federal Circuits recent decision in AMP v. PTO (discussed briefly already on Patently-O and Patent Docs), the two judges in the majority (Lourie and Moore) held that "isolated" DNA molecules are patent eligible, but implied that mere "purification" of a biomolecule is insufficient to render it patent eligible. Writing for the majority, Judge Lourie correctly observes that patent eligibility under 35 USC 101 of purified biomolecules has never been explicitly addressed by the courts. As I pointed out in an earlier blog post:
The cases most commonly cited for the proposition that a purified naturally occurring compound is patent eligible are In re Kratz, 592 F.2d 1169, 1174 (CCPA 1979) (stating that a naturally occurring strawberry constituent compound does not anticipate claims to the substantially pure compound) and In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394 (CCPA 1970) (stating that a material occurring in nature in less pure form does not anticipate claims to the pure material). The Federal Circuit implicitly seems to support this view, and as recently as 2003 a Federal Circuit panel cited both Kratz and Bergstrom with apparent approval. But it is worth noting that Kratz and Bergstrom dealt specifically with the novelty and nonobviousness of the compounds, not patent eligibility per se. To my knowledge, there is no judicial precedent that has directly addressed the issue of whether isolation of a naturally occurring molecule renders the isolated molecule and eligible under section 101.
Judge Lourie also correctly noted that the Supreme Courts decision in Funk Bros., although often treated as patent eligibility case, was actually decided on the basis of obviousness, a point that Hal Wegner has long made in which I discussed in a previous blog post.
In what might be the most interesting part of the decision, Judge Lourie makes a clear distinction between purification and isolation of DNA. He explicitly states that "isolated DNA is not purified DNA." In his view, “[p]urification makes pure what was the same material, but was previously impure,” while “[i]solated DNA, in contrast, is a free-standing portion of a native DNA molecule, frequently a single gene. Isolated DNA has been cleaved (i.e., had covalent bonds in its backbone chemically severed) or synthesized to consist of just a fraction of a naturally occurring DNA molecule.”
Judge Lourie stresses that unlike a biomolecule that has been merely purified, isolated DNA "has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body." In his view, the test for patent eligibility hinges on whether the claimed molecule is "markedly different" from that which occurs in nature, and differences at the level of chemical structure between synthetic DNA, or genomic DNA that has been excised from the genome, are sufficient to satisfy the test. Implicitly, he seems to suggest that purified DNA molecules that are not structurally distinct from a naturally occurring counterpart would not be patent eligible. This seems to suggest that claims directed towards purified biomolecules, such as proteins, might not be patent eligible.
In its amicus brief, as I recall, the Biotechnology Industry Organization argued that the District Courts decision in AMP v. PTO should be reversed because it implied that a purified natural product, such as Taxol, would be patent ineligible under the logic of the decision. But in fact it seems that even though the Federal Circuit reversed on the patentability of isolated DNA, its decision suggests that a purified natural product is patent ineligible unless it has distinctions in chemical structure sufficient to render it "markedly different" from its naturally occurring counterpart.
Arguably, the Federal Circuits decision in AMP v. PTO is not inconsistent with the PTO utility examination guidelines. For example, the guidelines provide two examples of patent eligible isolated DNA - DNA that has been chemically synthesized outside of the body, and DNA that has been excised from the chromosome. Judge Lourie explicitly identifies these two forms of DNA as "isolated" and hence patent eligible.
Judge Lourie and Judge Moore get mixed up at times on the nuances of molecular biology, and make some misstatements regarding the nature of genomic DNA and cDNA. However, while a molecular biologist will pick up on these inaccuracies, I dont think they detract from the core of the decision. In a previous blog post, I explained why the amicus brief filed by the DOJ attempting to distinguish between cDNA and genomic DNA missed the mark because it failed to recognize that, in the vast majority of cases, "isolated" DNA refers to DNA that has been synthesized outside of the native context from which it arose in the body. The DOJ brief (which Judge Moore described as being at times “childlike” in its simplicity) assumed wrongly that "isolated" genomic DNA has merely been plucked from the human cell (what Judge Lourie would characterize as purification), when in fact patents on isolated DNA are based on DNA molecules that have been synthesized in the laboratory, either by cloning into a host cell, or by PCR, or something along those lines. I think that at some level Judge Lourie’s decision gets at this distinction between a biomolecule that has merely been purified, and isolated DNA molecules, which are generally the result of human-directed synthesis.
Available link for download
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Antivirus As a Threat
Antivirus As a Threat
Many people do not consider antivirus tools to be a threat. Antivirus software is frequently considered a trusted application; it may cause the reduction of information system efficiency, but provides protection against different types of attacks. As a result, antivirus can be the sole protection tool for the end-user while a set of antivirus software becomes the principal security method for enterprises.
However, as with any complicated programs, antiviruses are inherently vulnerable. Antivirus processes are trusted and run in privileged mode with extensive access rights and that makes antiviruses appealing for attackers, as their exploitation can lead to system compromise.
