• ZD Net, Telstra Attacks Terabyte Fad
• IT News, Telstra says: Don’t take terabyte broadband bait

At  McAfee’s  Focus 2010 Security Seminar, one of the more interesting sessions  was an analysis of Operation Arurora presented by McAfee’s head of Threat Research,  Dmitri Alperovitch.  Outside of  IT security circles, the name Operation Aurora probably doesn’t ring any bells.  But in January 2010,  the Aurora cyber-attack  was making headlines across the globe due to Google’s sensational claims it had been the victim of a security breach which had its origins in China.

Google wasn’t the only company infiltrated.  A number of other US companies in industries such as finance, defence and technology, were also targeted. But it was  Google’s actions – publicly outing itself as a victim, naming China as the source of the attacks and threatening to stop censoring its search results in China – which made it the public face of the Aurora attacks.

Whilst those with a background in IT security would probably get more from Dmitri’s presentation, the analysis of Aurora was presented in a way that made it accessible to a more general audience. Which is a great thing given some of the thought provoking issues raised.

1. Theft was the primary objective: Whilst much of the media attention was on Google’s claim  hackers had targeted the email of two Chinese human rights activists, the primary goal of the attack was theft. Aurora was a sustained attempt to steal intellectual property –  for example by targeting  software that would give the hackers the ability to steal source code. Dmitri’s view – the targeting of the Gmail accounts was an opportunistic exploitation of already compromised systems.

2.  Brilliantly planned, brilliantly executed:  Listening to the Aurora story unfold was like listening to  the plot of a spy movie.  To give an idea of the scale (and hence resources) involved, consider these points:

• The number of companies simultaneously attacked. It’s been claimed up to 34 companies were attacked. Whilst a simultaneous attack  may yield some economies of scale (reuse of code, sharing of  infrastructure and human agents), to target so many companies at once is both impressive – and worrying.
• The hackers had a common modus operandi , but customised their attacks based on the targeted company and the specific individuals in the organisation they were after.  This suggests some fairly detailed intelligence  gathering and preparation must have gone in to the set up for the main attack.
• When targets were compromised, there were hackers standing by to take control of the compromised systems. Forget kids breaking in during their spare time, whoever was behind Aurora could afford to have people on stand by to capitalise on opportunities as soon as they came up.

3. Deterrence – attribution and/or retribution: One of the key themes of the McAfee event was that reactive and purely defensive security is no longer enough. Typically this was presented in the context of security software and hardware that works on threat prospecting and reputation scoring, rather than blacklists and traditional signature files.

But Dmitri also raised another idea – being able to identify the source of attacks (attribution) and create suitable deterrents – including “kinetic responses”.  (i.e. physical attacks).  But would any nation state really have the confidence to openly stage a physical attack in response to a cyber attack? Would a nation really order some form of direct military action if it were ‘proved’ that another nation had been engaged in some form of cyber attack?

Up until a few weeks ago I would have said no. But in the wake of Stuxnet I’m becoming more inclined to think that in the future, the answer may be yes.

Stuxnet is reportedly one of the most sophisticated pieces of malware seen to date. The latest speculation from the IT security community is that it was developed by a well funded organisation (nation state) to cripple Iran’s nuclear program.  Like Aurora,  it is likely to have taken a long time to plan, develop and execute the Stuxnet attack.

So how will countries targeted by this type of  incredibly destructive attack respond? Will they be prepared to bide their time before they stage an equally surreptitious counter-attack, or will they pursue the simpler and quicker “kinetic” option?  Will nations pre-emptively position themselves to be able to stage cyber-strikes; and create a virtualised state of mutual assured destruction that (mostly) keeps the peace?

Whatever the outcome, Aurora and Stuxnet have moved cyberwar from the stuff of Hollywood fiction to public reality.  Welcome, to the new world order?

When Apple launched the iPhone 4, stories  emerged of users experiencing a drop-off in the number of bars of reception when they held the outside antenna band in a certain way. Speculation arose  that there was an issue with the design of the antenna and Apple created something of a stir with it’s initial response to the problem – hold the phone differently or get a case that covers the antenna.

