Monthly Archives: September 2011

Why I Have Stopped Blogging at WordPress.com

I must apologize to my regular readers for not posting anything lately. The reason is that WordPress.com is about to become one of the most unsecure websites in the entire cyber space. As you can see in this screenshot below:

I can log onto every sleazy porn site, but not wordpress.com

It’s more that a week since I asked the wordpress support dep. about what the Hell is going on! They haven’t bothered to give me an answer, yet.

My web browser, Comodo Dragon, warns me of unsecure websites.

Last week when trying to log on to EconoTwist’s, I was greeted with a big red sign, saying the site was temporary blocked because of phishing.

“The site contains links to viruses or other software programs that can reveal personal information stored or typed on your computer to malicious persons,” the message warns.

And without going into details, as I’m writing this I can see typical signs of some kind of key logger software activity.

The support people of WordPress.com have not taken any notice of my request for an explanation, so until I’ve solved this myself I won’t be posting much – sorry.

Related by the EconoTwist’s:

6 Comments

Filed under Laws and Regulations, Technology

Goodbye Eurobonds! (Or Hello?)

It could have been a part of a possible solution to prevent a collapse of the European monetary system – the eurobonds. But as pointed out in numerous articles here at EconoTwist’s, it is not possible for the euro zone governments to agree on anything fundamental as long as there’s no real union of Europe. Some of you may be familiar with the term “Tragedy of the Commons” – the story about the eurobonds turns out to be yet another illustration of this human imperfection.

“Eurobonds are an appealing concept in theory, but cannot be implemented in today’s Europe characterized by a large debt overhang, and the absence of a credible system to enforce even the weak elements of economic governance we have now.”

Daniel Gros

“The current upheaval in financial markets has reinforced the voice of those who call for the introduction of Eurobonds as the only way to end the euro debt crisis.  However, August 2011 might well be remembered as the month during which the idea of eurobonds was murdered by the Italian political system,” Director of the think tank CEPS in Brussels, Daniel Gros, writes in commentary article at www.eurointelligence.com.

Well, if the Italians didn’t do it, somebody else would have…

The idea of introducing a new financial instrument – another way to issue more sovereign debt – might have provided the European banks with another temporary source of income.

But that’s about it…

Besides, the practical issues related to an implementation of such bonds is not possible to solve in today’s political environment in Europe.

Maybe the eurobonds belongs to the future. But for now it’s just another nice thought – much like the very basic idea of the “United States of Europe“.

Director of the think tank CEPS in Brussels, Daniel Gros, does a pretty good job explaining the details in the following article, syndicated by www.eurointelligence.com:

The basic facts of the Italian drama are well-known: in early August, when interest rates on Italian government debt soared and the Italian banking system got under pressure, the ECB started buying Italian debt on the understanding that Italy would quickly adopt a multiannual program to reduce its deficit and promote growth.

This understanding was made explicit in a letter send by the present and future presidents of the ECB to the Italian government.

Initially it appeared the country would react in a matter of days. 

But as the pressure from financial markets abated somewhat the government, under pressure from different parts of the ruling coalition, continued to change its mind on what taxes to increase and what expenditure to cut.

Growth enhancing measures went out of the window and the revenues assumptions underpinning the budgets plans became ever more shaky.

The ECB had thus little choice, but to stop buying Italian bonds, whose yields then soared again.

This finally convinced the Government that it had no choice but to toughen the budget again so as to ensure renewed support by the ECB.

Given this experience it is instructive to speculate what might have happened if Eurobonds had already been implemented by early 2011.

What variant of Eurobonds?

Imagine first, that Italy could still have issued substantial amounts of Eurobonds.

In this case the Italian government would have continued to defend its position that Italy’s fundament position was sound (relatively low deficit and strong domestic savings); and that there was therefore no need to implement a strong fiscal adjustment now.

There are always valid arguments to delay action. 

The Italian government might even find a Nobel prize laureate who would support the notion that any attempt to implement a fiscal adjustment now would be self-defeating because it would depress demand so much that in the end the deficit would not improve.

Defenders of Eurobonds would say that ‘the EU’ (i.e. the eurogroup of finance ministers) might have imposed the adjustment anyway.

This is possible, but not likely, because in the absence of a clear market signal the need for action can always be disputed.

But what would have happened even if “the EU” had ordered Italy to do a fiscal adjustment now?

It is quite possible that the government might not have been able to find a majority in Parliament.

What then? Fines?  Why would the prospect of fines, which only embarrass the government, suddenly produce a consensus on reforms?

What if Italy had already exhausted its allocation of Eurobonds (or the EU had not allowed it to issue any more)?