Currently, more attention is paid to vulnerabilities of protection software and antiviruses in particular. The swelling numbers of exploits found and published in exploit-db and other resources indicate that this is a growing problem.
The chart above demonstrates the number of vulnerabilities found yearly in well-known antivirus software for the last 15 years. In the 2000s, information about antivirus vulnerabilities was published rarely, but in 2015, more than 50 exploits based on such critical vulnerabilities in antiviruses as authentication bypass, privilege escalation, and remote code execution were published.
In particular, 2015 saw new vulnerabilities discovered in such products as ESET, Avast, Bitdefender, Symantec, Kaspersky Lab, FireEye, and Malwarebytes.
In addition to independent researchers, Google Project Zero started searching vulnerabilities in protection tools in 2014 and detected a significant percentage of vulnerabilities published in 2015. It is quite logical that governmental organizations also pay attention to this issue. Previously we covered reviews of Russian antivirus software performed by foreign intelligence agencies.
It is hard to forecast the frequency of vulnerabilities in antivirus software, but it is possible to make some conclusions based on exploits published in the first quarter of 2016. More details about these exploits are given below.
Attacks on Vulnerable Antiviruses
TrendMicro
Tavis Ormandy, a researcher from the Google Security Research team, found a critical vulnerability in TrendMicro antivirus that leads to remote code execution on January 11, 2016.
When using autoloading of the antivirus, Password Manager is implemented by default. This module is written in JavaScript with node.js. It initiates RPC to handle API requests via HTTP. The vulnerability was found in openUrlInDefaultBrowser, an API function that calls ShellExecute() without checking transferred arguments. In other words, it allows arbitrary code execution.
x = new XMLHttpRequest()
x.open("GET", "https://localhost:49155/api/
openUrlInDefaultBrowser?url=c:/windows/system32/calc.exe true);
try { x.send(); } catch (e) {};
The patch was issued one week after the incident.
- exploit-db.com/exploits/39218
McAfee Application Control
On January 12, specialists from SEC Consult, an Austrian company, published a report on bypassing security on McAfee Application Control. This application rejects the launching of apps unavailable in the white list and protects critical infrastructure. They used version 6.1.3.353 on Windows for testing. The researchers determined how to execute arbitrary code, launch unauthorized applications, and bypass DEP and UAC features and white lists. Additionally, the researchers detected vulnerabilities in swin1.sys, which may lead to system failure.
- exploit-db.com/docs/39228.pdf
QuickHeal
On February 19, the researcher Fitzl Csaba wrote a proof-of-concept exploiting a vulnerability in the popular Indian antivirus QuickHeal 16.00. The webssx.sys driver appeared to be vulnerable to CVE-2015-8285 that can trigger BSOD or escalation of privileges. The driver was created without the flag FILE_DEVICE_SECURE_OPEN, so any user can interact with it, bypassing ACL. The researcher determined the IOCTL code and necessary buffer size for calling the vulnerable function. Due to insufficient checks of data received from the input buffer, an integer overflow of arguments sent to the memcpy function occurred.
- exploit-db.com/exploits/39475
Comodo
On February 29, Greg Linares detected a vulnerability in the GeekBuddy module of Comodo antivirus. It leads to local escalation of privileges. GeekBuddy starts several processes, one of which tries to upload the library shfolder.dll. Instead of a full path to a file, GeekBuddy implies only a hard-coded library name, and it is possible to spoof dll. If a hacker inserts malicious shfolder.dll into C:ProgramDataComodolps4 emp and launches a client’s update or waits for an automatic update, they can escalate privileges up to the SYSTEM level and fully compromise the system.
- exploit-db.com/exploits/39508
Avast
On March 4, Google Security Research published new vulnerabilities in Avast. This time, they discovered an error related to memory corruption when parsing digital certificates. Tavis Ormandy created a portable executable file that triggered Avast failure. According to the specialist, the error was caused by corruption of memory when parsing digital signatures in files.
- exploit-db.com/exploits/39530
McAfee VirusScan
On March 7, Maurizio Agazzini presented another McAfee vulnerability. The researcher wrote an exploit that allows bypassing security restrictions of McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.8. By using this vulnerability, a user with rights of a local administrator can bypass security restrictions and disable the antivirus without using its password.
The vulnerability was fixed on February 25, though he started sending his requests in fall 2014.
- exploit-db.com/exploits/39531
Avira
On March 16, a critical vulnerability in the Avira antivirus was detected. As expected, the antivirus processes portable executable files, however, while testing the antivirus, researchers found the vulnerability called “heap underflow”. It occurred when PE section headers were parsed. If a header had a large RVA, Avira saved the calculated offset on the heap and recorded data controlled by attackers in the buffer (data from section ->PointerToRawData). The vulnerability caused RCE with the NT_AUTHORITYSYSTEM privileges. The patch was issued on March 18.
- exploit-db.com/exploits/39600
More Comodo
On March 19, a report on a critical vulnerability in the Comodo antivirus was published. This product contains an x86 emulator used to unpack and monitor obfuscated executable files automatically. The emulator is supposed to execute malicious code securely within a short time, so it allows the sample to unpack or demonstrate some behavior feature interesting for detection.
