AMD reorg merges microprocessor, graphics units

Advanced Micro Devices has launched a reorganization that will see the chipmaker's microprocessor and graphics units merged into a single group.

The products group--one of four new groups announced Wednesday--will be headed by graphics chip executive Rick Bergman, who joined AMD after its $5.4 billion acquisition of graphics chip company ATI in 2006. The chipmaker said the other three groups would focus on technology, marketing, and customers.

"The next generation of innovation in the computing industry will be grounded in the fusion of microprocessor and graphics technologies," AMD CEO Dirk Meyer said in a statement. "With these changes, we are putting the right organization in place to help enable the future of computing."

The company also announced that Randy Allen, who oversaw processor and chipset development as senior vice president of AMD's Computing Solutions Group, is leaving the company. His departure comes one year after being elevated to that position in another companywide reorganization.

There was no indication of what Allen's plans are, but Meyer called Allen "an important engineering and business leader who has played a key role in many of AMD's most significant achievements in recent years."

The changes come as AMD tries to compete better with chip giant Intel in the aftermath of the botched roll-out of Barcelona, its first quad-core server processor. Hector Ruiz, then CEO of AMD, in 2007 blamed the chip's "complicated" design for the delay of more than six months before the chip was ready for release, causing AMD to lose market share and revenue to Intel.

In November, the troubled chipmaker announced its second round of layoffs in 12 months, part of plan announced in April 2008 to reduce its workforce by 10 percent.

Microsoft to defend its IE policies in closed-door antitrust hearing

The antitrust case involving Microsoft’s browser-bundling policies is continuing to wind its way through the European courts — with a closed-door hearing on the matter now slated for early June.

Microsoft officials are slated to present orally between June 3 and June 5 the arguments the company submitted in written form on April 28 to the European Commission (EC) regarding Opera Software’s complaint filed in December 2007 over Microsoft’s browser-bundling policies.

Here’s a quick recap of what’s going on.

Opera’s antitrust complaint had two parts: Opera charged that Microsoft’s policy of bundling IE with Windows hurt consumer choice. It also argued that Microsoft’s failure to comply with Web standards with IE resulted in a lack of browser interoperability.

The EC released its preliminary findings, charging Microsoft with abusing its dominant monopoly position, earlier this year. So far, the EC has not said what kinds of financial or other remedial actions it intends to require if it rules in Opera’s favor. As part of a previous antitrust case in the EU, via which Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its Windows monopoly, Microsoft was required to offer versions of Windows with Media Player removed and to pay billions of dollars in fines.

Since Opera filed its complaint, Mozilla, Google and members of the European Committee for Interoperable Systems have joined in to help back Opera’s case. Microsoft, for its part, added a new “remove Internet Explorer” option to the latest build of Windows 7 — a move that many industry watchers see as an attempt to blunt the potential impact of any kind of antitrust-related ruling.

Opera execs said last year that Opera is in favor of seeing Microsoft be required to distribute its competitors’ browsers via its Automatic Update mechanism and/or to bundle its compeitors’ browsers with Windows.

Microsoft currently has close to 68 percent of the worldwide browser marketshare, according to Net Applications. Microsoft’s biggest competitor for IE 8 is older versions of IE, rather than Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera or any other third-party browser.

What’s your guess as to what’s going to happen next in this case?  As I’ve said before, I think there is a case to be made that Microsoft’s browser-bundling policies have hurt competition. But I think it’s harder to prove Microsoft’s policies have hurt consumers.

Microsoft’s failure to keep IE up-to-date and release newer/better/faster versions in a timely manner has resulted in it losing a hefty chunk of marketshare in recent years. Would the market continue to “right” itself even if the courts don’t intervene? Perhaps….. I think the EC is going to intervene, however, given its past track record, and the result is not likely to be to Microsoft’s liking. What do you think?

Execs reveal why newspapers don't block Google

To hear the poobahs of traditional media tell it, Google is to print media what global warming is to the polar caps. At many once-stalwart print publications, profits are melting away.

