<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_07_2051238</id>
	<title>PC Invader Costs a Kentucky County $415,000</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246965960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>plover recommends a detailed account by Brian Krebs in the Washington Post's Security Fix column of <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/an\_odyssey\_of\_fraud\_part\_ii.html?hpid=sec-tech">a complex hack and con job</a> resulting in the theft of $415,000 from Bullitt County, Kentucky. <i>"The crooks were aided by more than two dozen co-conspirators in the United States, as well as a strain of malicious software capable of defeating online security measures put in place by many banks. ...the trouble began on June 22, when someone started making unauthorized wire transfers of $10,000 or less from the county's payroll to accounts belonging to at least 25 individuals around the country... [T]he criminals stole the money using a custom variant of a keystroke logging Trojan known as 'Zeus' (a.k.a. 'Zbot') that included two new features. The first is that stolen credentials are sent immediately via instant message to the attackers. But the second, more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers, allowing the bad guys to log in to the victim's bank account using the victim's own Internet connection."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>plover recommends a detailed account by Brian Krebs in the Washington Post 's Security Fix column of a complex hack and con job resulting in the theft of $ 415,000 from Bullitt County , Kentucky .
" The crooks were aided by more than two dozen co-conspirators in the United States , as well as a strain of malicious software capable of defeating online security measures put in place by many banks .
...the trouble began on June 22 , when someone started making unauthorized wire transfers of $ 10,000 or less from the county 's payroll to accounts belonging to at least 25 individuals around the country... [ T ] he criminals stole the money using a custom variant of a keystroke logging Trojan known as 'Zeus ' ( a.k.a .
'Zbot ' ) that included two new features .
The first is that stolen credentials are sent immediately via instant message to the attackers .
But the second , more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers , allowing the bad guys to log in to the victim 's bank account using the victim 's own Internet connection .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>plover recommends a detailed account by Brian Krebs in the Washington Post's Security Fix column of a complex hack and con job resulting in the theft of $415,000 from Bullitt County, Kentucky.
"The crooks were aided by more than two dozen co-conspirators in the United States, as well as a strain of malicious software capable of defeating online security measures put in place by many banks.
...the trouble began on June 22, when someone started making unauthorized wire transfers of $10,000 or less from the county's payroll to accounts belonging to at least 25 individuals around the country... [T]he criminals stole the money using a custom variant of a keystroke logging Trojan known as 'Zeus' (a.k.a.
'Zbot') that included two new features.
The first is that stolen credentials are sent immediately via instant message to the attackers.
But the second, more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers, allowing the bad guys to log in to the victim's bank account using the victim's own Internet connection.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616387</id>
	<title>Re:Learn English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obligatory Duckman: "Well we don't LIVE in England, do we?!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory Duckman : " Well we do n't LIVE in England , do we ? !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory Duckman: "Well we don't LIVE in England, do we?!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615841</id>
	<title>enh, the criminals we get these days...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246970520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
All that work, and they netted less than a half million?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that work , and they netted less than a half million ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
All that work, and they netted less than a half million?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616209</id>
	<title>At least they got the decimal place correct!</title>
	<author>rrossman2</author>
	<datestamp>1246973580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sub-$10,000 transfers was a good way to help avoid attention... but imagine if the decimal place was off, and what should have been "fractions of a penny that get dropped off" and add up over many years becomes a couple hundred thousands or millions over the weekend!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sub- $ 10,000 transfers was a good way to help avoid attention... but imagine if the decimal place was off , and what should have been " fractions of a penny that get dropped off " and add up over many years becomes a couple hundred thousands or millions over the weekend !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sub-$10,000 transfers was a good way to help avoid attention... but imagine if the decimal place was off, and what should have been "fractions of a penny that get dropped off" and add up over many years becomes a couple hundred thousands or millions over the weekend!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616307</id>
	<title>So impressed by basic tech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers</p></div></blockquote><p>I find it hilarious that basic TCP/IP networking stuff gets labeled as "interesting".  Any idiot can initiate a connection to a host on the internet.</p><p>What's "interesting" is that the victim's machine was not firewalled to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place.  Properly controlling outgoing traffic is of crucial importance, particularly when dealing with such sensitive information.  A locked down network should be able to contain unknown connections from within, just as well as those from the great wide internet.</p><p>In my opinion, it's not the invader that cost Kentucky $415,000.  The fault rests entirely on their network administrator(s).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackersI find it hilarious that basic TCP/IP networking stuff gets labeled as " interesting " .
Any idiot can initiate a connection to a host on the internet.What 's " interesting " is that the victim 's machine was not firewalled to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place .
Properly controlling outgoing traffic is of crucial importance , particularly when dealing with such sensitive information .
A locked down network should be able to contain unknown connections from within , just as well as those from the great wide internet.In my opinion , it 's not the invader that cost Kentucky $ 415,000 .
The fault rests entirely on their network administrator ( s ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackersI find it hilarious that basic TCP/IP networking stuff gets labeled as "interesting".
Any idiot can initiate a connection to a host on the internet.What's "interesting" is that the victim's machine was not firewalled to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place.
Properly controlling outgoing traffic is of crucial importance, particularly when dealing with such sensitive information.
A locked down network should be able to contain unknown connections from within, just as well as those from the great wide internet.In my opinion, it's not the invader that cost Kentucky $415,000.
The fault rests entirely on their network administrator(s).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617037</id>
	<title>We're talking about Kentucy!</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1246980780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"I can't imagine a commercial bank NOT using a secure crypto system with an air gap."</i> </p><p>Dood, remember, this is Kentucky we're talking about here.  The same place where an anonymous caller's commands to disrobe and be spanked (and perform other various sexual acts) was enough for a young adult Kentucky female to obey (recall that McDonald's episode?).</p><p>Also, isn't that the same state that moron senator McConnell is from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I ca n't imagine a commercial bank NOT using a secure crypto system with an air gap .
" Dood , remember , this is Kentucky we 're talking about here .
The same place where an anonymous caller 's commands to disrobe and be spanked ( and perform other various sexual acts ) was enough for a young adult Kentucky female to obey ( recall that McDonald 's episode ?
) .Also , is n't that the same state that moron senator McConnell is from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I can't imagine a commercial bank NOT using a secure crypto system with an air gap.
" Dood, remember, this is Kentucky we're talking about here.
The same place where an anonymous caller's commands to disrobe and be spanked (and perform other various sexual acts) was enough for a young adult Kentucky female to obey (recall that McDonald's episode?
).Also, isn't that the same state that moron senator McConnell is from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620981</id>
	<title>Re:When will online bank understand that...</title>
	<author>AtomicJake</author>
	<datestamp>1247063520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, or at least require an acknowledgment or signature page that is sent over a different network; e.g. fax, phone, sms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , or at least require an acknowledgment or signature page that is sent over a different network ; e.g .
fax , phone , sms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, or at least require an acknowledgment or signature page that is sent over a different network; e.g.
fax, phone, sms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620759</id>
	<title>root cause of malware infestation.</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1247062680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this</i>"<br> <br>

Where does it say that 'everyone' is claiming and it isn't the 'stupid MS users' it's the click and get infected OS known as Microsoft Windows that's the root cause of the malware infestation.<br> <br>

<i>the second, more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this " Where does it say that 'everyone ' is claiming and it is n't the 'stupid MS users ' it 's the click and get infected OS known as Microsoft Windows that 's the root cause of the malware infestation .
the second , more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this" 

