Visions of a Freeman - Friday, December 06 of 2013
The ZeroJobs web/media bot fraud net.

Technology is not only the implementation of new devices, it is also the use of science and thus logic.

Let us see the news:
6 December 2013 Last updated at 06:46 GMT

Microsoft disrupts ZeroAccess web fraud botnet

ZeroAccess, one of the world's largest botnets - a network of computers infected with malware to trigger online fraud - has been disrupted by Microsoft and law enforcement agencies.

ZeroAccess hijacks web search results and redirects users to potentially dangerous sites to steal their details.

It also generates fraudulent ad clicks on infected computers then claims payouts from duped advertisers.

Also called Sirefef botnet, ZeroAccess, has infected two million computers.

The botnet targets search results on Google, Bing and Yahoo search engines and is estimated to cost online advertisers $2.7m (£1.7m) per month.

Microsoft said it had been authorised by US regulators to "block incoming and outgoing communications between computers located in the US and the 18 identified Internet Protocol (IP) addresses being used to commit the fraudulent schemes".

In addition, the firm has also taken control of 49 domains associated with ZeroAccess.

David Finn, executive director of Microsoft Digital Crimes Unit, said the disruption "will stop victims' computers from being used for fraud and help us identify the computers that need to be cleaned of the infection".

'Most robust'

The ZeroAccess botnet relies on waves of communication between groups of infected computers, instead of being controlled by a few servers.

This allows cyber criminals to control the botnet remotely from a range of computers, making it difficult to tackle.

According to Microsoft, more than 800,000 ZeroAccess-infected computers were active on the internet on any given day as of October this year.

"Due to its botnet architecture, ZeroAccess is one of the most robust and durable botnets in operation today and was built to be resilient to disruption efforts," Microsoft said.

However, the firm said its latest action is "expected to significantly disrupt the botnet's operation, increasing the cost and risk for cyber criminals to continue doing business and preventing victims' computers from committing fraudulent schemes".

Microsoft said its Digital Crimes Unit collaborated with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Europol's European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) to disrupt the operations.

Earlier this year, security firm Symantec said it had disabled nearly 500,000 computers infected by ZeroAccess and taken them out of the botnet.

A very corrupt country called the United States of America.

Take a look at this:

Microsoft said it had been authorised by US regulators to "block incoming and outgoing communications

First of all, no corporation is authorized to remove the rights of anyone. The Justice Department must be totally Independent from the Corporations, just as Academy must as well. It is not that a Corporation is authorized, it is that a Corporation must obey the law for no corporation is authorized to do the work of the Justice department under ANY circumstance.

The Justice Department must be able to block any address even if the Corporations like it or not, because that is the law and the law is over the Corporations.

Microsoft is not part of the Judicial system so it simply cannot be authorized to do the work of the Police and Law Enforcement agencies. That would be the same as authorizing a civilian to enter the house of someone and proceed to arrest people and take them to jail, a function that only the Police or other law enforcement agencies can have and certainly NOT a private corporation.

Take a look at this:

Microsoft said its Digital Crimes Unit

Again we are seeing how Microsoft is clearly taking the role of the Police Department, effectively creating a corporate police and corporations are not concerned with human rights, they are only concerned for their own profit.

No corporation can have a Crime Unit. You can call it a Cyber Security Unit, sure, but never a Crime Unit because the only crime unit by law is the law enforcement agencies. It is very dangerous when Corporations have their own law enforcement agencies... Which is a serious breach of the laws.

Take a look again:

security firm Symantec said it had disabled nearly 500,000 computers infected

A connection is also a right, no corporation can cut human rights so the mere fact that Symantec claims they have disabled computers is the same as admitting it has killed connections, and so it has cut the rights of people. No corporation can do that. If it were the Police department that says it has ordered, under a Judicial process to cut the connections and that Symantec simply complied with the order THEN and only then is it legal.

The mere fact that the BBC gives Police credentials to a corporation should be a violation of the rules of ethics. The ONLY people that can effectively deny the right's of connection to the internet are the Law enforcement people, not some corporation and the law enforcement should be totally independent from the corporations in order for it not to be extremely corrupt.

