With so many millions who are out-of-work and signing up on job boards, I believe it’s downright disgusting criminal behavior how these companies steal identities of those who are unemployed … below is just part of the story — the link will tell you more…

Cyber crooks are targeting a wave of new attacks at people searching for jobs online, security experts warn. Oddly enough, the criminals behind this scam appear to be just as interested in hiring you as they are in hijacking your PC.

Over the course of the past few weeks, virus writers have set their sights on users of job search giant Monster.com and at least one other jobs site with tainted online advertisements designed to install malicious software on the visitors’ machines, according to SecureWorks, an Atlanta-based security and research firm.

SecureWorks says that since May, more than 40,000 people have had their personal information stolen — including Social Security numbers, bank account data and job site credentials — thanks to a Trojan horse program that was planted in several advertisements running on the jobs sites. Some of these ads required a visitor to actually click on them before the Trojan could do its dirty work, while in other cases the Trojan appeared to swing into action as soon as the page hosting the ad was served, researchers found.

SecureWorks researcher Don Jackson said the Trojan was developed using a toolkit sold in black market forums under the name “icepack.” The toolkit is similar to the Mpack toolkit that surfaced earlier this year. It generates Trojans that probe for the absence of several software security updates holes that then permit the program to deliver its viral payload. Among the many weapons in its arsenal are exploits for recently patched security vulnerabilities in Apple’s QuickTime and Microsoft’s Windows Media Player. It also includes exploits for multiple Web browsers, including Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera.

SecureWorks classifies the Trojan as a variant of the Prg Trojan, a fast-evolving piece of malware that appears to have been developed in tandem by different criminal groups. Secure Science Corp., the San Diego company that first spotted the Prg Trojan in late 2006, has a very detailed analysis (PDF) of the way it operates and some theories about its creators.

Anti-virus maker Symantec Corp. has been monitoring the attacks, which the company attributes to a Trojan its software recognizes as “Infostealer.Monstres.” According to Symantec, the malware steals sensitive data posted by victims to Monster.com and then relays that information to a Web site controlled by the attackers. The Trojan also directs a victim’s PC to blast out junk e-mail.

Symantec’s advisory doesn’t say what that spam looks like, but SecureWorks’s Jackson said the junk e-mails are typical work-at-home scams that include the Trojan as an attachment.

Part of the reason employment forums are being targeted may be that job search sites have truly massive numbers of visitors each day. But there appears to be another angle in play here: The scammers really are trying to recruit new employees.

Work-at-home scams propagated through e-mail are almost always recruitment schemes run by organized criminal groups. The groups typically troll job boards and forums looking for potential “mules,” people who agree — sometimes unknowingly — to launder stolen funds or reship commercial goods on behalf of fraudsters.

Would You Like A Job With That Virus ?

Perhaps a few people noticed that, when President Bush took responsibility for the federal response to Katrina, he was being visited by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. I find it of extreme importance to maintain focus on Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism, especially given the other happenings of national importance in recent weeks — not to diminish Disaster Katrina or the Roberts hearing, but to elevate Iraq.

To this end, the The Washington Times published a commentary by Hiwa Osman, media advisor to President Talabani. In “But for the U.S. and its Allies,” Osman lavishes praise on America even as he trumpets the achievements of the nascent Iraqi democracy. Excerpts:

[…] The Iraqi president conveyed a thank-you message from the people of Iraq, who were empowered to vote last January, for making a democratic Iraq a reality. But this will not be it. The two men will quickly realize that both of them are in one trench, they are fighting the same enemy — the al Qaeda terrorist organization.

Just over two years ago, the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein was in power. He was using his power to kill innocent Iraqis and was using the affiliates of al Qaeda to spread carnage, death and destruction in areas of Iraq he could not reach.

The group of Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan, formed on Sept. 1, 2001, is an affiliate of al Qaeda that killed many innocent civilians before they were kicked out of their mountainous strongholds near Iran by the joint U.S.-Iraqi offensive as the war of liberation was taking place in the rest of Iraq.