Where does it say that 'everyone' is claiming and it isn't the 'stupid MS users' it's the click and get infected OS known as Microsoft Windows that's the root cause of the malware infestation.
the second, more interesting feature of this malware... is that it creates a direct connection between the infected Microsoft Windows system and the attackers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616611</id>
	<title>Re:Learn English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246976640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if two people are friends with each other do you call them co-friends? I don't think so. Co-conspirator is retarded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if two people are friends with each other do you call them co-friends ?
I do n't think so .
Co-conspirator is retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if two people are friends with each other do you call them co-friends?
I don't think so.
Co-conspirator is retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618861</id>
	<title>Re:We're talking about Kentucy!</title>
	<author>quadrox</author>
	<datestamp>1247085900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this something that actually happened? A quick search on google gets me no interesting results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this something that actually happened ?
A quick search on google gets me no interesting results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this something that actually happened?
A quick search on google gets me no interesting results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28622451</id>
	<title>Re:Windows TCO</title>
	<author>StayFrosty</author>
	<datestamp>1247068680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is needed, whether running Windows, Linux or MacOSX on the desktop, is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data. </p></div><p>That's easy, don't let normal users have root access.  That way the only "installing" they can do is to run applications from their home directory.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That is a complicated trick for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the face that the file system doesn't care if a file is data or executable code no matter where it is located in the file system. </p></div><p>Maybe I'm being naive here, but don't most modern filesystems support this already?  On unix systems you need to set the executable bit before running a shell script or program you download.  I suppose if the file is in a tarball or something the permissions could/would be preserved.  On Windows files are executable by default.  That's something that should probably change.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the end, the TCO of Windows, in this respect, is still lower if for no other reason than the likelihood that someone has a quick and easy way to reload the system clean is pretty high up there.</p></div><p>This is a moot point.  I know there are lots of nice imaging solutions for Windows that make reinstalling the OS a very quick process.  What you are forgetting is that most of these same utilities support Linux (and sometimes Mac) as well.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> There are fewer quick solutions to fixing or cleaning up a compromised system under Linux or MacOSX... with good reason -- they aren't your typical targets.</p></div><p>Assuming your users don't have root access--and you should be slapped if they do--it's usually as simple as rm -Rf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/infectedhomedirectory.  If there is important data in there you can always disable executable permissions from recursivly and safely back up any data first.</p><p>At any rate, none of this really affects the TCO at all.  When you are running Windows you have to pay extra for AV software.  On Linux and Mac you do not.  Technical reasons aside, right now there is absolutly no reason to need to be concerned with AV software on Linux and Mac systems.  This fact alone makes the Windows TCO higher. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is needed , whether running Windows , Linux or MacOSX on the desktop , is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data .
That 's easy , do n't let normal users have root access .
That way the only " installing " they can do is to run applications from their home directory.That is a complicated trick for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the face that the file system does n't care if a file is data or executable code no matter where it is located in the file system .
Maybe I 'm being naive here , but do n't most modern filesystems support this already ?
On unix systems you need to set the executable bit before running a shell script or program you download .
I suppose if the file is in a tarball or something the permissions could/would be preserved .
On Windows files are executable by default .
That 's something that should probably change.In the end , the TCO of Windows , in this respect , is still lower if for no other reason than the likelihood that someone has a quick and easy way to reload the system clean is pretty high up there.This is a moot point .
I know there are lots of nice imaging solutions for Windows that make reinstalling the OS a very quick process .
What you are forgetting is that most of these same utilities support Linux ( and sometimes Mac ) as well .
There are fewer quick solutions to fixing or cleaning up a compromised system under Linux or MacOSX... with good reason -- they are n't your typical targets.Assuming your users do n't have root access--and you should be slapped if they do--it 's usually as simple as rm -Rf /home/infectedhomedirectory .
If there is important data in there you can always disable executable permissions from recursivly and safely back up any data first.At any rate , none of this really affects the TCO at all .
When you are running Windows you have to pay extra for AV software .
On Linux and Mac you do not .
Technical reasons aside , right now there is absolutly no reason to need to be concerned with AV software on Linux and Mac systems .
This fact alone makes the Windows TCO higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is needed, whether running Windows, Linux or MacOSX on the desktop, is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data.
That's easy, don't let normal users have root access.
That way the only "installing" they can do is to run applications from their home directory.That is a complicated trick for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the face that the file system doesn't care if a file is data or executable code no matter where it is located in the file system.
Maybe I'm being naive here, but don't most modern filesystems support this already?
On unix systems you need to set the executable bit before running a shell script or program you download.
I suppose if the file is in a tarball or something the permissions could/would be preserved.
On Windows files are executable by default.
That's something that should probably change.In the end, the TCO of Windows, in this respect, is still lower if for no other reason than the likelihood that someone has a quick and easy way to reload the system clean is pretty high up there.This is a moot point.
I know there are lots of nice imaging solutions for Windows that make reinstalling the OS a very quick process.
What you are forgetting is that most of these same utilities support Linux (and sometimes Mac) as well.
There are fewer quick solutions to fixing or cleaning up a compromised system under Linux or MacOSX... with good reason -- they aren't your typical targets.Assuming your users don't have root access--and you should be slapped if they do--it's usually as simple as rm -Rf /home/infectedhomedirectory.
If there is important data in there you can always disable executable permissions from recursivly and safely back up any data first.At any rate, none of this really affects the TCO at all.
When you are running Windows you have to pay extra for AV software.
On Linux and Mac you do not.
Technical reasons aside, right now there is absolutly no reason to need to be concerned with AV software on Linux and Mac systems.
This fact alone makes the Windows TCO higher. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618605</id>
	<title>When will online bank understand that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246996500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When will online bank understand that the only 100\% foolproof method is to mandate the presence of a hardware device on the user's side and to make the bank account number of the <b>recipient</b> you want to transfer the money to part of a cryptographic challenge?</p><p>That is 100\% foolproof.  You ain't wiring money to an account whose number hasn't been entered on the hardware device (say some www.vasco.com device).  Full stop.</p><p>Some lowlife hacks my Windows (I'm not using for my online bank's website works fine under Linux) and intercepts in realtime my opened connection to my bank's website? OK, it's bad, the lowlife can see how much I have on my account.  But making a transfer?  How's the low-life going to generate the token validating another low-life's bank account without the hardware device...  Good luck with that low-life.</p><p>There are already several banks in Europe where it works like that...  It only takes a few more low-lifes to succeed stealing petty amounts like in TFA and banks shall start implement this everywhere.</p><p>Then it's "GG low-lifes"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When will online bank understand that the only 100 \ % foolproof method is to mandate the presence of a hardware device on the user 's side and to make the bank account number of the recipient you want to transfer the money to part of a cryptographic challenge ? That is 100 \ % foolproof .
You ai n't wiring money to an account whose number has n't been entered on the hardware device ( say some www.vasco.com device ) .
Full stop.Some lowlife hacks my Windows ( I 'm not using for my online bank 's website works fine under Linux ) and intercepts in realtime my opened connection to my bank 's website ?
OK , it 's bad , the lowlife can see how much I have on my account .
But making a transfer ?
How 's the low-life going to generate the token validating another low-life 's bank account without the hardware device... Good luck with that low-life.There are already several banks in Europe where it works like that... It only takes a few more low-lifes to succeed stealing petty amounts like in TFA and banks shall start implement this everywhere.Then it 's " GG low-lifes "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will online bank understand that the only 100\% foolproof method is to mandate the presence of a hardware device on the user's side and to make the bank account number of the recipient you want to transfer the money to part of a cryptographic challenge?That is 100\% foolproof.
You ain't wiring money to an account whose number hasn't been entered on the hardware device (say some www.vasco.com device).
Full stop.Some lowlife hacks my Windows (I'm not using for my online bank's website works fine under Linux) and intercepts in realtime my opened connection to my bank's website?
OK, it's bad, the lowlife can see how much I have on my account.
But making a transfer?
How's the low-life going to generate the token validating another low-life's bank account without the hardware device...  Good luck with that low-life.There are already several banks in Europe where it works like that...  It only takes a few more low-lifes to succeed stealing petty amounts like in TFA and banks shall start implement this everywhere.Then it's "GG low-lifes"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620977</id>
	<title>I'm skeptical...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I didn't think they had the internets in Bullit County!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I did n't think they had the internets in Bullit County ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I didn't think they had the internets in Bullit County!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616727</id>
	<title>Hmmmm....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happens if Autorun and file preview is disabled?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens if Autorun and file preview is disabled ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens if Autorun and file preview is disabled?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189</id>
	<title>Re:Windows TCO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the thought behind the comment, but I think we are arriving at a kind of plateau where it is not so much the OS as the users being stupid and uneducated while management policy is too lax when it comes to computer use.</p><p>With text-based computer usage, that was rarely if ever a problem simply because the fun things to do were rather limited and certainly didn't involve a live connection to a public internet.  But the more connected we became, the more fun things there were for people to do.  Suddenly with Windows + Internet access, the door flew wide open with everything from BonziBuddy to Weatherbug to all sorts of other gadgets, games and gizmos.  This escalation of extra-curricular activity has never been treated as a threat or as a problem by many and has continued unabated.</p><p>What is needed, whether running Windows, Linux or MacOSX on the desktop, is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data.  That is a complicated trick for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the face that the file system doesn't care if a file is data or executable code no matter where it is located in the file system. (This is a problem that should be fixed in ALL OSes)  There are effective tools to prevent a lot of such things, but all of them require what should have been done to begin with -- careful system software planning and implementation.  There are limits to which the OS itself can be blamed and that's what I am really trying to get at.</p><p>On one hand, there is the threat of running as the superuser on any OS which is unquestionably a problem.  On the other, there is running as the user.  Running programs as a user, from a user's writeable data space is often enough to give malicious software operators what they are looking for anyway.  Many of them seek personal information, so if they can get code running on a remote user's system that will give them access to that user's data, that's enough of a threat.  Getting "superuser access" merely gives them a way to infiltrate the system at a much lower level and make removal much more difficult.  So merely patching or preventing superuser access from being taken, assumed or otherwise utilized is only a part of the problem and one that is increasingly realized as irrelevant to malware authors.</p><p>In the end, the TCO of Windows, in this respect, is still lower if for no other reason than the likelihood that someone has a quick and easy way to reload the system clean is pretty high up there.  There are fewer quick solutions to fixing or cleaning up a compromised system under Linux or MacOSX... with good reason -- they aren't your typical targets.</p><p>But I believe we are close to reaching a plateau at which there is only so much that can be done to secure an OS without proper planning and implementation taking the lead concern as it should have always been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the thought behind the comment , but I think we are arriving at a kind of plateau where it is not so much the OS as the users being stupid and uneducated while management policy is too lax when it comes to computer use.With text-based computer usage , that was rarely if ever a problem simply because the fun things to do were rather limited and certainly did n't involve a live connection to a public internet .
But the more connected we became , the more fun things there were for people to do .
Suddenly with Windows + Internet access , the door flew wide open with everything from BonziBuddy to Weatherbug to all sorts of other gadgets , games and gizmos .
This escalation of extra-curricular activity has never been treated as a threat or as a problem by many and has continued unabated.What is needed , whether running Windows , Linux or MacOSX on the desktop , is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data .
That is a complicated trick for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the face that the file system does n't care if a file is data or executable code no matter where it is located in the file system .
( This is a problem that should be fixed in ALL OSes ) There are effective tools to prevent a lot of such things , but all of them require what should have been done to begin with -- careful system software planning and implementation .
There are limits to which the OS itself can be blamed and that 's what I am really trying to get at.On one hand , there is the threat of running as the superuser on any OS which is unquestionably a problem .
On the other , there is running as the user .
Running programs as a user , from a user 's writeable data space is often enough to give malicious software operators what they are looking for anyway .
Many of them seek personal information , so if they can get code running on a remote user 's system that will give them access to that user 's data , that 's enough of a threat .
Getting " superuser access " merely gives them a way to infiltrate the system at a much lower level and make removal much more difficult .
So merely patching or preventing superuser access from being taken , assumed or otherwise utilized is only a part of the problem and one that is increasingly realized as irrelevant to malware authors.In the end , the TCO of Windows , in this respect , is still lower if for no other reason than the likelihood that someone has a quick and easy way to reload the system clean is pretty high up there .
There are fewer quick solutions to fixing or cleaning up a compromised system under Linux or MacOSX... with good reason -- they are n't your typical targets.But I believe we are close to reaching a plateau at which there is only so much that can be done to secure an OS without proper planning and implementation taking the lead concern as it should have always been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the thought behind the comment, but I think we are arriving at a kind of plateau where it is not so much the OS as the users being stupid and uneducated while management policy is too lax when it comes to computer use.With text-based computer usage, that was rarely if ever a problem simply because the fun things to do were rather limited and certainly didn't involve a live connection to a public internet.
But the more connected we became, the more fun things there were for people to do.
Suddenly with Windows + Internet access, the door flew wide open with everything from BonziBuddy to Weatherbug to all sorts of other gadgets, games and gizmos.
This escalation of extra-curricular activity has never been treated as a threat or as a problem by many and has continued unabated.What is needed, whether running Windows, Linux or MacOSX on the desktop, is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data.
That is a complicated trick for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the face that the file system doesn't care if a file is data or executable code no matter where it is located in the file system.
(This is a problem that should be fixed in ALL OSes)  There are effective tools to prevent a lot of such things, but all of them require what should have been done to begin with -- careful system software planning and implementation.
There are limits to which the OS itself can be blamed and that's what I am really trying to get at.On one hand, there is the threat of running as the superuser on any OS which is unquestionably a problem.
On the other, there is running as the user.
Running programs as a user, from a user's writeable data space is often enough to give malicious software operators what they are looking for anyway.
Many of them seek personal information, so if they can get code running on a remote user's system that will give them access to that user's data, that's enough of a threat.
Getting "superuser access" merely gives them a way to infiltrate the system at a much lower level and make removal much more difficult.
So merely patching or preventing superuser access from being taken, assumed or otherwise utilized is only a part of the problem and one that is increasingly realized as irrelevant to malware authors.In the end, the TCO of Windows, in this respect, is still lower if for no other reason than the likelihood that someone has a quick and easy way to reload the system clean is pretty high up there.
There are fewer quick solutions to fixing or cleaning up a compromised system under Linux or MacOSX... with good reason -- they aren't your typical targets.But I believe we are close to reaching a plateau at which there is only so much that can be done to secure an OS without proper planning and implementation taking the lead concern as it should have always been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616329</id>
	<title>TCO</title>
	<author>phrostie</author>
	<datestamp>1246974420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is this included in M$'s total cost of ownership?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is this included in M $ 's total cost of ownership ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is this included in M$'s total cost of ownership?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616065</id>
	<title>Re:Next time try a bigger county</title>
	<author>Mordantos</author>
	<datestamp>1246972500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but Cali is broke<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but Cali is broke ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but Cali is broke ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619775</id>
	<title>Re:Windows TCO</title>
	<author>Martin Foster</author>
	<datestamp>1247057100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When mounting a filesystem under OpenBSD you can specify that any file within that mount cannot be executed.  I find that this is very much a valuable flag (noexec) when you are mounting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tmp and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home as it pretty much prevents execution of files outside of expected areas.</p><p><a href="http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=mount&amp;apropos=0&amp;sektion=0&amp;manpath=OpenBSD+Current&amp;arch=i386&amp;format=html" title="openbsd.org">http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=mount&amp;apropos=0&amp;sektion=0&amp;manpath=OpenBSD+Current&amp;arch=i386&amp;format=html</a> [openbsd.org]</p><p>Of course if it is a script,  nothing stops the person from calling the interpreter first.  e.g. perl script.pl</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When mounting a filesystem under OpenBSD you can specify that any file within that mount can not be executed .
I find that this is very much a valuable flag ( noexec ) when you are mounting /tmp and /home as it pretty much prevents execution of files outside of expected areas.http : //www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi ? query = mount&amp;apropos = 0&amp;sektion = 0&amp;manpath = OpenBSD + Current&amp;arch = i386&amp;format = html [ openbsd.org ] Of course if it is a script , nothing stops the person from calling the interpreter first .
e.g. perl script.pl</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When mounting a filesystem under OpenBSD you can specify that any file within that mount cannot be executed.
I find that this is very much a valuable flag (noexec) when you are mounting /tmp and /home as it pretty much prevents execution of files outside of expected areas.http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=mount&amp;apropos=0&amp;sektion=0&amp;manpath=OpenBSD+Current&amp;arch=i386&amp;format=html [openbsd.org]Of course if it is a script,  nothing stops the person from calling the interpreter first.
e.g. perl script.pl</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616155</id>
	<title>Re:Next time try a bigger county</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1246973160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they did do it to LA.  And nobody noticed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they did do it to LA .
And nobody noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they did do it to LA.
And nobody noticed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616109</id>
	<title>Re:Next time try a bigger county</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246972860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're foreign nationals.  They don't care if anybody notices.  Once they have the money, they're practically untraceable, untouchable.  It sounds like they've done this before, and will do this again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're foreign nationals .
They do n't care if anybody notices .
Once they have the money , they 're practically untraceable , untouchable .
It sounds like they 've done this before , and will do this again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're foreign nationals.
They don't care if anybody notices.
Once they have the money, they're practically untraceable, untouchable.
It sounds like they've done this before, and will do this again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616551</id>
	<title>Re:Windows TCO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246976280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you include user stupidity into Windows TCO? are you implying that dumb users suddenly become intelligent if they are running OSX or linux and won't run bad stuff?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you include user stupidity into Windows TCO ?
are you implying that dumb users suddenly become intelligent if they are running OSX or linux and wo n't run bad stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you include user stupidity into Windows TCO?
are you implying that dumb users suddenly become intelligent if they are running OSX or linux and won't run bad stuff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616195</id>
	<title>Some people think they can outsmart me...</title>
	<author>RoFLKOPTr</author>
	<datestamp>1246973460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I've yet to meet the man that can outsmart Bullitt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 've yet to meet the man that can outsmart Bullitt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I've yet to meet the man that can outsmart Bullitt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617287</id>
	<title>Re:So impressed by basic tech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246983240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many modern malware programs create command and control tunnels across ports typically considered safe. The direct connection could have very well been over SSL, so the traffic would look like typical encrypted web traffic. A firewall alone will not save you; you need a layered approach. Sadly, No-Script + firewall probably would have been enough.</p><p>And for those of you dead set on the notion that someone personally installed Zbot using a USB drive, think again. I'd put my money on this being one of the many drive-by installs from an advertisement on a web page - no porn sites, warez, or emails involved. I doubt it was targeted. Most likely, it just happened that the malware user simply got lucky with the machine that he infected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many modern malware programs create command and control tunnels across ports typically considered safe .
The direct connection could have very well been over SSL , so the traffic would look like typical encrypted web traffic .
A firewall alone will not save you ; you need a layered approach .
Sadly , No-Script + firewall probably would have been enough.And for those of you dead set on the notion that someone personally installed Zbot using a USB drive , think again .
I 'd put my money on this being one of the many drive-by installs from an advertisement on a web page - no porn sites , warez , or emails involved .
I doubt it was targeted .
Most likely , it just happened that the malware user simply got lucky with the machine that he infected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many modern malware programs create command and control tunnels across ports typically considered safe.
The direct connection could have very well been over SSL, so the traffic would look like typical encrypted web traffic.
A firewall alone will not save you; you need a layered approach.
Sadly, No-Script + firewall probably would have been enough.And for those of you dead set on the notion that someone personally installed Zbot using a USB drive, think again.
I'd put my money on this being one of the many drive-by installs from an advertisement on a web page - no porn sites, warez, or emails involved.
I doubt it was targeted.
Most likely, it just happened that the malware user simply got lucky with the machine that he infected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616285</id>
	<title>Re:Learn English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, your grammar nazi-ing is not even correct. Co-conspirator and conspirator indicate different things, like specificity. If I am involved in a computer conspiracy, and another person is involved in a highway tax conspiracy, we are both conspirators. We are not, however, co-conspirators. We are not partners, we are not involved in the same conspiracy.</p><p>Also, it is possible for a conspirator to have a partner who is not part of the conspiracy. If a conspirator goes to someone and is able to get them to do a job with them, but withhold information regarding the conspiracy or its goals, then the conspirators new partner is not a co-conspirator.</p><p>The use of co-conspirator is used to denote the relation of one conspirator to another. It would actually be improper grammar to remove the "co", as it would imply ownership of one to the other. "His conspirator" and "his co-conspirator" have obviously different meanings. The use of co-conspirator removes ownership from the previous statement, and is therefore not redundant.</p><p>The first rule of the grammar nazi is only to make corrections when they are themselves correct. You, sir, and an epic fail.</p><p>P.S. Feel free to correct the poor grammar in that last sentence as if it were English, so I can call you wrong again. It's fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , your grammar nazi-ing is not even correct .
Co-conspirator and conspirator indicate different things , like specificity .
If I am involved in a computer conspiracy , and another person is involved in a highway tax conspiracy , we are both conspirators .
We are not , however , co-conspirators .
We are not partners , we are not involved in the same conspiracy.Also , it is possible for a conspirator to have a partner who is not part of the conspiracy .
If a conspirator goes to someone and is able to get them to do a job with them , but withhold information regarding the conspiracy or its goals , then the conspirators new partner is not a co-conspirator.The use of co-conspirator is used to denote the relation of one conspirator to another .
It would actually be improper grammar to remove the " co " , as it would imply ownership of one to the other .
" His conspirator " and " his co-conspirator " have obviously different meanings .
The use of co-conspirator removes ownership from the previous statement , and is therefore not redundant.The first rule of the grammar nazi is only to make corrections when they are themselves correct .
You , sir , and an epic fail.P.S .
Feel free to correct the poor grammar in that last sentence as if it were English , so I can call you wrong again .
It 's fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, your grammar nazi-ing is not even correct.
Co-conspirator and conspirator indicate different things, like specificity.
If I am involved in a computer conspiracy, and another person is involved in a highway tax conspiracy, we are both conspirators.
We are not, however, co-conspirators.
We are not partners, we are not involved in the same conspiracy.Also, it is possible for a conspirator to have a partner who is not part of the conspiracy.
If a conspirator goes to someone and is able to get them to do a job with them, but withhold information regarding the conspiracy or its goals, then the conspirators new partner is not a co-conspirator.The use of co-conspirator is used to denote the relation of one conspirator to another.
It would actually be improper grammar to remove the "co", as it would imply ownership of one to the other.
"His conspirator" and "his co-conspirator" have obviously different meanings.
The use of co-conspirator removes ownership from the previous statement, and is therefore not redundant.The first rule of the grammar nazi is only to make corrections when they are themselves correct.
You, sir, and an epic fail.P.S.
Feel free to correct the poor grammar in that last sentence as if it were English, so I can call you wrong again.
It's fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615861</id>
	<title>This is nothing novel.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246970640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Malware has been installing proxies and/or phoning home for years. (backdoors to direct-connect to/through your machine, instant messaging keystrokes).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Malware has been installing proxies and/or phoning home for years .
( backdoors to direct-connect to/through your machine , instant messaging keystrokes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malware has been installing proxies and/or phoning home for years.
(backdoors to direct-connect to/through your machine, instant messaging keystrokes).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28624615</id>
	<title>irresponsible "victims" carry some responsibility</title>
	<author>ChipMonk</author>
	<datestamp>1247076420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Rather than constantly blaming the victim we need to get tough on the criminals. If someone is mugged you dont tell them that they should not have walked down the street. You go after the guys that mugged them.</i> <br> <br>