But as Apple investigated the issue further, they made what they acknowledge was a rather “simple and surprising” discovery that impacts all iPhones, not just iPhone 4:

“ Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong. Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength. For example, we sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying as few as 2 bars.

Users observing a drop of several bars when they grip their iPhone in a certain way are most likely in an area with very weak signal strength, but they don’t know it because we are erroneously displaying 4 or 5 bars. Their big drop in bars is because their high bars were never real in the first place.

To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area.” (Apple media release, 02/07/2010)

In short – iPhones have been overstating signal strength,  typically by two bars.

Whilst this is certainly egg on Apple’s face… it could also lead to some awkward moments for  mobile network operators  such as AT&T.

Mobile operators who in the past may have been able to blame poor voice or data performance on the iPhone,  claiming that the signal strength showed the network coverage was fine… will potentially find they have one less excuses for poor coverage once the accuracy of the iPhone signal strength indicator is resolved.

Whilst Apple’s software engineers and testers are probably experiencing similar red faces to Google’s Streetview team, Apple’s open and honest acknowledgement of the issue  will probably help calm the online storm around the iPhone’s  reception issue. The interesting question will be whether Apple’s fix will create a whole new set of  challenges for mobile operators.

The new PM has wasted no time in seizing the opportunity to  change the governments  approach to negotiating with the mining industry over the resource super profit tax (RSPT). The question now is – what other policy areas could benefit from an opportune change of tack?

Within the telecoms and technology arena, there have been two hot topics for the  ALP led government since it came to power – the National Broadband Network (NBN) and internet censorship.

This week, an in principle agreement was finally reached with Telstra in regards to the company’s involvement with the NBN.  Given the size  of the agreement ($11bn) and the benefits of the deal to NBN Co (access to Telstra’s infrastructure and customers), the government is  unlikely to  substantially change things too much in this arena. With an election  expected in the next few months, the government needs the NBN to be an election promise showing tangible progress – not just another pipe dream causing conflicts like the RSPT.

On the other hand – internet censorship continues to be a problem area for the government. Like the NBN, progress has been slow. So slow there’s speculation that the enabling legislation may be delayed until after the election. But like the NBN, internet censorship was an election promise and the escalating rhetoric from Senator Conroy (the responsible minister) had put the government in a position where it risked losing face if it yielded to criticism of the proposal.

But Julia Gillard’s ascension to the role of PM offers an opportunity for the government to rethink this policy. If  Senator Conroy where moved on as part of a Cabinet reshuffle, a new Communications Minister could potentially seek alternate methods of delivering the spirit of the policy – without imposing mandatory internet censorship on all Australians.

The next few weeks look like being a very interesting period indeed.

“use sensors, meters, digital controls and analytic tools to automate, monitor and control the two-way flow of energy across operations—from power plant to plug. A power company can optimize grid performance, prevent outages, restore outages faster and allow consumers to manage energy usage right down to the individual networked appliance. Smart grids can also incorporate new sustainable energies such as wind and solar generation, and interact locally with distributed power sources, or plug-in electric vehicles.” (IBM 30/11/2009)

In his NBN advocacy,  Senator Conroy has claimed smart grids can make a significant contribution to helping Australia reduce carbon emissions, and that broadband is an important enabler of future smart grids in Australia.

But do we need the NBN to implement smart grids? Recent developments would  suggest not.

The current ‘smart meter’ roll out in Victoria will rely on wireless connectivity for transmitting data from the meters. Likewise, the planned ‘smart grid’ deployment in NSW by Energy Australia also utilise wireless.[1] Both these initiatives will be deployed ahead of the NBN roll out, utilising technology that is available now. Electricity companies therefore clearly have economically viable  options  already for monitoring and managing their networks – without the NBN.

From the consumer perspective, it’s also questionable how much of an improvement the NBN can make.  Power monitoring tools like Google’s Powermeter are capable of functioning over current internet connections. The main barrier to greater adoption of household energy monitoring tools,  like Google Powermeter, would seem to be the lack of participation by Australian energy companies. This is  something that may change as their smart meter roll outs progress.