That Microsoft Police Department should be a serious concern for everyone that respects the rule of law and human rights, to Me it is the same as the Gestapo Nazi police. When a corporation has the power, it will tend to use it for it's profit, not for the benefit of all the society.

Google, Bing and Yahoo are fraud nets, and Microsoft supports that fraud.

Here is where technology gets interesting and logic is superior to the arguments of the criminals and fraudsters like Google, Yahoo and Bing.

The fact is:

The Internet is now using IP6.

That is where Google, Bing and Yahoo became criminal organizations and also Microsoft.

This is a part of what Wikipedia in English shows about IP6:
Every device on the Internet must be assigned an IP address in order to communicate with other devices. With the ever-increasing number of new devices being connected to the Internet, the need arose for more addresses than IPv4 is able to accommodate. IPv6 uses a 128-bit address, allowing 2128, or approximately 3.4×1038 addresses, or more than 7.9×1028 times as many as IPv4, which uses 32-bit addresses. IPv4 allows only approximately 4.3 billion addresses. The two protocols are not designed to be interoperable, complicating the transition to IPv6.

IPv6 addresses are represented as eight groups of four hexadecimal digits separated by colons, for example 2001:0db8:85a3:0042:1000:8a2e:0370:7334, but methods of abbreviation of this full notation exist.

The Wikipedia in Spanish gives you an interesting way to represent the possibilities:
IPv4 posibilita 4,294,967,296 (232) direcciones de host diferentes, un número inadecuado para dar una dirección a cada persona del planeta, y mucho menos a cada vehículo, teléfono, PDA, etcétera. En cambio, IPv6 admite 340.282.366.920.938.463.463.374.607.431.768.211.456 (2128 o 340 sextillones de direcciones) —cerca de 6,7 × 1017 (670 mil billones) de direcciones por cada milímetro cuadrado de la superficie de La Tierra.

IP6 can address 340.282.366.920.938.463.463.374.607.431.768.211.456 connections, that is 670 thousand billion connections per square millimeter of the surface of the earth...

What does that mean? It means that it is the end of Dynamic Internet Addresses, there is certainly quite a lot of connections available to give every single connection a name of user and a fixed address.

But what happens if that is implemented? Well then that means that every single connection will be linked to every person on a country, making it very hard to invent data about the true marketing done by a search engine or web site. For example a publicity sent to a cellular phone would not be counted as unique if the same person happens to also have another connection for his computer. In that case the repeated publicity that was once rejected at the user's computer will not be counted as a good marketing hit on the person's cellular phone.

Technology now allows for the user to insert a password in a computer and have the Internet provider to grant that person his very own internet address. For example sick father can watch a lot of pornography using his internet connection but when his child wants to use the Internet he logs out, the child types in the password or uses some other type of identification and gains his very own internet connection that police and schools can track to the child and NOT the adult person. So if by any chance the Internet connection of the child triggers a Porn address then the parent can be warned and even the Porn sites can obey the law and have a data cross with the law agencies to see if any child internet account has visited it. That is by far the best way and the only way it can be if school is to be on the internet on the future. That is every person with his own account, that is responsible internet.

Responsible Internet also makes it very hard, if not impossible to hack since web sites can be related to the internet account address, not a password. The introduction of the password itself can be typed on the Bios of the machine, which is on a read only chip, the user can press a button and the computer can go into "No Keylog" mode where the operative system cannot have access to key strokes recording and the computer logs into the Internet provider from its HARDWARE, not from it's operative system, making it impossible for hackers to use software to capture the password of a user.

The process is: The user presses a button, the Bios opens, all operative system access to that interface is blocked. The user logins to the Internet provider from the Bios, the Bios then informs the operative system that it has an internet connection but never informs security details of the connection itself so no matter how much a hacker writes software code on the operative system it will never have access to the security login data simply because the operative system does not have access to that data, only the hardware does.

The sick parent can watch porn if he can, then he watches some violent news and the child returns from school and knocks the door, he wants to use the computer. The parent then simply presses a button on the case of the computer, the Login button and leaves the computer, the child is good to go and connect to his own internet address by login in.