I take it you leave your keys in your car, and you never lock your doors at night?<br> <br>

Give me a break.<br> <br>

When your boss won't let you implement real network security, and then your up-to-date Windows Vista Premium server gets cracked with a 0-day exploit, throw it back in his face. Or else, find a factory job somewhere and get some sleep at night. Let the boss take the heat and clean up the mess himself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than constantly blaming the victim we need to get tough on the criminals .
If someone is mugged you dont tell them that they should not have walked down the street .
You go after the guys that mugged them .
I take it you leave your keys in your car , and you never lock your doors at night ?
Give me a break .
When your boss wo n't let you implement real network security , and then your up-to-date Windows Vista Premium server gets cracked with a 0-day exploit , throw it back in his face .
Or else , find a factory job somewhere and get some sleep at night .
Let the boss take the heat and clean up the mess himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than constantly blaming the victim we need to get tough on the criminals.
If someone is mugged you dont tell them that they should not have walked down the street.
You go after the guys that mugged them.
I take it you leave your keys in your car, and you never lock your doors at night?
Give me a break.
When your boss won't let you implement real network security, and then your up-to-date Windows Vista Premium server gets cracked with a 0-day exploit, throw it back in his face.
Or else, find a factory job somewhere and get some sleep at night.
Let the boss take the heat and clean up the mess himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616397</id>
	<title>Lets fix the story:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft Cost a Kentucky County $415,000<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( <br>
When will they learn.<br>
This is my Unix. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My Unix is my best friend. <br>It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. My Unix, without me, is useless. <br>Without my Unix, I am useless. I must run my Unix true. <br>I must admin smarter than any hacker who is trying to own me. I must block them before they hack me. I will....<br>
My Unix and myself know that what counts on this net is not the scripts we code, the size of our pipe, nor the data we send.<br> We know that it is the uptime that counts.<br> We will stay up...<br>
My Unix is human, even as I, because it is my only life. <br>Thus, I will learn it as a brother.<br> I will report its bugs, share its strengths, upgrade parts, buy its accessories, open its ports and lobby for more bandwidth. <br>I will keep my Unix clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready.<br> We will become part of each other. We will...<br>
Before Darl McBride I swear this creed. My Unix and myself are the defenders of the company I work for. <br>We are the masters of your script kids. <br>We are the saviors of your profit. <br>So be it, until victory is America's and there is no competition, but Profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Cost a Kentucky County $ 415,000 : ( When will they learn .
This is my Unix .
There are many like it , but this one is mine .
My Unix is my best friend .
It is my life .
I must master it as I master my life .
My Unix , without me , is useless .
Without my Unix , I am useless .
I must run my Unix true .
I must admin smarter than any hacker who is trying to own me .
I must block them before they hack me .
I will... . My Unix and myself know that what counts on this net is not the scripts we code , the size of our pipe , nor the data we send .
We know that it is the uptime that counts .
We will stay up.. . My Unix is human , even as I , because it is my only life .
Thus , I will learn it as a brother .
I will report its bugs , share its strengths , upgrade parts , buy its accessories , open its ports and lobby for more bandwidth .
I will keep my Unix clean and ready , even as I am clean and ready .
We will become part of each other .
We will.. . Before Darl McBride I swear this creed .
My Unix and myself are the defenders of the company I work for .
We are the masters of your script kids .
We are the saviors of your profit .
So be it , until victory is America 's and there is no competition , but Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Cost a Kentucky County $415,000 :( 
When will they learn.
This is my Unix.
There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My Unix is my best friend.
It is my life.
I must master it as I master my life.
My Unix, without me, is useless.
Without my Unix, I am useless.
I must run my Unix true.
I must admin smarter than any hacker who is trying to own me.
I must block them before they hack me.
I will....
My Unix and myself know that what counts on this net is not the scripts we code, the size of our pipe, nor the data we send.
We know that it is the uptime that counts.
We will stay up...
My Unix is human, even as I, because it is my only life.
Thus, I will learn it as a brother.
I will report its bugs, share its strengths, upgrade parts, buy its accessories, open its ports and lobby for more bandwidth.
I will keep my Unix clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready.
We will become part of each other.
We will...
Before Darl McBride I swear this creed.
My Unix and myself are the defenders of the company I work for.
We are the masters of your script kids.
We are the saviors of your profit.
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no competition, but Profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617093</id>
	<title>Re:Next time try a bigger county</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1246981380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like MS marketing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
They're a multinational. They don't care if anybody notices. Once they have the money, they're practically untraceable, untouchable. It sounds like they've done this before, and will do this again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like MS marketing : ) They 're a multinational .
They do n't care if anybody notices .
Once they have the money , they 're practically untraceable , untouchable .
It sounds like they 've done this before , and will do this again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like MS marketing :)
They're a multinational.
They don't care if anybody notices.
Once they have the money, they're practically untraceable, untouchable.
It sounds like they've done this before, and will do this again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615791</id>
	<title>your tax money at work</title>
	<author>clang\_jangle</author>
	<datestamp>1246970220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Convenient how governments and businesses continue to spend other people's money on insecure systems which allow even more money to vanish.<br>  Microsoft Windows --because plausible deniability can come in mighty handy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Convenient how governments and businesses continue to spend other people 's money on insecure systems which allow even more money to vanish .
Microsoft Windows --because plausible deniability can come in mighty handy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Convenient how governments and businesses continue to spend other people's money on insecure systems which allow even more money to vanish.
Microsoft Windows --because plausible deniability can come in mighty handy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616205</id>
	<title>Re:Learn English</title>
	<author>TheDugong</author>
	<datestamp>1246973520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cocoa conspirator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cocoa conspirator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cocoa conspirator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620561</id>
	<title>Re:Windows TCO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is needed, whether running Windows, Linux or MacOSX on the desktop, is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data.</p></div><p>This has existed on Windows for a decade.  Using Group Policy you can specify that all applications must be signed with your private key, or provide a whitelist of applications.</p><p>Windows is actually very securable.  Corporations with competent admins are immune to the vast majority of Windows exploits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is needed , whether running Windows , Linux or MacOSX on the desktop , is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data.This has existed on Windows for a decade .
Using Group Policy you can specify that all applications must be signed with your private key , or provide a whitelist of applications.Windows is actually very securable .
Corporations with competent admins are immune to the vast majority of Windows exploits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is needed, whether running Windows, Linux or MacOSX on the desktop, is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data.This has existed on Windows for a decade.
Using Group Policy you can specify that all applications must be signed with your private key, or provide a whitelist of applications.Windows is actually very securable.
Corporations with competent admins are immune to the vast majority of Windows exploits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28621321</id>
	<title>Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC?</title>
	<author>jimbob666</author>
	<datestamp>1247064540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.darkreading.com/security/perimeter/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208803634" title="darkreading.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.darkreading.com/security/perimeter/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208803634</a> [darkreading.com] Social Engineering the USB way is a great read.<p>
Human nature: Don't you just love it?</p><p>
I have been an IT tech for many years and *still* don't know how to do URL links in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.darkreading.com/security/perimeter/showArticle.jhtml ? articleID = 208803634 [ darkreading.com ] Social Engineering the USB way is a great read .
Human nature : Do n't you just love it ?
I have been an IT tech for many years and * still * do n't know how to do URL links in / .
comments : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.darkreading.com/security/perimeter/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208803634 [darkreading.com] Social Engineering the USB way is a great read.
Human nature: Don't you just love it?
I have been an IT tech for many years and *still* don't know how to do URL links in /.
comments :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617811</id>
	<title>Re:Linux is not the holly grail</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1246987500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Things have changed, at least for ordinary commercial accounts.  Money transfers are done via web browser.  And nobody except a couple of imaginative slashdotters said anything about USB drives -- TFA says only that it was a "zbot Trojan" but doesn't identify the infection path.
</p><p>
The auditors and security people obviously approved the "two people requirement" but failed to identify the weaknesses in the implementation.  Yes, that's certainly a failing, but unless you have a CISSP on staff you probably don't even know that you need one.  An auditor who learned his trade 25 years ago (and hasn't kept up his education) might not recognize what needs to be secured in this environment.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things have changed , at least for ordinary commercial accounts .
Money transfers are done via web browser .
And nobody except a couple of imaginative slashdotters said anything about USB drives -- TFA says only that it was a " zbot Trojan " but does n't identify the infection path .
The auditors and security people obviously approved the " two people requirement " but failed to identify the weaknesses in the implementation .
Yes , that 's certainly a failing , but unless you have a CISSP on staff you probably do n't even know that you need one .
An auditor who learned his trade 25 years ago ( and has n't kept up his education ) might not recognize what needs to be secured in this environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Things have changed, at least for ordinary commercial accounts.
Money transfers are done via web browser.
And nobody except a couple of imaginative slashdotters said anything about USB drives -- TFA says only that it was a "zbot Trojan" but doesn't identify the infection path.
The auditors and security people obviously approved the "two people requirement" but failed to identify the weaknesses in the implementation.
Yes, that's certainly a failing, but unless you have a CISSP on staff you probably don't even know that you need one.
An auditor who learned his trade 25 years ago (and hasn't kept up his education) might not recognize what needs to be secured in this environment.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616743</id>
	<title>Re:So impressed by basic tech</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1246977780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't get it, what they used is the logged in connection to the servers remotely. This is not a TCP/IP level attack, is more like an application attack because they must have used the IE object for the already logged in HTTP or HTTPS connection to the server. This is no rocket science but I think its a notch above script kiddie level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't get it , what they used is the logged in connection to the servers remotely .
This is not a TCP/IP level attack , is more like an application attack because they must have used the IE object for the already logged in HTTP or HTTPS connection to the server .
This is no rocket science but I think its a notch above script kiddie level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't get it, what they used is the logged in connection to the servers remotely.
This is not a TCP/IP level attack, is more like an application attack because they must have used the IE object for the already logged in HTTP or HTTPS connection to the server.
This is no rocket science but I think its a notch above script kiddie level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616193</id>
	<title>Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246973460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Find out if the bank manger smokes, or his/her sectary smokes.  Note when they go for a smoke and where.  Get a few of those USB thumb drives from trade shows and lace them with trojans and place them near the smokers outside break area and wait for them to pick it up and place them back in their machines when they get back inside.  Because usually they will just to see what was on the drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Find out if the bank manger smokes , or his/her sectary smokes .
Note when they go for a smoke and where .
Get a few of those USB thumb drives from trade shows and lace them with trojans and place them near the smokers outside break area and wait for them to pick it up and place them back in their machines when they get back inside .
Because usually they will just to see what was on the drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Find out if the bank manger smokes, or his/her sectary smokes.
Note when they go for a smoke and where.
Get a few of those USB thumb drives from trade shows and lace them with trojans and place them near the smokers outside break area and wait for them to pick it up and place them back in their machines when they get back inside.
Because usually they will just to see what was on the drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28627557</id>
	<title>Re:enh, the criminals we get these days...</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1247043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>,i&gt;ll that work, and they netted less than a half million?</p><p>You should look at the exchange rate....  That is a LOT of money in FSU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>,i &gt; ll that work , and they netted less than a half million ? You should look at the exchange rate.... That is a LOT of money in FSU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>,i&gt;ll that work, and they netted less than a half million?You should look at the exchange rate....  That is a LOT of money in FSU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28623283</id>
	<title>Re:We're talking about Kentucy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Kentucy"? "Dood"?  Yeah.