Today, thanks to the United States and its allies, a young democracy that elected Mr. Talabani is in place. But the enemies of Iraq and the United States are doing their utmost to undermine the new Iraq and prove that the “Western model of democracy does not work in the Middle East.”

[…]

Those who committed the September 11 atrocity are today killing Iraqis and are conducting a campaign of terror in any place in the world they could get to — London, Madrid, Sharm el-Sheikh, Turkey and Lebanon.

Iraqis and Americans know that the terrorists of al Qaeda have no objective but death and destruction; they thrive on it.

They showed no remorse for any human suffering. After Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Talabani told Mr. Bush in a message of condolences: “We would also like to reassure you that at these difficult times in Iraq, and as we mourn our dead in Baghdad, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of New Orleans, Grand Isle, Gulfport, Biloxi, Mobile and all other areas hit by the hurricane.”

With glee, the leaders of al Qaeda were exchanging messages of greetings and congratulating each other for “the start of the end of America.”

Regardless of the country, the beliefs and political opinions, the terrorists of al Qaeda are fighting one war, and so should the two leaders who met yesterday in Washington. They should be aware of the reality that they are facing one enemy, an enemy that is merciless and wants to bring nothing but death and destruction. [emphasis mine]

As Mr. Talabani’s fellow citizens are busy establishing a democratic, pluralistic and federal Iraq, they have become a main target for the terrorists and those who want to see America fail.

Iraqis know that America is a friend and democracy is possible in the Middle East and the terrorists want to prove it is not.

The people of Iraq are fighting them on two fronts: by building a security force and by having an inclusive democratic political process for all Iraqis.

[…] While the people of Iraq are grateful for the protection that the United States is providing, their presence and help is vital until Iraq can stand on its feet.

Furthermore, Iraqis have just completed one of the most important documents in Iraq’s history, a draft constitution that enshrines many of the values of the free world.

[…] Next month, Iraqis will vote on the draft, and a higher turnout than the January election is expected. Although the draft constitution is very likely to be ratified, ratifying it or not is not relevant. The important point here is that the snowball of popular participation will create a sense of ownership of the new Iraq among those who are reluctant to accept it and are being exploited by the terrorists.

This in addition to America’s continued engagement with Iraq will isolate the terrorists and eventually eradicate them.

If the Iraqis believe in their hearts that we will eventually eradicate the terrorist threat, then this is wonderful – and much more than many Americans seem to believe at this time. We too, as the Iraqis, must remain resolute.

Do you STILL believe that this war in Iraq was ill-conceived? Besides Mr. Osman’s comments above, there is considerable evidence that outlines the connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and emphasizes the importance of fighting the good fight, for the long haul.

It is my deepest belief that the Islamofascist jihad for a new caliphate is the single most important threat to our country. Not only Iraq’s freedom, but our freedom, and that of our collective children, are at stake.

A slightly modified version originally posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

Thanks to The Political Teen

Linked to Wizbang’s Carnival of the Trackbacks XXIX

From Jim Pinkerton, at TechCentralStation: “Tony Blair Pulls the Plug on Kyoto at Clinton Summit.” The article opens:

Kyoto Treaty RIP. That’s not the headline in any newspaper this morning emerging from the first day of the Clinton Global Initiative, but it could have been — and should have been.

Onstage with former president Bill Clinton at a midtown Manhattan hotel ballroom, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was going to speak with “brutal honesty” about Kyoto and global warming, and he did. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had some blunt talk, too.

RIP indeed. But, why?

Blair, a longtime supporter of the Kyoto treaty, further prefaced his remarks by noting, “My thinking has changed in the past three or four years.” So what does he think now? “No country, he declared, “is going to cut its growth.” That is, no country is going to allow the Kyoto treaty, or any other such global-warming treaty, to crimp — some say cripple – its economy.