For several months, leaders at some of the nation's most influential newspapers and periodicals, including The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, and the online arm of Forbes magazine have begun blaming Google and similar Web services for at least some of their deepening financial troubles. Google sells ads against news blurbs it "scrapes" from news sites. It links back to the Web sites from which it acquired the content but doesn't share ad revenue with them. This isn't fair, many media execs say.

In all the very public bashing of Google, however, few if any of the critics has answered why they don't just cut Google out of the equation by preventing the search engine from indexing their Web pages. The task could be accomplished by inserting a single line of code into their URLs. If Forbes.com added a line such as forbes.com/robots.txt, content from the site would be rendered invisible to Google.

Representatives from the Journal and AP declined to comment for this story, but their Web sites speak volumes for them. None of the companies has severed ties with Google and risked losing access to the search engine's millions of users. Traditional print publications, which have seen ad revenue plummet, mass layoffs, and in some cases the shut down of operations, are now hopelessly dependent on Google to lure readers, says media executives. Jim Brady, the Washington Post's former digital chief says the question of whether Google is good or bad for print journalism is almost irrelevant at this point. Print publications are helpless to do anything about it.

"Get out a sheet of paper and write down all the things Google does for you," said Brady, former executive editor of Washingtonpost.com, as he offered advice to his former peers in old media. "Google allows your content to be exposed to people who would never see it otherwise. If you're able to code your pages well, then you can get an awful lot of leads from Google. It's up to your site to turn those leads into loyal customers...Google is not going away."

That's not exactly how Jim Spanfeller sees it. The CEO of Forbes.com questioned in an opinion piece he wrote for the blog PaidContent.com, "is Google being disproportionally compensated for what is fundamentally other people's work?" He said the answer appears to be yes. He claimed Google "makes roughly $60 million a year directing folks" to Forbes.com.

So why doesn't Spanfeller prevent the search engine from indexing the magazine's content?

"I don't know that this isn't a bad idea," Spanfeller said in a phone interview with CNET News. "But I think that would be hard to do without everyone's competitors shutting (Google) out as well."

The sounds like an acknowledgment that Forbes needs Google to compete and that the search engine may provide publications like his a valuable service. That's at least what Marissa Mayer, a Google exec, told Congress on Wednesday during a hearing on the future of journalism. Google sends 1 billion page views every month to print publications, Mayer testified during the hearing.

He argues, however, Google does do harm. For example, the blurbs the search engine obtains from news sites often includes enough information to satisfy the major questions about a story. For many people, reading a headline and synopsis about three more people dying of swine flu in Mexico is all some readers want to know. There's little motivation to click on links to the site that actually produced the news. To some in media, this violates copyright law.

Spanfeller says there's also frustration when a news organization pays professional journalists to do original reporting and then see links to stories written by amateurs--or worse, blogs that are little more than flimsy rewrites of their content--with higher visibility on Google than their own.

Spanfeller wants Google to do a better job of showcasing professionally created content, and "cease stepping on or over the line of fair use." This means he wants Google to start providing less information in its news blurbs and crack down on sites that use stories without authorization.

"We show users just enough to make them want to read more," wrote Alexander Macgillivray, Google's associate general counsel, wrote last month. "Even though the Copyright Act does not grant a copyright owner a veto over such uses, it is our policy to allow any rights holder...to remove their content from our index."

So what do print execs want from Google. First, the search engine could cure a lot of ills by sharing ad revenue with print companies. After all, it's their content Google is selling ads against. Forget it; not going to happen, predicts Brady.

"There was a fair amount of pushing from people at the (Washington Post) news group who said: 'We should make Google pay us for our content,' Brady said. "I told them 'They're never going to do it. They wouldn't give us a dime.' (They responded) 'Well then, we should block it.' I said 'Fine, we can go ahead and do that and that's suicidal.'

"Google built a better mousetrap than the newspapers were able to build," Brady continued. "That's part of the reason they're making the money they're making. At some point I don't know what you can do about that other than to try and work it to your advantage."