And if you indict Kentuckians' intelligence based on one of their Senators, you have indicted us all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Kentucy " ?
" Dood " ? Yeah .
And if you indict Kentuckians ' intelligence based on one of their Senators , you have indicted us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Kentucy"?
"Dood"?  Yeah.
And if you indict Kentuckians' intelligence based on one of their Senators, you have indicted us all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617315</id>
	<title>Re:Linux is not the holly grail</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1246983540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>we need to get tough on the criminals.</i></p><p>They're in Kiev, you jackass, or Moscow, and surely kicking back to the police.  And I'm not even sure that those countries have extradition treaties with the US.  If they can even be identified and located...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we need to get tough on the criminals.They 're in Kiev , you jackass , or Moscow , and surely kicking back to the police .
And I 'm not even sure that those countries have extradition treaties with the US .
If they can even be identified and located.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need to get tough on the criminals.They're in Kiev, you jackass, or Moscow, and surely kicking back to the police.
And I'm not even sure that those countries have extradition treaties with the US.
If they can even be identified and located...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617283</id>
	<title>Re:Next time try a bigger county</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1246983240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They're foreign nationals. They don't care if anybody notices.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So if they were foreign locals, they would be deeply concerned?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're foreign nationals .
They do n't care if anybody notices .
So if they were foreign locals , they would be deeply concerned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're foreign nationals.
They don't care if anybody notices.
So if they were foreign locals, they would be deeply concerned?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28630927</id>
	<title>Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC?</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1247062260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't even have to put anything on them. The users will take them home and plug them and copy all those hilarious email forwards they got from other users so they can take them to work and show their coworkers. They'd just fw: fw: from the home pc, but it stopped working right recently...
<br> <br>
Mostly I see security issues occur because the local desktop support gave each user full admin access to their pc's and almost limitless net access. It's either that or they get an even bigger deluge of "the thingy doesn't work" tickets called in. but since we dutifully run and update the whole mcafee schmear, it's all good, right?
<br> <br>
Security software doesn't actually secure anything, educated and motivated admins do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't even have to put anything on them .
The users will take them home and plug them and copy all those hilarious email forwards they got from other users so they can take them to work and show their coworkers .
They 'd just fw : fw : from the home pc , but it stopped working right recently.. . Mostly I see security issues occur because the local desktop support gave each user full admin access to their pc 's and almost limitless net access .
It 's either that or they get an even bigger deluge of " the thingy does n't work " tickets called in .
but since we dutifully run and update the whole mcafee schmear , it 's all good , right ?
Security software does n't actually secure anything , educated and motivated admins do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't even have to put anything on them.
The users will take them home and plug them and copy all those hilarious email forwards they got from other users so they can take them to work and show their coworkers.
They'd just fw: fw: from the home pc, but it stopped working right recently...
 