Looking ahead to future climate-change negotiations, Blair said of such fast-growing countries as India and China, “They’re not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto.” India and China, of course, weren’t covered by Kyoto in the first place, which was one of the fatal flaws in the treaty. But now Blair is acknowledging the obvious: that after the current Kyoto treaty — which the US never acceded to — expires in 2012, there’s not going to be another worldwide deal like it.

Well then.

Pinkerton observes this interesting phenomenon:

Interestingly, these words from Blair, addressing an audience of a thousand at the Sheraton just a few blocks north of Times Square, failed to get any pickup in the media. Even The New York Times, published just down the street, ran a story that dwelt on the star power in the room, including King Abdullah of Jordan, Jesse Jackson, and George Stephanopoulos. “Isn’t this awesome?” said one participant, and those words seemed to reflect fully the Times‘ take on the event.

Who’da thunk?

HT: Rush Limbaugh

Cross-posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

A concise summary of blogging etiquette can be found at Info Theory today, with links to previous such posts. In “A Suggested Protocol for Blog Communication” the author, Paul Deignan, lays out five proposed principles of blogging protocol that seem quite reasonable. He is seeking out comments from the blogosphere as well.

The one that caught my eye was #3:

3. Comments allow blog authors and readers to correspond publicly in the context of a topic within the post cycle time of the blog. Authors that allow commenting should have the expectation that they will be available to respond to pertinent author-directed comments during the front page life of the post unless otherwise noted by the author. Commenters should limit themselves to the stream of discussion established or at least to the topic of the post. The role of the author is as a host to a party. The role of the commenter is to be a respectful guest. [emphasis mine]

Think on that a minute. Or three. Why not be respectful to your host? After all, they’re paying for the party and the invitation’s an open one. What a concept! One can argue and disagree, and still be respectful. Unless, of course, you are incapable of comprehending societal norms and don’t even know what etiquette means (let alone how to spell it).

What of consequences? Banning? Deleting? Publicly humiliating the offenders? There’s that. And, there is that free speech thing. I suppose if we must let the wee babies of the b’sphere be foul, then they can just sit in their own dirty diapers for all the world to see.

In light of the execution of Steven Vincent and this present topic: This was typical of a small number of comments in the otherwise polite and respectful thread today on Vincent’s blog, In The Red Zone:

Shit happens

Posted by: Diatric | August 3, 2005 11:57 AM

(link to comment)

I leave it for you to decide the decency of this comment.

Hat Tip for original Info Theory post: basil’s blog

A longer version of this was posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits.

Kit Jarrell and Heidi Thiess of Euphoric Reality are the authors of the phenomenal seven eight-part Vietnam war report “Brother Against Brother,” published this week.

Kit and Heidi are the special guests on Kender Uncensored at xradio.biz, Thursday 28 July at 08:00 PDT (11:00 EDT). If you heard them earlier today on Kender’s show, you know of some of the backstory to their research into this tale of “jealousy, truth, and honor between men who fought in a place called Vietnam.” And, you’re probably as impressed as I am at their determination to bring this story to light against all odds.

Cross-posted at The Wide Awakes and TMH’s Bacon Bits

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Ambush in the Ruong Ruong
Chapter 3: The Firefight
Chapter 4: The Absence of All Hope
Chapter 5: To Save Our Brothers
Chapter 6: The Legacy of 20 November 1968
Chapter 7: The Accusations, Part 1
Chapter 8: The Accusations, Part 2

This just in from KESQ NewsChannel 3 and other sources:

SAN DIEGO San Diego voters have approved a ballot measure aimed at keeping a 29-foot cross erected to honor Korean War veterans at its location on a city-owned hilltop.

A judge ruled that the measure needed two-thirds of the vote to pass. With 68 percent of precincts reporting, more than three out of four voters favored the transfer.

The Mount Soledad cross has been the subject of a 15-year legal battle over whether the cross’ presence on city-owned parkland violated the separation of church and state.