There are some media execs looking for new ways to get their content in front of readers without help from Google. Amazon on Wednesday showcased a new large-screen e-reader called the Kindle DX. The device is partly geared toward readers of newspapers, and magazines. Newspaper publishers Hearst Corp., and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. have said they will create their own e-readers, which they will use to deliver their own content.

This kind of effort is fine with Brady, only he would like everyone in traditional media to stop obsessing about the past.

"We have to ask, 'what's next?'" said Brady who plans to open his own consulting business. "That's where everybody needs to get to. Because Google isn't going away and they aren't writing us checks. Let's move on. We're all getting way too hung up on the past, with all the things we should have done 10 years ago, could have done...well, we didn't. Game over. We should be asking 'What are the new rules of this game and how do we best take advantage of them.

FBI agent looks back on time posing as a cybercriminal

In September 2008 police began arresting alleged members of Dark Market, an underground Internet forum for buying and selling credit card data used for identity fraud. The sting wouldn't have been possible without the work of FBI agent J. Keith Mularski who spent two years infiltrating the group.

FBI Special Agent J. Keith Mularski spent two years posing as a cybercriminal as part of an undercover sting operation.

(Credit: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation)

Mularski became hacker "Master Splynter," a play on the name of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle character called "Master Splinter," a rat who lives in New York City's sewers. He was so successful in his online disguise that he ended up running the server that hosted the Dark Market forum from his offices at the National Cyber Forensics Training Alliance in Pittsburgh.

Mularski, a supervisory special agent with the FBI's Cyber Initiative & Resource Fusion Unit, spoke about the Dark Market sting during a session at the RSA security conference last month. CNET News caught up with him this week on the telephone to find out what it was like hanging out with cybercriminals.

Q: You were central to the Dark Market sting. Tell me what happened and what role you played. 
Mularski: We kicked off an undercover operation to try to penetrate these underground crime groups that are running these forums on the Internet. We developed the persona of a spammer/hacker and I assumed that role. Our intention was to try to penetrate the groups and dismantle them like we would with organized crime. In this case we were very successful in getting to the upper echelons of the Dark Market group and we were actually able to run the server and host all the communications that were going on there to make our cases against the criminals. Worldwide we had 60 arrests. It was a two-year operation and we had arrests in the U.K., Germany, Turkey, and here in the U.S.

What measures did you take to try to prove you were legitimate?
I acquired the reputation of one of the world's top 5 spammers. The Spamhaus Project, which tracks spammers, made a listing for me as being a top spammer and that gave me credibility so that I didn't necessarily have to do any criminal activity. I could talk the talk. If someone wanted me to mail (send spam) for them I would (get out of it by giving them the excuse) that they were too small of a fish. If they were a big fish I'd just say I didn't have any openings or time to work with them.

What sorts of crimes were they doing on Dark Market?
They were doing all sorts of identity theft. They were hacking into companies and stealing credit card numbers and selling them. They were selling counterfeit drivers' licenses and other photo documentation, as well as manufacturing fake credit cards. They were selling harvested bank accounts and brokerage accounts and selling different types of malware or spyware programs or Trojan horses that you could infect peoples' computers with. The whole gamut of the cyber underground was available there. If you needed it you could get it there on the site.

How did being undercover interfere with your life? What extremes did you have to go to to keep up the facade?
I would have to be online all the time, basically, in case someone needed to get ahold of me. If I was at home I would always have a computer on, even while watching TV. If I went on vacation I took the computer with me to make sure I was able to log in. I would tell the (Dark Market) guys I was traveling to go surfing or something like that and I would tell them I'll be online at these times if you need to get me. I had a cell phone connected to a Gmail account and I would tell them if they had to get ahold of me to send an e-mail and it would ping me. It was like that for two solid years almost every day. My wife wasn't too happy about it (chuckling).