Mostly I see security issues occur because the local desktop support gave each user full admin access to their pc's and almost limitless net access.
It's either that or they get an even bigger deluge of "the thingy doesn't work" tickets called in.
but since we dutifully run and update the whole mcafee schmear, it's all good, right?
Security software doesn't actually secure anything, educated and motivated admins do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616569</id>
	<title>Security audits are important!</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246976460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why? Because this is an example of what happens when they're not.
<br> <br>
If I'm not mistaken, most keylogging programs can be kept out fairly easily with decent firewall rules and a good anti-spyware/anti-malware agent. The article does not report that this county's IT department (which I'll guess and say is non-existent or illusory) took preventative measures against these attacks.
<br> <br>
Basically, they had it coming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Because this is an example of what happens when they 're not .
If I 'm not mistaken , most keylogging programs can be kept out fairly easily with decent firewall rules and a good anti-spyware/anti-malware agent .
The article does not report that this county 's IT department ( which I 'll guess and say is non-existent or illusory ) took preventative measures against these attacks .
Basically , they had it coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Because this is an example of what happens when they're not.
If I'm not mistaken, most keylogging programs can be kept out fairly easily with decent firewall rules and a good anti-spyware/anti-malware agent.
The article does not report that this county's IT department (which I'll guess and say is non-existent or illusory) took preventative measures against these attacks.
Basically, they had it coming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873</id>
	<title>HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC?</title>
	<author>davidsyes</author>
	<datestamp>1246970700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the site:</p><p><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/an\_odyssey\_of\_fraud\_part\_ii.html?hpid=sec-tech" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/an\_odyssey\_of\_fraud\_part\_ii.html?hpid=sec-tech</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p><p>one reader wrote in:</p><p>"I guess we don't know how the attackers somehow got the Zeus Trojan on the county treasurer's PC (presumably the county doesn't want to say and the FBI told them not to discuss details of the case anyway), but I'm curious whether that PC had security software installed, whether it was up to date, which security software can deal with the Zbot (ZeuS bot) Trojan, etc.</p><p>---------</p><p>Well, i have an idea, and it's TFO (Totally Frackin' Obvious)... and might be how it happened. A poor old cleanup crew member may have been elicited to put a USB device on a bank manager machine that might not have been watched by a camera. Might have trained the cleaner to surveil the PCs, determine their visibility to cameras, then trained the dupe into deftly/swiftly attaching a USB attack device while feigning scraping something sticky from the floor, or emptying waste bins that were tough to get the bag from....</p><p>Just my eye-dea... and the FBI may not want THAT to get out lest other banks suffering poor camera placement succumb to the same thing...</p><p>Or, a native of the Ukraine/U-area working at the bank might have been subjected to manipulation of some sort, but trained to be deft and not come under suspicion. Just my inflation-deprived-$0.02-cents...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the site : http : //voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/an \ _odyssey \ _of \ _fraud \ _part \ _ii.html ? hpid = sec-tech [ washingtonpost.com ] one reader wrote in : " I guess we do n't know how the attackers somehow got the Zeus Trojan on the county treasurer 's PC ( presumably the county does n't want to say and the FBI told them not to discuss details of the case anyway ) , but I 'm curious whether that PC had security software installed , whether it was up to date , which security software can deal with the Zbot ( ZeuS bot ) Trojan , etc.---------Well , i have an idea , and it 's TFO ( Totally Frackin ' Obvious ) ... and might be how it happened .
A poor old cleanup crew member may have been elicited to put a USB device on a bank manager machine that might not have been watched by a camera .
Might have trained the cleaner to surveil the PCs , determine their visibility to cameras , then trained the dupe into deftly/swiftly attaching a USB attack device while feigning scraping something sticky from the floor , or emptying waste bins that were tough to get the bag from....Just my eye-dea... and the FBI may not want THAT to get out lest other banks suffering poor camera placement succumb to the same thing...Or , a native of the Ukraine/U-area working at the bank might have been subjected to manipulation of some sort , but trained to be deft and not come under suspicion .
Just my inflation-deprived- $ 0.02-cents.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the site:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/an\_odyssey\_of\_fraud\_part\_ii.html?hpid=sec-tech [washingtonpost.com]one reader wrote in:"I guess we don't know how the attackers somehow got the Zeus Trojan on the county treasurer's PC (presumably the county doesn't want to say and the FBI told them not to discuss details of the case anyway), but I'm curious whether that PC had security software installed, whether it was up to date, which security software can deal with the Zbot (ZeuS bot) Trojan, etc.---------Well, i have an idea, and it's TFO (Totally Frackin' Obvious)... and might be how it happened.
A poor old cleanup crew member may have been elicited to put a USB device on a bank manager machine that might not have been watched by a camera.
Might have trained the cleaner to surveil the PCs, determine their visibility to cameras, then trained the dupe into deftly/swiftly attaching a USB attack device while feigning scraping something sticky from the floor, or emptying waste bins that were tough to get the bag from....Just my eye-dea... and the FBI may not want THAT to get out lest other banks suffering poor camera placement succumb to the same thing...Or, a native of the Ukraine/U-area working at the bank might have been subjected to manipulation of some sort, but trained to be deft and not come under suspicion.
Just my inflation-deprived-$0.02-cents...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616173</id>
	<title>Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC?</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1246973280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make it sound like they used security measures.  If they are anything like what I've experienced just in the last few years, they allow their employee's to take home laptops.  The employee's install malware on them as fast as humanly possible to get the latest roller babies video and what not then share crap with each other over internal file servers and email.  Just place a bridge with tcpdump &amp; ssldump on their connection to the web and watch.  The amount of UDP high port to high port traffic, P2P, makes up 40\% of their traffic.  The amount of 445 traffic to random outside ip address, conflicker and others, makes up another 25\%.  The smallest amount is nicely encrypted traffic for secure connections for business purposes.  If anyone wants to bet their users passwords for those secure connections are not stored in the registry on their laptops I'll be happy to take your money.  Send cash directly to my mailbox.  It is probably safer than going through a bank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make it sound like they used security measures .
If they are anything like what I 've experienced just in the last few years , they allow their employee 's to take home laptops .
The employee 's install malware on them as fast as humanly possible to get the latest roller babies video and what not then share crap with each other over internal file servers and email .
Just place a bridge with tcpdump &amp; ssldump on their connection to the web and watch .
The amount of UDP high port to high port traffic , P2P , makes up 40 \ % of their traffic .
The amount of 445 traffic to random outside ip address , conflicker and others , makes up another 25 \ % .
The smallest amount is nicely encrypted traffic for secure connections for business purposes .
If anyone wants to bet their users passwords for those secure connections are not stored in the registry on their laptops I 'll be happy to take your money .
Send cash directly to my mailbox .
It is probably safer than going through a bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make it sound like they used security measures.
If they are anything like what I've experienced just in the last few years, they allow their employee's to take home laptops.
The employee's install malware on them as fast as humanly possible to get the latest roller babies video and what not then share crap with each other over internal file servers and email.
Just place a bridge with tcpdump &amp; ssldump on their connection to the web and watch.
The amount of UDP high port to high port traffic, P2P, makes up 40\% of their traffic.
The amount of 445 traffic to random outside ip address, conflicker and others, makes up another 25\%.
The smallest amount is nicely encrypted traffic for secure connections for business purposes.
If anyone wants to bet their users passwords for those secure connections are not stored in the registry on their laptops I'll be happy to take your money.
Send cash directly to my mailbox.
It is probably safer than going through a bank.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617091</id>
	<title>Lame story.</title>
	<author>nog\_lorp</author>
	<datestamp>1246981380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That malware is not interesting at all. I remember playing with SubSeven when I was in 7th grade (long long time ago) and it had ICQ notification and reverse bind options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That malware is not interesting at all .
I remember playing with SubSeven when I was in 7th grade ( long long time ago ) and it had ICQ notification and reverse bind options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That malware is not interesting at all.
I remember playing with SubSeven when I was in 7th grade (long long time ago) and it had ICQ notification and reverse bind options.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617019</id>
	<title>Re:Linux is not the holly grail</title>
	<author>pushf popf</author>
	<datestamp>1246980600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this are missing the point and have never spent one second working in a corporate IT enviroment. The fact is that every single security measure that is put in place is met with overwhelming opposition by the user base as well as the executives. A spam filter is looked at as the unholy antichrist because it blocks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.00001\% of legitimate emails. I have worked corporated IT for years and have constantly had to fight for just the basic's in security. IT is not given the authority to do its job. I am sure there is some IT guy that worked for the county that is now unemploy</strong> <br> <br>

I'll admit it's been about 15 years since I was in Banking, but either these bank people were all morons or things have <em>really</em> changed.<ul>
<li>Why exactly is the wire transfer system even on the same network as the PCs?</li>
<li>Why do bank users even have removable drives and active USB ports?</li>
<li>Where were the auditors?</li>
<li>Where were the security people?</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this are missing the point and have never spent one second working in a corporate IT enviroment .
The fact is that every single security measure that is put in place is met with overwhelming opposition by the user base as well as the executives .
A spam filter is looked at as the unholy antichrist because it blocks .00001 \ % of legitimate emails .
I have worked corporated IT for years and have constantly had to fight for just the basic 's in security .
IT is not given the authority to do its job .
I am sure there is some IT guy that worked for the county that is now unemploy I 'll admit it 's been about 15 years since I was in Banking , but either these bank people were all morons or things have really changed .
Why exactly is the wire transfer system even on the same network as the PCs ?
Why do bank users even have removable drives and active USB ports ?
Where were the auditors ?
Where were the security people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this are missing the point and have never spent one second working in a corporate IT enviroment.
The fact is that every single security measure that is put in place is met with overwhelming opposition by the user base as well as the executives.
A spam filter is looked at as the unholy antichrist because it blocks .00001\% of legitimate emails.
I have worked corporated IT for years and have constantly had to fight for just the basic's in security.
IT is not given the authority to do its job.
I am sure there is some IT guy that worked for the county that is now unemploy  

I'll admit it's been about 15 years since I was in Banking, but either these bank people were all morons or things have really changed.
Why exactly is the wire transfer system even on the same network as the PCs?
Why do bank users even have removable drives and active USB ports?
Where were the auditors?
Where were the security people?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620963</id>
	<title>prevent unauthorized software</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1247063460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>What is needed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data</i>"<br> <br>

Run the software off a readonly USB device and you are safe from the desktop OS.<br> <br>
--<br>

<i>mode me up insightful please<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What is needed .. is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data " Run the software off a readonly USB device and you are safe from the desktop OS .
-- mode me up insightful please : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What is needed .. is a means to EFFECTIVELY prevent the installation of unauthorized software and data" 

Run the software off a readonly USB device and you are safe from the desktop OS.
--

mode me up insightful please :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616093</id>
	<title>How does a keylogger ever spread?</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246972740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a much more likely scenario.  They simply spread their malware everywhere, and waited to see what sensitive systems they'd netted!  They needed to dupe people into sending money overseas to them.  I doubt they have any non-electronic influence in the states.  The story indicates that the fake company name has been repeatedly tarnished... meaning it's very likely that they've done this before and will do this again.  It probably got on by worm or trojan.  Once there, it sat dormant while the hackers figured out which computers were of value to attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a much more likely scenario .
They simply spread their malware everywhere , and waited to see what sensitive systems they 'd netted !
They needed to dupe people into sending money overseas to them .
I doubt they have any non-electronic influence in the states .
The story indicates that the fake company name has been repeatedly tarnished... meaning it 's very likely that they 've done this before and will do this again .
It probably got on by worm or trojan .
Once there , it sat dormant while the hackers figured out which computers were of value to attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a much more likely scenario.
They simply spread their malware everywhere, and waited to see what sensitive systems they'd netted!
They needed to dupe people into sending money overseas to them.
I doubt they have any non-electronic influence in the states.
The story indicates that the fake company name has been repeatedly tarnished... meaning it's very likely that they've done this before and will do this again.
It probably got on by worm or trojan.
Once there, it sat dormant while the hackers figured out which computers were of value to attack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619857</id>
	<title>Re:Windows TCO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hint: www.sandboxie.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hint : www.sandboxie.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hint: www.sandboxie.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616653</id>
	<title>Linux is not the holly grail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this are missing the point and have never spent one second working in a corporate IT enviroment. The fact is that every single security measure that is put in place is met with overwhelming opposition by the user base as well as the executives. A spam filter is looked at as the unholy antichrist because it blocks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.00001\% of legitimate emails. I have worked corporated IT for years and have constantly had to fight for just the basic's in security.  IT is not given the authority to do its job.  I am sure there is some IT guy that worked for the county that is now unemployed because he didnt stop it, even though he has been banging his head againest the wall to get security measures put in place.

I for one am tired of hearing that the answer is Linux. Sh*&amp; I cant even upgrade to Office 2007 without getting hundreds of phone calls from users that cant find the print button. You want me to switch them to linux? That is just comical.  Rather than constantly blaming the victim we need to get tough on the criminals.  If somone is mugged you dont tell them that they should not have walked down the street. You go after the guys that mugged them.  You dont tell the convienence store owner that he was robbed because he was open and should not let people enter the store. This stops when we get tough on the criminals and the governments that allow them operate free from risk.  How long do you think it would take these countries to stop this if we cut off all trade and aid to them?  The fact is that cybercrime is not looked at as real crime.  Until we start caring more about it and electing people who understand the risks it wont matter what system is in place, it will be exploited.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this are missing the point and have never spent one second working in a corporate IT enviroment .
The fact is that every single security measure that is put in place is met with overwhelming opposition by the user base as well as the executives .
A spam filter is looked at as the unholy antichrist because it blocks .00001 \ % of legitimate emails .
I have worked corporated IT for years and have constantly had to fight for just the basic 's in security .
IT is not given the authority to do its job .
I am sure there is some IT guy that worked for the county that is now unemployed because he didnt stop it , even though he has been banging his head againest the wall to get security measures put in place .
I for one am tired of hearing that the answer is Linux .
Sh * &amp; I cant even upgrade to Office 2007 without getting hundreds of phone calls from users that cant find the print button .
You want me to switch them to linux ?
That is just comical .
Rather than constantly blaming the victim we need to get tough on the criminals .
If somone is mugged you dont tell them that they should not have walked down the street .
You go after the guys that mugged them .
You dont tell the convienence store owner that he was robbed because he was open and should not let people enter the store .
This stops when we get tough on the criminals and the governments that allow them operate free from risk .
How long do you think it would take these countries to stop this if we cut off all trade and aid to them ?
The fact is that cybercrime is not looked at as real crime .
Until we start caring more about it and electing people who understand the risks it wont matter what system is in place , it will be exploited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone who is claiming that linux should be used and its those stupid MS users that cause this are missing the point and have never spent one second working in a corporate IT enviroment.
The fact is that every single security measure that is put in place is met with overwhelming opposition by the user base as well as the executives.
A spam filter is looked at as the unholy antichrist because it blocks .00001\% of legitimate emails.
I have worked corporated IT for years and have constantly had to fight for just the basic's in security.
IT is not given the authority to do its job.
I am sure there is some IT guy that worked for the county that is now unemployed because he didnt stop it, even though he has been banging his head againest the wall to get security measures put in place.
I for one am tired of hearing that the answer is Linux.
Sh*&amp; I cant even upgrade to Office 2007 without getting hundreds of phone calls from users that cant find the print button.
You want me to switch them to linux?
That is just comical.
Rather than constantly blaming the victim we need to get tough on the criminals.
If somone is mugged you dont tell them that they should not have walked down the street.
You go after the guys that mugged them.
You dont tell the convienence store owner that he was robbed because he was open and should not let people enter the store.
This stops when we get tough on the criminals and the governments that allow them operate free from risk.
How long do you think it would take these countries to stop this if we cut off all trade and aid to them?
The fact is that cybercrime is not looked at as real crime.
Until we start caring more about it and electing people who understand the risks it wont matter what system is in place, it will be exploited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616139</id>
	<title>Strange brew that's also good for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246973040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be kombucha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be kombucha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be kombucha.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751</id>
	<title>Windows TCO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246969920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget to include this in your Windows TCO calculations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget to include this in your Windows TCO calculations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget to include this in your Windows TCO calculations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115</id>
	<title>Learn English</title>
	<author>NoobixCube</author>
	<datestamp>1246972860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I am a pedantic Grammar Nazi, and I anticipate a great modding down of this comment, but my need to say this is worse than any addict's craving for his next fix.  There are few things I hate more than redundant words.  "Co-conspirator" is about as redundant as it gets.  A conspiracy is a group of people.  People <i>conspire</i> to do something like this, and you call those people <i>conspirators</i>.  What happens in a hundred years when we forget that "co-conspirator" was being used this way?  Do we start saying "co-co-conspirator"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I am a pedantic Grammar Nazi , and I anticipate a great modding down of this comment , but my need to say this is worse than any addict 's craving for his next fix .
There are few things I hate more than redundant words .
" Co-conspirator " is about as redundant as it gets .
A conspiracy is a group of people .
People conspire to do something like this , and you call those people conspirators .
What happens in a hundred years when we forget that " co-conspirator " was being used this way ?
Do we start saying " co-co-conspirator " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I am a pedantic Grammar Nazi, and I anticipate a great modding down of this comment, but my need to say this is worse than any addict's craving for his next fix.
There are few things I hate more than redundant words.
"Co-conspirator" is about as redundant as it gets.
A conspiracy is a group of people.
People conspire to do something like this, and you call those people conspirators.
What happens in a hundred years when we forget that "co-conspirator" was being used this way?
Do we start saying "co-co-conspirator"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617425</id>
	<title>Tokens are half measures</title>
	<author>Pinky's Brain</author>
	<datestamp>1246984560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man in the middle attacks still work, they can just let you use your token to authorize their transfer rather than the one you are seeing on your screen. The calculators which give a response to a challenge suffer from the same problem, unless they use the recipients bank account as part of the challenge (mine doesn't, for large amounts it uses the amount as a challenge but a trojan could still route it to a different account).</p><p>Ideally banks would just give out a USB device which shows the bank account and amount with a big green authorization button<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... alas, they don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man in the middle attacks still work , they can just let you use your token to authorize their transfer rather than the one you are seeing on your screen .
The calculators which give a response to a challenge suffer from the same problem , unless they use the recipients bank account as part of the challenge ( mine does n't , for large amounts it uses the amount as a challenge but a trojan could still route it to a different account ) .Ideally banks would just give out a USB device which shows the bank account and amount with a big green authorization button ... alas , they do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man in the middle attacks still work, they can just let you use your token to authorize their transfer rather than the one you are seeing on your screen.
The calculators which give a response to a challenge suffer from the same problem, unless they use the recipients bank account as part of the challenge (mine doesn't, for large amounts it uses the amount as a challenge but a trojan could still route it to a different account).Ideally banks would just give out a USB device which shows the bank account and amount with a big green authorization button ... alas, they don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615765</id>
	<title>Bank hold some responsibility</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246970040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They set up a system that required multiple credentials to transfer money, but one of those credentials could be used to reset the other? Give me a break!