But what happens if that is done (which is perfectly possible by the way)? Well what happens is that the massive fraud done by Google, Yahoo and Bing are exposed... All the fake clicks, all the fake claims, all the secretly inserted false data of visits, everything is exposed and that would drastically lower the market value of those companies... For example a click on a female lingerie publicity would be worth NOTHING if the internet account belongs to a little boy aged 10. Right now Google fraud considers it a visit even if it is a little boy watching totally unrelated to childhood material and that means less profits because they used to tell the fraud victims that all hits were good, when now all child visits are subtracted, thus less profit from lying to the user of the marketing service and it makes it a lot harder to introduce false data to increase the sales of fraudulent marketing.

So what's the point of "fighting" against Bot nets when the real solution is to anchor the web addresses? The point is to make more money, even if the Internet becomes far less secure and dangerous with great opportunities for new fraud bots to appear at any time, maybe even faster than they are taken down.

So today Microsoft, Google, Bing and Yahoo recognized, openly, that their proposal for the irresponsible Internet is insecure and dangerous.

Allow me to offer the alternative.

Sovereign rights.

Every country in the world has to have basic internet rights:
1) The right to have secure Internet.

That is, 1 connection per user, with the possibility of multiple logins on the same computer, but different people. That works on Internet Cafes as well.

Secure Internet is not only a lot safer, it allows two necessary and wonderful things in the near future: Schools on the Internet and Internet Democracy, where people can vote on the internet, 1 vote per user, 1 user per account.
2) The right to be able to filter the IP addresses.

This is specially useful for parents since it gives them complete control over the formation of their young children and it is crucial for future internet schools.
3) The possibility to use Data Social Networks.

The difference between a Data Social Network and a normal web social network is that the data social network provides raw data, to be used by software that Academy can create and recommend.
4) The right to have it's own sovereign open code Web browser.
5) The right to make web pages with blank spaces where the user itself can decide what marketing provider it wants.

For example suppose the user is an Adult that likes cars. Well he visits the Academic Web site of news and on those blank spaces he chose Car magazine, he has to choose one or the page simply does not appear. He logs in, sees cool car stuff, but then Child wants to use computer. Child logins and visits the same exact page that parent saw on an academic media but only this time it would not be publicity about cars but some publicity about some educative video game that teaches math and another that teaches science, for example.

Right now Google has sequestered the Internet pages, imposed a brutal monopoly and forced people to see what they want, greatly hurting the marketing and advertisement industry all over the entire world, while the empty spaces I propose lets the user, not Google, decide which marketing provider they want in the benefit of the local marketing industry as well. Something that advertising companies all over the world in their great majority would appreciate.

Google is a marketing monopoly on the Internet and a fraud to boot.
6) The right to have Academic web sites and Academic Search engines.
7) The right to sue Google, Yahoo and Bing for monopolistic practices and unfair commercial advantage with unlimited free publicity on the media in serious detriment of the local software industry that also has the right to work, feed and educate their children.
8) A sovereign open source code license system.

The USA has that right, it uses it in a system called: Creative Commons.

Well just as the United States has that sovereign right, so too every country in the world should have that same right to create their own open source licenses.
9) The right to have a sovereign operative system.
10) The right to have a sovereign web page editor.

The Internet belongs to the world. Not to the United States of America media and their monopolistic friends that plague the world (more than 190 countries) with unemployment in the computer programming industry.

The greatest fraud of Google, Yahoo and Bling is done every time they claim to produce jobs in the world, when they actually produce very little jobs for the profit of very few on the world.

That is why I call Google, Bing and Yahoo the "World Unemployment Industry".

The programmers in my country, Venezuela, have the right to make their own software solutions, the advertising industry in my country has the right to reach our people and the people of Venezuela have the right to see the marketing of their choice in support of their country as well.

That is what it means to live in dignity, not under a media/technological monopoly.

So Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Bing are wanting to block ZeroAccess net...

So who is going to disrupt the ZEROJOBS web/media fraud botnet?

Back to index.