All this  suggests the NBN isn’t really a mandatory requirement for ‘smart grid’ deployments. While there may be large benefits through the enablement of smart grids via broadband, the incremental contribution of the NBN may not be as large as the government is hoping.

Notes:

[1] Interestingly, both the NSW and Victorian deployments will utilise WiMAX, facilitated by 2.3 Ghz spectrum purchases from Wireless Broadband Australia.

“advise Government on how best to implement its stated policy objectives, not to evaluate those objectives, given that the policies have already been agreed by Government. This report therefore focuses on translating high-level policy objectives into tangible actions for both Government and NBN Co to implement. Explicitly, it does not:

• Evaluate Government’s policy objectives;
• Evaluate the decision to implement the NBN via the establishment of NBN Co;
• Undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the macro-economic and social benefits that would result from the implementation of a superfast broadband network.” (NBN Implementation Study, 06/05/2010)

The report is clearly directed at answering the question of how to deliver the NBN in a way that meets the governments policy objectives. It very explicitly states that out of scope is if the NBN should be built, or built according to the governments objectives.

There’s a couple of ways to look at the decision to define the scope this way.

If you’re engaging expensive consultants like McKinsey and KPMG, you want to make sure you’re getting value for money. As I’ve argued in the case of engaging competitive intelligence specialists,

“To get the most value out of CI, the decision you’re engaging CI to help answer should be one that is still to be made, and not something that’s already been decided. (MinimalState 01/04/2010)

On this basis, DBCDE ‘s decision to request an implementation study, rather than a cost-benefit analysis, looks like a  smart move.  It’s a  smart use of resources – since the report addresses decisions still to be made;  and politicly astute – since there’s no chance of the report coming out with the ‘wrong’ answer. DBCDE has arguably asked the right questions in terms of making sure the NBN gets built in the way that best meets the stated policy objective.

Unfortunately, without some form of cost-benefit analysis, we’re no closer to knowing if the objectives the government are pursing are the right ones.

So what makes this phone so desirable? And why the qualification of “mostly”?

NOTE: In addition to the standard disclaimer & disclosure, readers should be aware that this phone was purchased on the Telstra staff plan. Therefore this review does not discuss plan and pricing options. This is a personal review and is not part of the Telstra’s  ’social review’ program.

Things to Love
For anyone still wondering if it’s worth making the leap to a smartphone (be it iPhone, Android or other) , the answer is yes. At home, the Desire has  become a convenient laptop substitute for simple tasks like checking email or catching up on Facebook. Having an alternate means of Internet access also comes in handy when, for instance, your broadband service is offline for a week.

Turning specifically to the Desire,  HTC’s ‘Sense’ user interface is a winner. There’s a few elements to Sense which I really love, starting with the seven customisable  home screen panes. Not only does this provide plenty of space for widgets and apps, it also enables similar applications to be grouped together on separate screen. For instance, you might  group all the games on one screen, with social media apps on another.

What adds to the wow factor  is the ability to preview the seven  panes with a “pinch” of the screen, then select the screen you want with a single touch. It’s much faster than flicking through multiple screens iPhone style.  (Check out the video from PocketVideo for a full run through of the Sense experience.)

The screen on the HTC Desire is also fantastic. It’s big and bright, which makes for a great web browsing and photo viewing experience. Even set to the dullest power saving level, it’s still quite usable indoors. The only time I’ve found myself turning up the brightness is to view photos or outdoors in bright light.

Despite such a large screen, the battery still managed to meet my needs.  Battery life is helped by a handy power management widget that provides one-touch on/off control over functions like WiFi, GPS, Bluetooth, syncing and screen brightness. The Desire managed about a day and a half without recharging under normal usage, which involved both 3G and WiFi internet browsing as well as a couple of phone calls and some game playing.   Adopting conservative power setting and resisting the urge to use the phone except when needed, it easily made it through two days without recharging.

The Desire’s camera was also a pleasant surprise. My expectations were quite low given my previous experience with the less than satisfactory camera on the  HTC Magic. Thankfully the Desire’s camera is much better. It won’t replace a dedicated digital compact, but it will give you a better chance of capturing those spur of the moment shots that always seem to come up when you only have your phone with you.