This was a system deliberately setup to look more secure than it actually was. The Controller was relying on that extra protection the bank was offering. It seems the county was scammed twice!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They set up a system that required multiple credentials to transfer money , but one of those credentials could be used to reset the other ?
Give me a break !
This was a system deliberately setup to look more secure than it actually was .
The Controller was relying on that extra protection the bank was offering .
It seems the county was scammed twice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They set up a system that required multiple credentials to transfer money, but one of those credentials could be used to reset the other?
Give me a break!
This was a system deliberately setup to look more secure than it actually was.
The Controller was relying on that extra protection the bank was offering.
It seems the county was scammed twice!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28622529</id>
	<title>Re:When will online bank understand that...</title>
	<author>verelse</author>
	<datestamp>1247068980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BofA offers this option in the US, as well as token key for logins. They also allow one to set a threshold for transfers that generates a requirement for token auth. (You need the token to change this, so there's no workaround). I can limit transactions to $50 (I do) with a token and no more than 3x a day without token at any valuation.<br>The problem is, as posters have noted, it's not the OS or the procedures, its the users. Why not teach basic computer hygiene in school?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BofA offers this option in the US , as well as token key for logins .
They also allow one to set a threshold for transfers that generates a requirement for token auth .
( You need the token to change this , so there 's no workaround ) .
I can limit transactions to $ 50 ( I do ) with a token and no more than 3x a day without token at any valuation.The problem is , as posters have noted , it 's not the OS or the procedures , its the users .
Why not teach basic computer hygiene in school ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BofA offers this option in the US, as well as token key for logins.
They also allow one to set a threshold for transfers that generates a requirement for token auth.
(You need the token to change this, so there's no workaround).
I can limit transactions to $50 (I do) with a token and no more than 3x a day without token at any valuation.The problem is, as posters have noted, it's not the OS or the procedures, its the users.
Why not teach basic computer hygiene in school?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620855</id>
	<title>who modded this garbage up INSIGHTFULL</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1247063040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Find out if the bank manger smokes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Get a few of those USB thumb drives from trade shows</i>"<br> <br>

<strong>-</strong> The attackers somehow got the <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/an\_odyssey\_of\_fraud\_part\_ii.html?hpid=sec-tech" title="washingtonpost.com">Zeus Trojan</a> [washingtonpost.com] on the county treasurer's PC, and used it to steal the username and password the treasurer needed to access e-mail and the county's bank account.<br> <br>

<strong>-</strong> The attackers then logged into the county's bank account by tunneling through the treasurer's Internet connection.<br> <br>

<strong>-</strong> Once logged in, the criminals changed the judge's password, as well as e-mail address tied to the judge's account, so that any future notifications about one-time passphrases would be sent to an e-mail address the attackers controlled.<br> <br>

<strong>-</strong> They then created several fictitious employees of the county (these were the 25 real-life, co-conspirators hired by the attackers to receive the stolen funds), and created a batch of wire transfers to those individuals to be approved.<br> <br>

<strong>-</strong> The crooks then logged into the county's bank account using the judge's credentials and a computer outside of the state of Kentucky. When the bank's security system failed to recognize the profile of the PC, the bank sent an e-mail with the challenge passphrase to an e-mail address the attackers controlled.<br> <br>

<strong>-</strong> The attackers then retrieved the passphrase from the e-mail, and logged in again with the judge's new credentials and the one-time passphrase. Once logged in, the crooks were able to approve the batch of wire transfers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Find out if the bank manger smokes .. Get a few of those USB thumb drives from trade shows " - The attackers somehow got the Zeus Trojan [ washingtonpost.com ] on the county treasurer 's PC , and used it to steal the username and password the treasurer needed to access e-mail and the county 's bank account .
- The attackers then logged into the county 's bank account by tunneling through the treasurer 's Internet connection .
- Once logged in , the criminals changed the judge 's password , as well as e-mail address tied to the judge 's account , so that any future notifications about one-time passphrases would be sent to an e-mail address the attackers controlled .
- They then created several fictitious employees of the county ( these were the 25 real-life , co-conspirators hired by the attackers to receive the stolen funds ) , and created a batch of wire transfers to those individuals to be approved .
- The crooks then logged into the county 's bank account using the judge 's credentials and a computer outside of the state of Kentucky .
When the bank 's security system failed to recognize the profile of the PC , the bank sent an e-mail with the challenge passphrase to an e-mail address the attackers controlled .
- The attackers then retrieved the passphrase from the e-mail , and logged in again with the judge 's new credentials and the one-time passphrase .
Once logged in , the crooks were able to approve the batch of wire transfers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Find out if the bank manger smokes .. Get a few of those USB thumb drives from trade shows" 

- The attackers somehow got the Zeus Trojan [washingtonpost.com] on the county treasurer's PC, and used it to steal the username and password the treasurer needed to access e-mail and the county's bank account.
- The attackers then logged into the county's bank account by tunneling through the treasurer's Internet connection.
- Once logged in, the criminals changed the judge's password, as well as e-mail address tied to the judge's account, so that any future notifications about one-time passphrases would be sent to an e-mail address the attackers controlled.
- They then created several fictitious employees of the county (these were the 25 real-life, co-conspirators hired by the attackers to receive the stolen funds), and created a batch of wire transfers to those individuals to be approved.
- The crooks then logged into the county's bank account using the judge's credentials and a computer outside of the state of Kentucky.
When the bank's security system failed to recognize the profile of the PC, the bank sent an e-mail with the challenge passphrase to an e-mail address the attackers controlled.
- The attackers then retrieved the passphrase from the e-mail, and logged in again with the judge's new credentials and the one-time passphrase.
Once logged in, the crooks were able to approve the batch of wire transfers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617681</id>
	<title>Re:Next time try a bigger county</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1246986420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They stole from someone who had a commercial account who installed their Trojan.  It probably didn't matter to the thief if it was a county in Kentucky, a business in Miami, or a police department in New York.  It was someone who had a bank balance of at least half a million dollars.  And that someone had a crappy authentication scheme.
</p><p>
It seems like a crime of opportunity, like robbing the first armored car that drives by instead of waiting for one that just came from the Federal Reserve Bank with a load of newly minted money.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They stole from someone who had a commercial account who installed their Trojan .
It probably did n't matter to the thief if it was a county in Kentucky , a business in Miami , or a police department in New York .
It was someone who had a bank balance of at least half a million dollars .
And that someone had a crappy authentication scheme .
It seems like a crime of opportunity , like robbing the first armored car that drives by instead of waiting for one that just came from the Federal Reserve Bank with a load of newly minted money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They stole from someone who had a commercial account who installed their Trojan.
It probably didn't matter to the thief if it was a county in Kentucky, a business in Miami, or a police department in New York.
It was someone who had a bank balance of at least half a million dollars.
And that someone had a crappy authentication scheme.
It seems like a crime of opportunity, like robbing the first armored car that drives by instead of waiting for one that just came from the Federal Reserve Bank with a load of newly minted money.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895</id>
	<title>Next time try a bigger county</title>
	<author>randy of the redwood</author>
	<datestamp>1246970760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They tried to steal $415,000 from a county with only 73,000 people? Didn't they think anyone would notice? <br>