The measure, which could face a court challenge, aimed to preserve the cross by transfering the cross and surrounding land to the U-S Interior Department as a national veterans memorial.

Roger Hedgecock, who is based in San Diego and is filling in for Rush Limbaugh today, reported that 76% of voters supported the measure.

Is this a small victory for Christianity in America, that, through the likes of the ACLU, has been thrust from the public square for years? We’ll see… there is cause to be a little optimistic. I do expect a furious battle, though.

Photo courtesy of the San Diego Union Tribune

Cross-posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

Rightwing pundits extraordinaire Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthammer have each expressed reservations regarding the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., as the proper Supreme Court Justice to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. I believe that Ann’s and Charles’ concerns regarding Roberts’ “blank slate” record and potential for “doing a Souter” should be allayed some, by the release of Reagan-era documents regarding Roberts. The Washington Post today published an in-depth look at the records, which paint him pretty clearly as a judicial conservative in the strict constructionist school.

During 1981-82, Roberts served as a special assistant to then-Attorney General William French Smith. Even as a twentysomething lawyer in Reagan’s Justice Department, Roberts took firm stands against judicial activism on such matters as affirmative action, Title IX, abortion, school busing, and prayer in public school. (more…)

Caelestis of The Makaha Surf Report (Forward Deployed) can’t post a lot these days, seeing as he’s deployed in Iraq and waging the Global War on Terrorism as a defense contractor. But he’s keeping up with the blogosphere, especially those lunatics who would rather condemn our brave fighting forces than thank them for their service in the cause for freedom for America and her allies.

Caelestis posted with regards to a certain “Bob” who recently visited some hate mail upon Blackfive. In their responses to this “Bob” who simply does not deserve anyone’s time of day, I see both posts as valuable weapons for combatting the anti-American, anti-freedom left. The comment threads for both posts are (for the most part) moving testaments to, and praise of, the American soldier.

In brief: Caelestis takes it to “Bob” and leaves little meat to pick off of the bones. His final words ring true, but unfortunately they seem to require repeating, to push back on the military-hating, blame-America-first leftist elites such as Bob:

Bob, the noble quality of the U.S. soldier is something a person like yourself could never understand. We save lives, our enemies take them, we greet children with candy and school supplies, our enemies bring pain and death. We try to honor the Iraqi people’s customs and laws, our enemies break every law of Iraq, they destroy mosques on purpose and attack women and children and they do these things with no restraint. As for us being dirty fighters or not, it real easy to evaluate our men and women from your couch ain’t it bob? They fight and they win Bob, they treat the wounded among our enemies, our enemies kill our wounded if given the chance. Our men and women try to inflict as little damage on civilians as possible, our enemies use our restraint as a weapon to kill as many innocents as possible. You know what Bob this is a pointless exercise, if you see our men and women in uniform as evil, I have nothing further to say.

It’s just a damn shame that our military has to wage war on the home front as well as on the front lines with the terrorists, where they really need to focus.

Cross-posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

Food for thought:

Spain killed those fifty Brits, from the way they voted. It’s Spain’s shame.

–John Gibson, filling in on The Tony Snow, Fox News Radio, 22 July 2005.

Gibson’s comment was in reference to the recent London bombings on 7 July 2005 and the voters in Spain, following al Qaeda’s bombing of commuter trains in Madrid on 11 March 2004, choosing to reject their current government in national elections. Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar’s pro-American party was defeated, and soon thereafter the new ruling Spanish government pulled its troops out of the international coalition forces in Iraq.

Similar item cross-posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

I read this inspirational quote tonight over sushi and sake in a very chic liberal East Coast city, and I smiled.

When Reagan and his team had been in Sacramento six years, they began to realize that some of the staff were saying “we,” referring to the government. They figured those guys had been there too long. Because when Reagan said “we,” it always meant the American people and never the government, neither when he was governor, nor when he was President. Conservatives have to distinguish between running the government on behalf of the American people, and presiding over the government to the American people.