Lastly, I’m a big fan of the unlock pattern on Android phones .  Remembering and swiping in a multi-point pattern  seems a lot simpler than remembering a PIN of equivalent length.

Things to Improve
The HTC Desire is a good phone, but it’s not perfect. Early users of the Telstra branded Desire  didn’t get off to the best start, thanks to a software fault with the GPS. To their credit, Telstra and HTC were fairly quick to issue an over-the-air software update that not only fixed the GPS issue, but also added voice search.  In the end it was a  minor inconvenience, but one that still detracted a little from the initial excitement of having a new phone.

Secondly, whilst  I’ve  found apps to do all the things I want on my Desire so far, there’s still a lot more choice on the iPhone.  Currently, Apple has about a 5:1 advantage over Android in the number of apps, with games the weakest link for Android.

Wrapping Up
Overall the HTC Desire has a lot going for it – it’s easy to use, has a nice bright screen, gets through the day without a recharge and has a better than expected camera. Whilst the initial GPS issue took some of the fun out of my first week, there’s no buyers remorse.  And with the Android Marketplace growing at 9,000 apps per month, the ‘app gap’ is quickly going to become less about the number of apps and more about their quality (1). The HTC Desire is probably the best Android phone in Australia at the moment. If you’re considering a smartphone, then it’s worth at least checking out the Desire before you hand over your money to become another iPhone user.

p.s. As the Desire is currently exclusive to Telstra, the best place to compare the  Desire and iPhone is at your nearest Telstra  T[life] store where you can check out ‘live’ handsets side by side.

Notes:
(1) But that’s a topic for another post.

Tactically, delaying the legislation makes sense. Pushing it through before the election risks continuing the distracting public feud with the government’s critics. Delaying until after the election gives the ALP a range of options.

Should the ALP  fail to hold a majority in the Senate following the next election, ‘net censorship may once again become a political bargaining chip.  Family First are strong supporters of mandatory ISP filtering, and have previously called for the scope of the filter to be widened. By contrast, The Green’s remain strongly opposed to the policy and are calling for it to be scrapped altogether.  Depending on which minor (or major) party the ALP wishes to woo, internet filtering may go ahead in it’s current form (Family First?) or be modified in some form to make it more tolerable (The Greens?, Coalition?).

Holding this controversial policy over until after the next election is a smart move by the ALP and makes the Senate vote at the next election even more interesting for both supporters and opponents of this policy.

Screen Size

Both phones feature a 3.1″ screen.  This is smaller than the iPhone (3.5″) as well as the upcoming  Desire (3.7″) and Xperia (4.0″).  Whilst a bigger screen may mean a better browsing & app experience, the Backflip  is probably going to slip into to your pocket  easier than an Xperia.

Physical Keyboards

The DEXT and the Backflip both feature physical keyboards.  Whilst the touch-screen keyboards of both phones seemed ok, the smallish screen size  means only a few lines of text can be seen at a time when in landscape mode. Using the physical keyboard enables more text to be displayed on screen, reducing the need to scroll in order to see what’s already been written.

Of the two handsets, my preference is for the keyboard on the DEXT.  Whilst the keys on the Backflip aren’t tiny, the keyboard is flat and smooth, making it harder to distinguish individual keys. By contrast, keys on the DEXT have enough ‘bump’ to feel like individual keys.

Motoblur

According to Optus:

“The Motorola BACKFLIP and DEXT are the first smartphones announced in Australia to feature MOTOBLUR, allowing customers to sync contacts, emails, posts, messages, photos and more from sources such as Facebook®, MySpace, Twitter, Gmail™, work and personal e-mail and LastFM.  Content is automatically pushed straight to the home screen, in easy-to-manage streams allowing users to spend less time managing their life and more time living it.” (Optus media release 30/03/2010)

Optus’ advertising for the  DEXT is heavily focussed on the social connectivity facilitated by Motoblur, even going so far as to tag the DEXT  ”the first phone with social skills”. Given the hype, I was keen to check out Motoblur, especially as the concept is quite similar to ‘Friendstream‘ on the forthcoming HTC Desire.