Next time they should try Los Angeles county (9.8 million people).<br> <br>

'course they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They tried to steal $ 415,000 from a county with only 73,000 people ?
Did n't they think anyone would notice ?
Next time they should try Los Angeles county ( 9.8 million people ) .
'course they would have gotten away with it if it were n't for those meddling kids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tried to steal $415,000 from a county with only 73,000 people?
Didn't they think anyone would notice?
Next time they should try Los Angeles county (9.8 million people).
'course they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616035</id>
	<title>Lobsters</title>
	<author>kylemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1246972260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I could not help but think of the uploaded FSB lobsters from Accelerando when I read the horribly malformed missives the thieves sent to be edited.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could not help but think of the uploaded FSB lobsters from Accelerando when I read the horribly malformed missives the thieves sent to be edited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could not help but think of the uploaded FSB lobsters from Accelerando when I read the horribly malformed missives the thieves sent to be edited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616591</id>
	<title>Re:Windows TCO</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246976520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like they forgot basic security measures, right?
<br> <br>
Yeah, this isn't a Windows problem. You do know that Linux/UNIX boxes can get 0wn3d, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like they forgot basic security measures , right ?
Yeah , this is n't a Windows problem .
You do know that Linux/UNIX boxes can get 0wn3d , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like they forgot basic security measures, right?
Yeah, this isn't a Windows problem.
You do know that Linux/UNIX boxes can get 0wn3d, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620335</id>
	<title>Blame Kentucky?</title>
	<author>Stenchwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1247061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live very close to Bullitt Co., KY and I have been in the IT world for about 15 years now. In my 15 years in this area I have witnessed <b>MANY</b> possible security holes in different areas such as medical, accounting, educational...etc. I often wonder, is the general area to blame? Do the people of Kentucky just feel so safe in their ranch homes and open fields that no crook would ever <i>possibly</i> compromise the integrity of semi-southern living? I hope this is a wake up call to the business around here that it <i>could</i> and someday probably will happen to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live very close to Bullitt Co. , KY and I have been in the IT world for about 15 years now .
In my 15 years in this area I have witnessed MANY possible security holes in different areas such as medical , accounting , educational...etc .
I often wonder , is the general area to blame ?
Do the people of Kentucky just feel so safe in their ranch homes and open fields that no crook would ever possibly compromise the integrity of semi-southern living ?
I hope this is a wake up call to the business around here that it could and someday probably will happen to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live very close to Bullitt Co., KY and I have been in the IT world for about 15 years now.
In my 15 years in this area I have witnessed MANY possible security holes in different areas such as medical, accounting, educational...etc.
I often wonder, is the general area to blame?
Do the people of Kentucky just feel so safe in their ranch homes and open fields that no crook would ever possibly compromise the integrity of semi-southern living?
I hope this is a wake up call to the business around here that it could and someday probably will happen to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618225</id>
	<title>Re:So impressed by basic tech</title>
	<author>mistahkurtz</author>
	<datestamp>1246992180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Properly controlling outgoing traffic is of crucial importance, particularly when dealing with such sensitive information.</p></div><p>
agreed, but, (and i do not manage enterprise networks or handle security/compliance) as i understand it, the problem lies in some hardware or software being able to tell the difference between a connection that the user (or legitimate software) <strong>intended</strong> to initiate (or participate in), and a connection that the user/software <strong>did not</strong> intend to initiate or participate in.<br>
<br>
even if you had human eyes watching and controlling every connection, that would be tough. connecting to a russian IP address from your Toledo, KS office? probably unintended. unless if it's someone in purchasing buying that SQL extension, or Outlook add-on, from that small Russian software developer. or a chinese IP address, with an encrypted connection? is it one of your designers uploading new schematics to the chinese fab company?<br>
<br>
in talking with folks from the x-force (IBM's ISS team), enterprise networking, networking VARs, and manufacturers, the intent behind the connection is the hardest thing to program for in network security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Properly controlling outgoing traffic is of crucial importance , particularly when dealing with such sensitive information .
agreed , but , ( and i do not manage enterprise networks or handle security/compliance ) as i understand it , the problem lies in some hardware or software being able to tell the difference between a connection that the user ( or legitimate software ) intended to initiate ( or participate in ) , and a connection that the user/software did not intend to initiate or participate in .
even if you had human eyes watching and controlling every connection , that would be tough .
connecting to a russian IP address from your Toledo , KS office ?
probably unintended .
unless if it 's someone in purchasing buying that SQL extension , or Outlook add-on , from that small Russian software developer .
or a chinese IP address , with an encrypted connection ?
is it one of your designers uploading new schematics to the chinese fab company ?
in talking with folks from the x-force ( IBM 's ISS team ) , enterprise networking , networking VARs , and manufacturers , the intent behind the connection is the hardest thing to program for in network security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Properly controlling outgoing traffic is of crucial importance, particularly when dealing with such sensitive information.
agreed, but, (and i do not manage enterprise networks or handle security/compliance) as i understand it, the problem lies in some hardware or software being able to tell the difference between a connection that the user (or legitimate software) intended to initiate (or participate in), and a connection that the user/software did not intend to initiate or participate in.
even if you had human eyes watching and controlling every connection, that would be tough.
connecting to a russian IP address from your Toledo, KS office?
probably unintended.
unless if it's someone in purchasing buying that SQL extension, or Outlook add-on, from that small Russian software developer.
or a chinese IP address, with an encrypted connection?
is it one of your designers uploading new schematics to the chinese fab company?
in talking with folks from the x-force (IBM's ISS team), enterprise networking, networking VARs, and manufacturers, the intent behind the connection is the hardest thing to program for in network security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619365</id>
	<title>Re:Windows TCO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247049840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here you lumped everyone into the microsoft problem.  Windows EFFECTIVELY allows applications to be downloaded and run all in one go.  Its the default.  I don't know about OSX, but Linux DEMANDS that after you download, you have to change file permissions (thus, knowing what you are doing).  The ONLY exception to this is system related files, and by that I mean, if you distribution has file updates, then the system update manager goes scouting to ONE SECURE LOCATION for that knowledge, and if there is an update, then it finds the closest server to you, and DOES A CRYPTOGRAPHIC CHECKSUM to ensure the file is genuine (and also ensure data transfer integrity), and then (and only in this case) automatically install and change file permissions for you.  So there it is.  Linux will allow you to do bad things to your computer, but you have to know what you are doing to get there, otherwise, if you don't know, you are safe by default.  Windows allows you to do bad things, and in this case, ignorance is not bliss.  It was a design/administrative decision made a long time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you lumped everyone into the microsoft problem .
Windows EFFECTIVELY allows applications to be downloaded and run all in one go .
Its the default .
I do n't know about OSX , but Linux DEMANDS that after you download , you have to change file permissions ( thus , knowing what you are doing ) .
The ONLY exception to this is system related files , and by that I mean , if you distribution has file updates , then the system update manager goes scouting to ONE SECURE LOCATION for that knowledge , and if there is an update , then it finds the closest server to you , and DOES A CRYPTOGRAPHIC CHECKSUM to ensure the file is genuine ( and also ensure data transfer integrity ) , and then ( and only in this case ) automatically install and change file permissions for you .
So there it is .
Linux will allow you to do bad things to your computer , but you have to know what you are doing to get there , otherwise , if you do n't know , you are safe by default .
Windows allows you to do bad things , and in this case , ignorance is not bliss .
It was a design/administrative decision made a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you lumped everyone into the microsoft problem.
Windows EFFECTIVELY allows applications to be downloaded and run all in one go.
Its the default.
I don't know about OSX, but Linux DEMANDS that after you download, you have to change file permissions (thus, knowing what you are doing).
The ONLY exception to this is system related files, and by that I mean, if you distribution has file updates, then the system update manager goes scouting to ONE SECURE LOCATION for that knowledge, and if there is an update, then it finds the closest server to you, and DOES A CRYPTOGRAPHIC CHECKSUM to ensure the file is genuine (and also ensure data transfer integrity), and then (and only in this case) automatically install and change file permissions for you.
So there it is.
Linux will allow you to do bad things to your computer, but you have to know what you are doing to get there, otherwise, if you don't know, you are safe by default.
Windows allows you to do bad things, and in this case, ignorance is not bliss.
It was a design/administrative decision made a long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616337</id>
	<title>Re:Learn English</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1246974480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't sweat it dude.  You won't be here in a few hundred years.  In fact, I just checked with the Ouija board.  You only have 24 years, 10 months, and 3 days left.  So, don't sweat the petty shit, you weenie.  (Yeah, the Ouija board told me that you're a weenie, too - odd, you DON'T live in your mother's basement?  Ahhhh, I see now.........)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't sweat it dude .
You wo n't be here in a few hundred years .
In fact , I just checked with the Ouija board .
You only have 24 years , 10 months , and 3 days left .
So , do n't sweat the petty shit , you weenie .
( Yeah , the Ouija board told me that you 're a weenie , too - odd , you DO N'T live in your mother 's basement ?
Ahhhh , I see now......... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't sweat it dude.
You won't be here in a few hundred years.
In fact, I just checked with the Ouija board.
You only have 24 years, 10 months, and 3 days left.
So, don't sweat the petty shit, you weenie.
(Yeah, the Ouija board told me that you're a weenie, too - odd, you DON'T live in your mother's basement?
Ahhhh, I see now.........)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617513</id>
	<title>Re:enh, the criminals we get these days...</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1246985460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could be playing it safe. Once you hit a million, you're in the big leagues and go straight to the top of the Most Wanted list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could be playing it safe .
Once you hit a million , you 're in the big leagues and go straight to the top of the Most Wanted list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could be playing it safe.
Once you hit a million, you're in the big leagues and go straight to the top of the Most Wanted list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28625491</id>
	<title>Re:When will online bank understand that...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1247079420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>How's the low-life going to generate the token validating another low-life's bank account without the hardware device...</i> By VNCing into the the bank account owner's PC while the hardware device is connected? The only foolproof way is to use a challenge response with a calculator-like device not connected to the PC. Bank issue challenge code, use types it into separate device, then types the response from separate device into computer. It works, but what sane person would want to go through this PITA procedure every time they transfer money? Anybody that has ever tried typing in 20 character activation keys knows that it is impossible to do without making occasional mistakes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's the low-life going to generate the token validating another low-life 's bank account without the hardware device... By VNCing into the the bank account owner 's PC while the hardware device is connected ?
The only foolproof way is to use a challenge response with a calculator-like device not connected to the PC .
Bank issue challenge code , use types it into separate device , then types the response from separate device into computer .
It works , but what sane person would want to go through this PITA procedure every time they transfer money ?
Anybody that has ever tried typing in 20 character activation keys knows that it is impossible to do without making occasional mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's the low-life going to generate the token validating another low-life's bank account without the hardware device... By VNCing into the the bank account owner's PC while the hardware device is connected?
The only foolproof way is to use a challenge response with a calculator-like device not connected to the PC.
Bank issue challenge code, use types it into separate device, then types the response from separate device into computer.
It works, but what sane person would want to go through this PITA procedure every time they transfer money?
Anybody that has ever tried typing in 20 character activation keys knows that it is impossible to do without making occasional mistakes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28632307</id>
	<title>Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish people would quit using inflation as an excuse to offer crappier and crappier comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish people would quit using inflation as an excuse to offer crappier and crappier comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish people would quit using inflation as an excuse to offer crappier and crappier comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617031</id>
	<title>Re:your tax money at work</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246980720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." --&gt; "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM .
" -- &gt; " Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.
" --&gt; "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28629821</id>
	<title>My reaction is unhealthy</title>
	<author>pugugly</author>
	<datestamp>1247055600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just so happy to have a story about hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen in which it *wasn't* completely inadequate security and general incompetence that enabled it.</p><p>The security precautions seem to have been sanely thought out, at least on the banks side. The judge and the treasurer otoh might decide they want a secure system.</p><p>Pug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just so happy to have a story about hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen in which it * was n't * completely inadequate security and general incompetence that enabled it.The security precautions seem to have been sanely thought out , at least on the banks side .
The judge and the treasurer otoh might decide they want a secure system.Pug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just so happy to have a story about hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen in which it *wasn't* completely inadequate security and general incompetence that enabled it.The security precautions seem to have been sanely thought out, at least on the banks side.
The judge and the treasurer otoh might decide they want a secure system.Pug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618743</id>
	<title>Re:Bank hold some responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247084820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No; the bank has all the responsibility.  They let through a transaction which was not one which the customer authorised, but one that a hacker authorised.  The customer was not aware of this going on and could do nothing.  The bank is responsible for choosing the security systems and could have built different ones which would not have allowed this attack.  For example that you have to come down in person and sign for a transaction or that you have to do that every tenth transaction or whatever.</p><p>These security measures might cost more, but that's the bank's decision.  If they think paying for this loss is fine, then they should pay.  What they should never be allowed to do is make the customer pay for their security decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No ; the bank has all the responsibility .
They let through a transaction which was not one which the customer authorised , but one that a hacker authorised .
The customer was not aware of this going on and could do nothing .
The bank is responsible for choosing the security systems and could have built different ones which would not have allowed this attack .
For example that you have to come down in person and sign for a transaction or that you have to do that every tenth transaction or whatever.These security measures might cost more , but that 's the bank 's decision .
If they think paying for this loss is fine , then they should pay .
What they should never be allowed to do is make the customer pay for their security decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No; the bank has all the responsibility.
They let through a transaction which was not one which the customer authorised, but one that a hacker authorised.
The customer was not aware of this going on and could do nothing.
The bank is responsible for choosing the security systems and could have built different ones which would not have allowed this attack.
For example that you have to come down in person and sign for a transaction or that you have to do that every tenth transaction or whatever.These security measures might cost more, but that's the bank's decision.
If they think paying for this loss is fine, then they should pay.
What they should never be allowed to do is make the customer pay for their security decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617311</id>
	<title>Re:Learn English</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1246983480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, your grammar nazi-ing is not even correct. Co-conspirator and conspirator indicate different things, like specificity. If I am involved in a computer conspiracy, and another person is involved in a highway tax conspiracy, we are both conspirators. We are not, however, co-conspirators. We are not partners, we are not involved in the same conspiracy.</p><p>Also, it is possible for a conspirator to have a partner who is not part of the conspiracy. If a conspirator goes to someone and is able to get them to do a job with them, but withhold information regarding the conspiracy or its goals, then the conspirators new partner is not a co-conspirator.</p><p>The use of co-conspirator is used to denote the relation of one conspirator to another. It would actually be improper grammar to remove the "co", as it would imply ownership of one to the other. "His conspirator" and "his co-conspirator" have obviously different meanings. The use of co-conspirator removes ownership from the previous statement, and is therefore not redundant.</p><p>The first rule of the grammar nazi is only to make corrections when they are themselves correct. You, sir, and an epic fail.</p><p>P.S. Feel free to correct the poor grammar in that last sentence as if it were English, so I can call you wrong again. It's fun.</p></div><p>Wait, you mentioned the word "conspiracy" or one of its derivatives.  That means that whatever you said is automatically invalid and will be dismissed without examination, particularly if it involved or could involve the government!
<br> <br>
Really though, thanks for providing the first real explanation of "co-conspirator" I have ever heard.  I admit I did wonder why people used this term, probably because I only ever hear it on the news.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , your grammar nazi-ing is not even correct .
Co-conspirator and conspirator indicate different things , like specificity .
If I am involved in a computer conspiracy , and another person is involved in a highway tax conspiracy , we are both conspirators .
We are not , however , co-conspirators .
We are not partners , we are not involved in the same conspiracy.Also , it is possible for a conspirator to have a partner who is not part of the conspiracy .
If a conspirator goes to someone and is able to get them to do a job with them , but withhold information regarding the conspiracy or its goals , then the conspirators new partner is not a co-conspirator.The use of co-conspirator is used to denote the relation of one conspirator to another .
It would actually be improper grammar to remove the " co " , as it would imply ownership of one to the other .
" His conspirator " and " his co-conspirator " have obviously different meanings .
The use of co-conspirator removes ownership from the previous statement , and is therefore not redundant.The first rule of the grammar nazi is only to make corrections when they are themselves correct .
You , sir , and an epic fail.P.S .
Feel free to correct the poor grammar in that last sentence as if it were English , so I can call you wrong again .
It 's fun.Wait , you mentioned the word " conspiracy " or one of its derivatives .
That means that whatever you said is automatically invalid and will be dismissed without examination , particularly if it involved or could involve the government !
Really though , thanks for providing the first real explanation of " co-conspirator " I have ever heard .
I admit I did wonder why people used this term , probably because I only ever hear it on the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, your grammar nazi-ing is not even correct.
Co-conspirator and conspirator indicate different things, like specificity.
If I am involved in a computer conspiracy, and another person is involved in a highway tax conspiracy, we are both conspirators.
We are not, however, co-conspirators.
We are not partners, we are not involved in the same conspiracy.Also, it is possible for a conspirator to have a partner who is not part of the conspiracy.
If a conspirator goes to someone and is able to get them to do a job with them, but withhold information regarding the conspiracy or its goals, then the conspirators new partner is not a co-conspirator.The use of co-conspirator is used to denote the relation of one conspirator to another.
It would actually be improper grammar to remove the "co", as it would imply ownership of one to the other.
"His conspirator" and "his co-conspirator" have obviously different meanings.
The use of co-conspirator removes ownership from the previous statement, and is therefore not redundant.The first rule of the grammar nazi is only to make corrections when they are themselves correct.
You, sir, and an epic fail.P.S.
Feel free to correct the poor grammar in that last sentence as if it were English, so I can call you wrong again.
It's fun.Wait, you mentioned the word "conspiracy" or one of its derivatives.
That means that whatever you said is automatically invalid and will be dismissed without examination, particularly if it involved or could involve the government!
Really though, thanks for providing the first real explanation of "co-conspirator" I have ever heard.
I admit I did wonder why people used this term, probably because I only ever hear it on the news.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616379</id>
	<title>Re:your tax money at work</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1246974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you go with the normal route, and the normal route gets hacked, you won't be blamed.</p><p>If you setup a server on a system that your boss hasn't heard of, and you get hacked, you're fired.</p><p>The chances of the former are much greater in a lot of ways.  But the risk to your job is basically zero.  Whereas in the second way, you're fired because you decided to use that silly deamon thing instead of proper, professional, Enterprise-Ready (tm) Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go with the normal route , and the normal route gets hacked , you wo n't be blamed.If you setup a server on a system that your boss has n't heard of , and you get hacked , you 're fired.The chances of the former are much greater in a lot of ways .
But the risk to your job is basically zero .
Whereas in the second way , you 're fired because you decided to use that silly deamon thing instead of proper , professional , Enterprise-Ready ( tm ) Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go with the normal route, and the normal route gets hacked, you won't be blamed.If you setup a server on a system that your boss hasn't heard of, and you get hacked, you're fired.The chances of the former are much greater in a lot of ways.
But the risk to your job is basically zero.
Whereas in the second way, you're fired because you decided to use that silly deamon thing instead of proper, professional, Enterprise-Ready (tm) Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615847</id>
	<title>Re:Bank hold some responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246970580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm gearing up for an argument tomorrow, with the client, on why only requiring a single answer to a limited set of questions is enough to reset a password is a terrible fucking idea.  On a secure network, no less.</p><p>Maybe we should just show a picture of mickey mouse, ask them what his name is, then allow them to reset passwords that way.  Or just give them the passwords outright, that way anyone can get theirs if they lose it.</p><p>It's a foolproof plan, if they assume EVERYONE is a fool.</p><p>Jackasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm gearing up for an argument tomorrow , with the client , on why only requiring a single answer to a limited set of questions is enough to reset a password is a terrible fucking idea .
On a secure network , no less.Maybe we should just show a picture of mickey mouse , ask them what his name is , then allow them to reset passwords that way .
Or just give them the passwords outright , that way anyone can get theirs if they lose it.It 's a foolproof plan , if they assume EVERYONE is a fool.Jackasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm gearing up for an argument tomorrow, with the client, on why only requiring a single answer to a limited set of questions is enough to reset a password is a terrible fucking idea.
On a secure network, no less.Maybe we should just show a picture of mickey mouse, ask them what his name is, then allow them to reset passwords that way.
Or just give them the passwords outright, that way anyone can get theirs if they lose it.It's a foolproof plan, if they assume EVERYONE is a fool.Jackasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616047</id>
	<title>Re:Next time try a bigger county</title>
	<author>Dpaladin</author>
	<datestamp>1246972320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a feeling it's a little easier to fool Bullitt County than it is to fool LA.