–Newt Gingrich, in reference to the Craig Shirley book Reagan’s Revolution, and as quoted by Rush Limbaugh in The Limbaugh Letter, July 2005

Cross-posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

The second reading in the Roman Catholic Mass today got me thinking — as all good scripture readings should, to those so inclined. In fact, I shall tack on the two previous lines to the short but evocative passage from the Missal. From the Letter of Paul to the Romans:

For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance. In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings. And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God’s will.

–Rom 8:24-27 (New American Bible)

For me, this passage is a powerful reminder that prayer is not a one-way street for those who have faith and patience. While prayer is not always easy for me, and is not always answered in the way in which I might want, prayer IS answered.

Therefore, at this time when more and more yellow “Pray for Our Troops” ribbon magnets color our streets and highways, I feel it is important to consider this as a sincere plea — even an evangelistic mission — and not merely an empty but well-meaning phrase.

God bless.

Cross-posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

Caelestis of The Makaha Surf Report (Forward Deployed) is in Iraq and is blogging from the front lines of the War on Terrorism as a military contractor. He has important insights on what separates the terrorists from the U.S. and coalition military. In his post “There Are No Heroes Among Insurgents” he clearly delineates us from them, and I urge you to visit his blog for the full scoop… and to visit it often for his firsthand reports on action in Iraq.

Here’s a distillation:

Let me explain it further so that the braindead that occupy the left understand. The brave men and women of the American military go out beyond the walls everyday and one of the few things that brightens their day is interaction with Iraqi children. American soldiers everywhere have always had a soft spot for children, in Germany after World War II, our grandfathers fed children from their own rations, gave them candy if they had it, and gave whatever medical care they could. …Why? Because they understood children are innocent, they should not have to pay for the sins of their fathers.

…Juxtapose that against the insurgents of Iraq, the animals who kill children to get at us. These are not heroes, they are not even men, these are cowards. That’s right, it isn’t a brave man that drives a car into a crowd of children, a brave insurgent would fight us face to face, but why should I expect men that want to enslave women to be brave.

Let me state one more time, killing children is the basest evil one can commit, children are innocent and the side that butchers them wantonly deserves whatever revenge our soldiers and the Iraqi people unleash upon them. I will not feel differently about this issue until every last suicide coward is captured, deserts Al Qaeda or is killed. My words are harsh, but what kind of society would we be if we did not take the harshest possible attitude towards the murderers of the most innocent.

Cross-posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

I am wondering just why it is that we are still discussing this ludicrous idea of selling a United States-owned oil company to a state-owned Chinese interest. For those who refuse to see this as primarily a national security issue and not an economic issue, I share some thoughts on the proposed China-Unocal deal.

The Washington Post reported in detail on the shift in China’s oil policy since the 2003 Iraq War. As author Peter S. Goodman notes:

Through cultivation of Saddam Hussein’s government, China sought to develop some of Iraq’s more promising reserves. Beijing advocated lifting the United Nations sanctions that prevented investment in Iraq’s oil patch and limited sales of its production.

Then the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, wiping out China’s stakes. The war and its aftermath have reshaped China’s basic conception of the geopolitics of oil and added urgency to its mission to lessen dependence on Middle East supplies. It has reinforced China’s fears that it is locked in a zero-sum contest for energy with the world’s lone superpower, prompting Beijing to intensify its search for new sources, international relations and energy experts say.