In this case the price of all the Italian “non eurobonds,” i.e. those Italian bonds not guaranteed by its partners, would have tanked even more as financial markets would perceive that these bonds would be first in line in case of trouble.

Total Italian government debt is about 1.800 billion euro.  If one assumes that eurobonds might have been issued for about one half of this one would still be left with 900 billion euro, enough to drive large parts of the EU’s banking system into insolvency should the country default on it.

With or without Eurobonds, the ECB would have faced the same unpleasant choice: intervene in the secondary market or risk a collapse of the European banking system.

The Italian “summer theatre” of 2011 illustrates once more that the problem is not that a government will openly defy its euro zone partners, but rather that its parliament is so divided that the government cannot push through the measures that are required.

Greece has already shown that countries default not because they deliberately choose to, but because society at large is so divided that it is impossible to make the necessary adjustment to ensure orderly debt service.

This leads to the final thought: What would happen to the “eurobonds” issued by a country which does not comply with conditions set in Brussels or Frankfurt? 

Would financial markets really believe that Germany would honour its guarantee if the country concerned had not abided by its own obligations?

The German government might well argue that the country had destroyed the essential elements (‘Geschäftsgrundlage’ in German) for eurobonds.

Depending on the exact legal basis for Eurobonds, i.e. what jurisdiction would apply, this uncertainly could very well lead to significant yield differentials between the Eurobonds issued by different member states.

Eurobonds are an appealing concept in theory, but cannot be implemented in today’s Europe characterized by a large debt overhang, and the absence of a credible system to enforce even the weak elements of economic governance we have now.

.

Daniel Gros is Director of the think tank CEPS in Brussels.

 

So, the confusion continues…

Comments Off on Goodbye Eurobonds! (Or Hello?)

Filed under International Econnomic Politics, Laws and Regulations, National Economic Politics

Fortune 500 Companies Leaked 20GB of Sensitive Information

The following story is just a big LOL: And once again a document of how ridiculously easy is to be a profitable cyber criminal today. Luckily for the prominent corporations that makes up the famous Fortune 500 list, these guys were not hackers – they are IT security researchers.

“If  in six months we were able to collect 20 gigabytes of data, imagine what a malicious attacker could gain.”

Peter Kim – Garrett Gee

All they did was to by internet domain names that was almost identical to the well-known global corporations – just missing a dot. It wasn’t long before emails, containing everything from trade secrets, business invoices, personal information about employees, network diagrams and passwords, started to pour in…

Security researchers Peter Kim and Garrett Gee have captured 120,000 emails intended for Fortune 500 companies by exploiting a basic typo.

“The emails included trade secrets, personal information, network diagrams and passwords, started to pour in,” the website Naked Security (by security firm Sophos) writes.

The researchers did this by buying 30 internet domains they thought people would send emails to by accident (a practice known as typosquatting).

The domain names they chose were all identical to subdomains used by Fortune 500 companies save for a missing dot.

Having purchased the domains they simply sat back and watched as users mistakenly sent them over 120,000 emails in six months.

Kim and Garrett have not identified their targets but have revealed that they were chosen from a list of 151 Fortune 500 companies they regarded as vulnerable to their variation of typosquatting.

However, the list is jam-packed with household names like Dell, Microsoft, Halliburton, PepsiCo and Nike.

The emails they collected included the following sensitive corporate information:

  • Passwords for an IT firm’s external Cisco routers
  • Precise details of the contents of a large oil company’s oil tankers
  • VPN details and passwords for a system managing road tollways

The researchers also warn of how easy it would have been to turn their passive typosquatting into an even more dangerous man-in-the-middle attack.

Such an attack would have allowed them to capture entire email conversations rather than just individual stray emails.

The two “White Hats” describe they’re metode as “passive email attack”.

And they write:

“During a six‐month span, over 120,000 individual emails (or 20 gigabytes of data) were collected which included trade secrets, business invoices, employee PII, network  diagrams, usernames and passwords, etc. Essentially, a simple mistype of the destination domain could send anything that is sent over email to an unintended destination.”

“If in six months we were able to collect 20 gigabytes of data, imagine what a malicious attacker could gain.”

Well, I’m not sure that would be good for every CEO amongst the Fortune 500’s – it might be bad for their blood pressure, or something…

Because; the report by Kim and Gee do also indicate that they probably not is the first computer geeks who have thought of this:

“After reviewing the WHOIS information from all Fortune 500 companies, we noticed some of the largest companies were already registered to locations in China and to domains associated with malware and phishing. While it is unknown if these domains are used in a malicious fashion, it is apparent that some targeting is happening here.”

Peter Kim and Garrett Gee’s paper “Doppelganger Domains” is available to download from Wired.

Related by the EconoTwist’s:

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Laws and Regulations, National Economic Politics, Technology