After all, they were home to that McDonald's <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/NEWS01/603160403/1008/rss01" title="courier-journal.com" rel="nofollow">strip search fiasco!</a> [courier-journal.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a feeling it 's a little easier to fool Bullitt County than it is to fool LA .
After all , they were home to that McDonald 's strip search fiasco !
[ courier-journal.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a feeling it's a little easier to fool Bullitt County than it is to fool LA.
After all, they were home to that McDonald's strip search fiasco!
[courier-journal.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616299</id>
	<title>Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC?</title>
	<author>Maestro4k</author>
	<datestamp>1246974180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, i have an idea, and it's TFO (Totally Frackin' Obvious)... and might be how it happened. A poor old cleanup crew member may have been elicited to put a USB device on a bank manager machine that might not have been watched by a camera. Might have trained the cleaner to surveil the PCs, determine their visibility to cameras, then trained the dupe into deftly/swiftly attaching a USB attack device while feigning scraping something sticky from the floor, or emptying waste bins that were tough to get the bag from....</p></div><p>More likely the treasurer was running with admin rights and cluelessly visited a link from an E-mail using IE that infected the PC.  That or they stupidly downloaded and ran something because it promised a free screensaver/funny video/porn/etc.  You don't need complicated scenarios to infect an end-user's Windows PC with a trojan, just bad IT practices and clueless users.  As for anti-virus/other security software, this was probably a new variant of the Zeus trojan (considering the article says the direct connection part was new supports this) and said software may have missed it simply because it wasn't in their definitions yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , i have an idea , and it 's TFO ( Totally Frackin ' Obvious ) ... and might be how it happened .
A poor old cleanup crew member may have been elicited to put a USB device on a bank manager machine that might not have been watched by a camera .
Might have trained the cleaner to surveil the PCs , determine their visibility to cameras , then trained the dupe into deftly/swiftly attaching a USB attack device while feigning scraping something sticky from the floor , or emptying waste bins that were tough to get the bag from....More likely the treasurer was running with admin rights and cluelessly visited a link from an E-mail using IE that infected the PC .
That or they stupidly downloaded and ran something because it promised a free screensaver/funny video/porn/etc .
You do n't need complicated scenarios to infect an end-user 's Windows PC with a trojan , just bad IT practices and clueless users .
As for anti-virus/other security software , this was probably a new variant of the Zeus trojan ( considering the article says the direct connection part was new supports this ) and said software may have missed it simply because it was n't in their definitions yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, i have an idea, and it's TFO (Totally Frackin' Obvious)... and might be how it happened.
A poor old cleanup crew member may have been elicited to put a USB device on a bank manager machine that might not have been watched by a camera.
Might have trained the cleaner to surveil the PCs, determine their visibility to cameras, then trained the dupe into deftly/swiftly attaching a USB attack device while feigning scraping something sticky from the floor, or emptying waste bins that were tough to get the bag from....More likely the treasurer was running with admin rights and cluelessly visited a link from an E-mail using IE that infected the PC.
That or they stupidly downloaded and ran something because it promised a free screensaver/funny video/porn/etc.
You don't need complicated scenarios to infect an end-user's Windows PC with a trojan, just bad IT practices and clueless users.
As for anti-virus/other security software, this was probably a new variant of the Zeus trojan (considering the article says the direct connection part was new supports this) and said software may have missed it simply because it wasn't in their definitions yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615785</id>
	<title>Obligatory:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246970160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E" title="youtube.com">Identity Theft</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Identity Theft [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Identity Theft [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619679</id>
	<title>Re:HOW DID THE VIRUS/TROJAN get onto the PC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247055420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Or, a native of the Ukraine/U-area working at the bank might have been subjected to manipulation of some sort, but trained to be deft and not come under suspicion</i></p><p>Or some native of America might have been subject to manipulation of some sort (such as 'hey, dude, fancy a night with Paris Hilton' or even 'hey, dude, there's a hundred bucks in it and you can keep your grandmother')</p><p>Just my 0.02 renmimbi's worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , a native of the Ukraine/U-area working at the bank might have been subjected to manipulation of some sort , but trained to be deft and not come under suspicionOr some native of America might have been subject to manipulation of some sort ( such as 'hey , dude , fancy a night with Paris Hilton ' or even 'hey , dude , there 's a hundred bucks in it and you can keep your grandmother ' ) Just my 0.02 renmimbi 's worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, a native of the Ukraine/U-area working at the bank might have been subjected to manipulation of some sort, but trained to be deft and not come under suspicionOr some native of America might have been subject to manipulation of some sort (such as 'hey, dude, fancy a night with Paris Hilton' or even 'hey, dude, there's a hundred bucks in it and you can keep your grandmother')Just my 0.02 renmimbi's worth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616097</id>
	<title>Re:Bank hold some responsibility</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1246972740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
My wife has long had to transfer money between various commercial accounts at her jobs.  As far back as I can remember, the banks issued her RSA tokens which were required to authorize the transfers.
</p><p>
I can't imagine a commercial bank NOT using a secure crypto system with an air gap.  If the county is concerned about two authorizations, so much the better:  issue the judge his own token.
</p><p>
Even that could be compromised by a hacker who owned the treasurer's computer, but it would have been almost impossible to run the scam 500 times in a few days like this guy did.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife has long had to transfer money between various commercial accounts at her jobs .
As far back as I can remember , the banks issued her RSA tokens which were required to authorize the transfers .
I ca n't imagine a commercial bank NOT using a secure crypto system with an air gap .
If the county is concerned about two authorizations , so much the better : issue the judge his own token .
Even that could be compromised by a hacker who owned the treasurer 's computer , but it would have been almost impossible to run the scam 500 times in a few days like this guy did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
My wife has long had to transfer money between various commercial accounts at her jobs.
As far back as I can remember, the banks issued her RSA tokens which were required to authorize the transfers.
I can't imagine a commercial bank NOT using a secure crypto system with an air gap.
If the county is concerned about two authorizations, so much the better:  issue the judge his own token.
Even that could be compromised by a hacker who owned the treasurer's computer, but it would have been almost impossible to run the scam 500 times in a few days like this guy did.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617043</id>
	<title>Re:enh, the criminals we get these days...</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246980840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't the first or last place they've hit.  Half a million is only a portion of their "net proceeds".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't the first or last place they 've hit .
Half a million is only a portion of their " net proceeds " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't the first or last place they've hit.
Half a million is only a portion of their "net proceeds".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615841</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28625491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28621321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28623283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28624615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28622529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28630927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28622451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28632307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28627557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2051238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28627557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616109
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28625491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28622529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28624615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617019
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28622451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620561
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28621321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28630927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28632307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28619679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617037
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28623283
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28615861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28620335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2051238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28618225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28616743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2051238.28617287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