With the exception of issues related to the memory corruption, arguments of some dangerous emulated API requests are transferred to API functions during scanning. Some wrappers extract arguments from the emulated address space and send them directly to the system calls with the NT_AUTHORITYSYSTEM privileges. The call results then return to the emulator causing code execution.
It allows for different types of attacks, for example, reading, deleting, listing, and using cryptographic keys, interacting with smart cards and others devices. It is possible because the emulator forwards the arguments of the CryptoAPI functions directly to real APIs. Moreover, the vulnerability made it possible to read registry keys by using the RegQueryValueE wrapper, whose arguments are sent directly to a real API.
The attack vector shows that an attacker can execute malicious code in the emulator just by sending an email or making a victim visit an infected website. The patch was issued on March 22.
- exploit-db.com/exploits/39599
On March 14, researchers detected a critical vulnerability in the Comodo antivirus engine. It was possible to execute arbitrary code when the antivirus unpacked malicious files protected by PackMan. PackMan is a little-known open source packer used by Comodo during scanning.
During the processing of files compressed with certain options by the packer, compression parameters are read directly from the input file without validation. Fuzzing shows that the pointer pksDeCodeBuffer.ptr can be forwarded anywhere in the function CAEPACKManUnpack::DoUnpack_With_NormalPack, and that allows an attacker to free the arbitrary address by the free() function. The vulnerability allows a hacker to execute code with the NT_AUTHORITYSYSTEM privileges. The patch was issued on March 22.
- exploit-db.com/exploits/39601
What to Do
Despite all of the above outlined vulnerabilities, we cannot completely abandon the use of antivirus software. Antivirus engines analyze huge amounts of files more quickly than alternative solutions such as a sandbox, because they widely implement statistical analysis.
An effective protection system based on antiviruses should demonstrate detection accuracy and risk minimization. Here are the most promising ways to tackle this issue.
- Scanning performed by several antivirus engines significantly increases accuracy and speed of threat detection. Some online services like VirusTotal can rise to the challenge but require uploading your files, which could lead to info leakage to third parties. It makes sense to perform such scans on a local server, which eliminates any involvement of outsider applications.
- Security risks may be mitigated if all suspicious files are examined in an isolated and secure environment. We should understand that modern malicious software is able to analyze a target environment and either bypass sandboxes or stay hidden. That is why it is recommended to employ honeypots as they mimic the real system making it easy to observe malicious behavior for a prolonged period of time without being noticed.
- Even after malware is detected, an antivirus is not able to trace back all the objects that were affected by it. This means that a security system should support forensic analysis functionality.
We employ this and other technologies in PT MultiScanner.
Available link for download
Monday, March 6, 2017
Alden Richards and Maine Mendoza Are Complemented As refreshingly natural
Alden Richards and Maine Mendoza Are Complemented As refreshingly natural
CRB Tech reviews renters the world of Alden Richards and brings to you this latest news of your favorite star. Keep your fingers crossed and read further.
Broadcast journalist and ex political icon Teddy Boy Locsin viewed the romantic comedy Imagine You and Me and has just great words to say in regards to the Alden Richards and Maine Mendoza starrer. On his Twitter account, he shared what he thinks about the motion picture, the storyline and its on-screen characters. To start with, he complimented the phenomenal love team for their acting.
Here is his exact tweet:
IMAGINE YOU AND ME is a deft retelling of Rome&Juliet. Alden & Maine are refreshingly natural, not playing characters as living them.
He contrasted Maine with the Golden Globe and Primetime Emmy award winning Hollywood actress Jennifer Aniston, and commended Aldens capacity to make one feel for his character.
Finally, he exclaimed that the motion picture will be hard to beat and even contrasted it with the 1968 Romeo and Juliet film. He portrayed it as sui generis, a Latin expression which means a class of its own.
Speaking about the movie, on the off chance that you have covered showbiz for more than 30 years, you understand you need to deal movies that illuminate and movies that are the opposite.
You cheer the great movies and you feel the setback when they are not disparaged by the alleged masa now called the mass audience.
For sure, a few motion pictures are made to captivate one wide and incorporating division you cant discover in the show corridor.
Without a doubt, a few films are carefully fit to suit well known love teams and a few motion pictures dare hazard yet with specific results for the producer.
Be that as it may, watching Mike Tuvieras Imagine You and Me highlighting the marvelous AlDub love team is — in some measure — a genuinely wonderful experience. It adds to ones instruction of the film audience as they advanced as the years progressed.
Surely, it is difficult making sense of in a debut night where you need to truly "part the sea" to get to the passageway of the theater abounding with shouting devotees of Alden Richards and Maine Mendoza. The path to the theater is a major sideshow without anyone else. Starting from the earliest stage to the third floor of SM Megamall are a great many fans cheering the love team.
CRB Tech reviews is glad to present you news related to Alden and his partner Maine Mendoza.
Available link for download
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)