And, while the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) emphasizes that their interest in purchasing Unocal is purely commercial, President Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq is arguably a key reason for China’s need to put such effort into buying more and more foreign oil and gas resources. So, I’m offering up a gimme for the loony left: should they choose to protest the attempt at a Chinese interest to purchase an American oil company, they can blame yet something else on President Bush. (more…)

Gribbit of STOP THE ACLU posted today on this article by Lee Ellis (a retired journalist and a former vice president of both CBS and Gannet), which was published on 29 June 2005 at ChronWatch.com. In the wake of the recent, perplexing decisions by the Supreme Court with regard to the Ten Commandments, I chose to again approach this important issue of religious freedom in America. Here, I highlight what I felt were the core paragraphs from Ellis’ article:

A few days ago, the majority of the Supreme Court ruled as if it were using the Constitution of France instead of the Constitution of the USA. The French Constitution states that its nation is a secular one, while our Constitution states that we are a nation under God. One would not know this if the majority of the Supreme Court today is to be believed

…

The framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that all Americans could worship freely, without religious persecution. So they prohibited the federal government from ‘establishing a religion’ and equally prohibiting it from ‘interfering with the people’s free expression of their religion.’

…

Now the Socialist movement, the ACLU, and other liberal organizations (some with “Mom and Apple Pie” names to fool its readers, its fiscal donators and the country) have been partly successful in its efforts to drive the Judeo-Christian religion out America. The secularists have not failed in making most of Europe and Canada almost wholly secular and they are working hard to do this to America.

How?

They have crammed our courts with liberal legislative judges as replacements for Constitutional judges, and now their representatives in Congress have filibustered to keep President Bush from appointing a majority of Constitutional federal judges. Finally, the ACLU has tried to eliminate any mention of “GOD” from all public places. I don’t think that the word, “God” is a symbol of any one particular denomination or denotes any one specific religion, do you? So why do they act as if it does?

Apparently, the ACLU has forgotten that the founders were only afraid of a federally-owned religion ruled by a King or a President, not by free religious bodies governed by themselves. [emphasis mine]

In addition, the secularists have convinced enough people that they cannot offend any minority; they must all be “politically correct.” They accuse the majority of “trampling” on minority rights. What about the rights of the religious majority? Is not the minority trampling on those? Do the atheists not offend those who believe in God when they try to eliminate Judeo-Christian religious symbols from all public arenas?

One of the most important causes for the Bush Administration and American voters is to get Congress to accept only Federal judges who believe in and will rule upon and in light of what is actually written in the Constitution of America, not that of France, nor any other document, nor of a personal letter written by an individual—whether he is Thomas Jefferson or not.

There is another thing that Americans can do to take back our religious heritage from the likes of the ACLU. Legislation is now before Congress that, if passed, could severely limit the ACLU’s ability to erode our nation’s Christian heritage. Look into the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) of 2005 — House bill HR 2679. If this bill is passed and signed by the President, PERA would eliminate the awarding of federal taxpayer funds to the attorneys for plaintiffs in Establishment Clause challenges to the 1st Amendment. These cases are taken by the ACLU (and others) pro bono for the express purpose of gaining these federal funds.

If the awarding of federal funding is removed, the number of these lawsuits which lead to the removal of our public expression freedoms might decrease. Regardless, if the ACLU and other organizations are so devoted to these causes, they should prosecute them with their own funds, not at taxpayer expense.

Here’s how you can support the passage of HR 2679:
1) Sign the petition to get the ACLU off of the taxpayer’s dole.
2) Write, call, and email your Congressman and Senators urging passage of this important legislation.

3) Join the Stop The ACLU Blogburst, every Thursday at a right-minded blog near you.

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU

We are trying to raise money for full page ads and eventually commercials exposing the ACLU’s radical agenda. Help us out! Buy a bumper sticker!
Click Below To See Our Store!

Originally posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

To hear all the groans from the left today about Bush’s sin of “linking 9-11 to Iraq,” you would think that they had something new with which to skewer President Bush in the wake of his outstanding and moving speech last night. In reply to the condemnations of self-important yet forgetful liberal elitists, I offer them this 29 June 2005 article by Andrew McCarthy, published at National Review Online. This piece outlines clearly not only why we are in Iraq fighting this war, but also the history of Iraq/al Qaeda connections running back several years.

McCarthy’s list of connections, many of which were culled from intelligence reports during the Clinton administration, is presented as questions for the “no linkage whatsoever” folks to ponder. He asks: “What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about…” (more…)