Whilst the in-store handsets had live internet connections, unfortunately they hadn’t been linked to a Motoblur account or any social sites. This meant one could check out the home screen widgets,  but not any real live  ”happenings”. Thankfully Motorola has a pretty good Motoblur simulator on its site, but it’s still not the same as playing with a live handset.

Optus  ’yes’ Social Plans

To go with its new ‘social phones’, Optus has launched  a range of ‘yes’ Social Plans. Like the  Optus’ iPhone plans, they include a mobile data allowance, but have the additional benefit of  free (unmetered) use of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and YouTube. Offering unlimited access to these popular social sites strengthens the ‘social phone’ positioning of the DEXT and Backflip. It may also help reduce the risk of bill shock being caused by Motoblur  pulling content from these sites.  Either way, it seems a smart move by Optus and the ‘yes’ Social Plans are arguably as much a part of the ‘social phone’ value proposition as the handsets themselves.

Closing Thoughts

Whilst the Backflip has looks on its side, it’s worth checking out the keyboard factor in person as you may find the Backflip keyboard as off-putting as I did. Motoblur looks interesting but without a ‘live’ account it’s hard to say just how useful it really is.  Lastly there is the new ‘yes’ Social Plans. These  support the ‘social phone’ positioning of the new handsets and will provide extra value for some users.

With two new Androids touched down, it’s going to be interesting to see what the next wave of the Android invasion has to offer.

“The internet industry and copyright holders had been in detailed discussions for a number of years, before AFACT and its Executive Director, Ms Pecotic, called off negotiations in August 2007 to commence their unsuccessful legal proceedings against iiNet in the Federal Court.”

Naturally, the ‘Gamers, Porn and BitTorrent Society’ .. sorry, the Pirate Party Australia – had their own view on the AFACTs suggestion that we are being left “behind the rest of the world”, referring to the recent adoption of a 3 strike disconnection system introduced in such countries as Britain, France, South Korea, Taiwan and New Zealand;

“Pirate Party Australia completely rejects the implementation of any system that disconnects account holders from the Internet, increasingly the most important platform for communication and political discourse today, upon allegation of infringement, without full judicial oversight and due process. Mechanisms like this will see entire households disconnected, upon an allegation from an industry association.”

“The provision of an Internet service should be considered akin to the postal service, in that packets of data are sent and received, and this communication should be considered private—no person or organisation should be opening and reading the content of these packets.”

First and foremost, I want to point out the ridiculous nature of that particular argument. If you are going to equate the provisioning of internet connectivity to the postal service, you land it (more) squarely in the lap of the Dept of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, and expose ISPs to further regulation by the same. This seems a little counter-productive, unless the PP are suddenly considering themselves ‘besties’ with Senator Conroy.

I’ve previously stated my view on making ISPs ‘defacto cops’ of the Internet (to use a PP-coined phrase), and in the main, that opinion stands. ISPs provide a very specific core service. That service is to provide us, the consumer of that service, the means for us to connect to the internet.

To me, the concept of the provider of that service being held accountable for my use of it is nothing short of insane.

It’s like asking the blokey fellows contracted to conduct roadworks (ISP) who make the roads I drive my car (computer) on should pay my speeding fines ( the $4000 worth of  stolen music on my computer) out of some sort of crazed notion of perceived obligation.

(Authors Note: $4k of stolen music exists as hypothetical example only. I’m pretty confident I’m the only IT guy in history who’s never burned a music CD )

(Additional Authors Note: No offense intended to non ‘blokey’ roadworks persons, I promise)

The law has been tried and tested and in this case, common sense would seem to have prevailed. To quote Cowdroy, the Judge whom presided over the hotly debated and soon to go to appeal AFACT vs iiNet case:

“..mere provision of access to the internet is not the ‘means’ of infringement.” (Summary, Sect. 12)

Sorry AFACT, but no. I know the law, and if I break it, I know that there is a risk that, as the offender, I will be punished for doing so.

You may see the current state of the law as “.. a threat to our digital economy” – I see it as sensible, reasonable, and the 34 studios you represent can sue me should they ever have a problem with my online activity, thank you very much.