No doubt! Was there ever a moment when you thought the jig was up and that they were on to you?
There were a couple of those. We had a problem with our backstopping right at the beginning of the operation when I took over the server. One of our rivals had hacked into the Dark Market server and was looking at who was logging in. He traced the IP address doing a "who is" (lookup) and the phone number connected to our covert IP address, which was supposed to be unlisted but instead it showed the address here at the National Cyber Forensics Training Alliance. By doing some research they determined that the IP address came from this building and they thought it came from me. I had to go on the offensive and say that it wasn't me and that it was already in the server. Eventually they believed me. There were a lot of wars between rival groups at the time. A lot of people were accusing each other of being "feds" and "cops" and I was able to use that to my advantage to create a smoke screen and create doubt.

How were you able to become administrator of the Dark Market server?
I had good relations with the administrator whose alias was "Jilsi." He wasn't a very technical guy and was having problems running the site because it was getting attacked by a rival group. So I told him about my background as a spammer and told him how good I was at setting up sites. I did some demonstrations and set up some test sites to show him I had the skills. Then there was just a lot of talk and rapport building. One night when Dark Market was getting attacked by a rival group I said I was ready and that I could secure the server for him and he said "let's move." That gave me full access to everyone using it and what they were doing.

Any anecdotes to tell about your dealings with these people? 
It was like a soap opera. There was constant drama going on. A lot of people were accusing one another of being cops. It was funny being part of the discussion as people were talking about whether so and so was a cop or a fed and I was sitting there knowing full well that the person wasn't. There were a lot of egos, and a lot of funny stories where guys would brag about their close brushes with the law and how close they got to being arrested. You get 20-year-old guys, 30-year-old guys who are single and making a lot of money, so you hear a lot of stories of partying and things like that.

Did you get a sense of what these carders are like as people; what their characters are like? 
There are a lot of guys who I think their curiosity just got the best of them and it led them down a dark path. One of the guys, Max Butler, who ran our rival site called Carders Market and used the hacker name Ice Man, was arrested in San Francisco. He was very intelligent. He could have been an excellent security expert. He could have given talks at RSA about vulnerabilities. A lot of these guys are just misguided. They get into a hotel and see that they have credit cards and one thing leads to another. I think that's how it all starts off and then they find they can make a lot of money and it becomes a business, a job. If you met them in person they were actually nice guys. I enjoyed a lot of my chat sessions when we were talking about other things, like traveling the world and things like that.

How old are they? 
The average guy is in his mid-20s or so. We've seen guys in their 40s. Ages range from 17 to 40something, typically. A lot of the guys who we arrested were in their mid-30s.

How tied to organized crime are they? 
One of the guys, "ChaO," kidnapped someone. He viewed himself as a traditional organized crime member. He was connected with organized crime groups in Turkey and they resorted to violence when they kidnapped someone who was talking too much about the operations. We're seeing more of that, especially in Romania. Also in Russia.

Did you hear from any of your former carder cohorts after the arrests?
I heard from sources that they couldn't believe I was an FBI agent. One of the guys whose house we raided wasn't at home and he sent me an expletive-filled message saying 'you're never going to catch me.' I told him he should give himself up rather than spend his life on the run and a week later he turned himself in.

This work sounds kind of dangerous. Did you ever feel you were in danger or are you worried now?
When you are an FBI agent there's always that threat of danger working crimes undercover. We never intended for my name to come out in this operation. But FBI agents' names are in affidavits. There was always that risk that my name could be exposed. It's always in the back of your mind but you try not to think about it.

What impact did the sting have?
It showed that we can get you no matter where you live. We were able to make internal relationships and work cases jointly with law enforcement in other countries. In the future there will be other joint cases in Europe and around the world. You don't necessarily have to be in the U.S. for us to bring you to justice. That is one of the most significant impacts it had. Another one is that it showed these guys that, yes, we do have a presence out there (on the Internet) and the U.S. is serious about targeting cybercrime. We are going to throw our resources at this problem.

How have things changed since you started the Dark Market operation in 2006?
With every operation the bad guys learn more of the undercover techniques that law enforcement is using. Everything that was successful for us in this operation would have to be tweaked because of that. The level of sophistication is so much higher. The days of a cyber investigation where you just track an IP address and that leads you to a hacker's house, those days are long gone. There are many different anonymization services the bad guys are using. The exploits and botnets they are using are so much more sophisticated than they were a couple of years ago. Just two years ago the majority of the botnets were IRC botnets, which are fairly simple. Now we're seeing botnets like the Storm worm that are very sophisticated and running peer-to-peer networks and that makes it harder for us to track down the command and control servers.

Have you been involved in any of the efforts to track down the people behind the Conficker worm?
I can't comment on that.

Anything else to add?
The message I'm trying to preach is that we have international cooperation and that other countries are starting to recognize this problem. Also, the attackers have changed with the emergence of organized crime into these cybercrimes. It's not just an 18-year-old pimply faced kid in his room committing these crimes. These are organized crime groups doing it. It's all about the money now and not just about how elite my hacking skills are to get into this Web site. Profit is driving these groups.

Windows 7 security fail

The good folks at F-Secure uncover the first Windows 7 security fail … and it’s a classic.

The issue in question is nothing new. In fact, it’s been around for so long that I didn’t even bother checking to see if it had been fixed.

You see, in Windows NT, 2000, XP and Vista, Explorer used to Hide extensions for known file types. And virus writers used this “feature” to make people mistake executables for stuff such as document files.

The trick was to rename VIRUS.EXE to VIRUS.TXT.EXE orVIRUS.JPG.EXE, and Windows would hide the .EXE part of the filename.

Additionally, virus writers would change the icon inside the executable to look like the icon of a text file or an image, and everybody would be fooled.

Surely this won’t work in Windows 7.

Lets try.

Hmm. It sure looks like a text file in Explorer:

OK, the sort of person who reads ZDNet would immediately spot what’s going on here, but for everyone else out there in “computerland” this sort of trickery could well go unnoticed.

Personally, the whole idea of being able to hide file extensions just doesn’t make sense to me, and it’s still one of the first “features” that I turn off when I install Windows. Combined with the ability to change the icon on certain potentially dangerous file types such as .EXE files, it’s a very easy way to get people clicking on the wrong sorts of files.

What could Microsoft do? Maybe disable the ability to hide file extensions and add some sort of overlay image onto executables that aren’t digitally signed.

[UPDATE: Just to be clear here, I'm not labeling this as a high risk, but rather as a piece of legacy from a bygone era where the risk that someone is fooled outweighs the benefits of trimming four characters off the end of a filename.

Mind Controller Wheel Chair

A research team of the University of Zaragoza has developed a prototype of a brain-actuated wheelchair. During May 2008, five subjects, only using their thoughts, successfully carried navigation and manoeuvrability tasks with the wheelchair in the University. The non-invasive method to record the human neural activity was the EEG and the wheelchair was robotized and equipped with a laser sensor.

This web describes a new non-invasive brainactuated wheelchair that relies on a P300 neurophysiological protocol and automated navigation. When in operation, the user faces a screen displaying a real-time virtual reconstruction of the scenario and concentrates on the location of the space to reach. A visual stimulation process elicits the neurological phenomenon and the electroencephalogram (EEG) signal processing detects the target location. This location is transferred to the autonomous navigation system that drives the wheelchair to the desired location while avoiding collisions with obstacles in the environment detected by the laser scanner. This concept gives the user the flexibility to use the device in unknown and evolving scenarios. The prototype was validated with five healthy participants in three consecutive steps: screening (an analysis of three different groups of visual interface designs), virtual-environment driving, and driving sessions with the wheelchair. On the basis of the results, this paper reports the following evaluation studies: (i) a technical evaluation of the device and all functionalities; (ii) a users’ behavior study; and (iii) a variability study. The overall result was that all the participants were able to successfully operate the device with relative ease, showing a great adaptation as well as a high robustness and low variability of the system.