widespread spam attack on Facebook has caused violent and pornographic images to be posted on some users’ profile pages, representing one of the worst security breaches in the young Web site’s history and raising concerns about its vulnerability to hackers.
The company, which acknowledged the problem Monday, said it was working to shut down the accounts responsible for the attack.
The disturbing pictures surfaced as the company tries to quell concerns about user safety and privacy. Facebook is reportedly near a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over complaints about the way it stores and shares user data. Experts said that while this latest attack didn’t appear to compromise users’ data, it was a serious security breach.
“Protecting the people who use Facebook from spam and malicious content is a top priority for us, and we are always working to improve our systems to isolate and remove material that violates our terms,” Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. “Our efforts have drastically limited the damage caused by this attack, and we are now in the process of investigating to identify those responsible.”
According to Facebook, users were somehow tricked into copying and pasting malicious code into their browser bars. Hackers then gained access to their profiles and could post whatever they wished, and any of the user’s Facebook friends could see the images.
Chester Wisniewski, a security researcher at Sophos, said similar schemes in the past have lured users in with promises of free or discounted products.
It was unclear Tuesday who was responsible. Groups of hackers have threatened to put out a virus to “take down Facebook” over their concerns with the way it handles user privacy.
Daimon Geopfert, a security expert for RSM McGladrey, said that this was one of the largest Facebook attacks he has seen. The scale and speed were “unprecedented,” he said.
Experts said it was easy to imagine another attack on the Facebook platform that would be more troubling: sending false messages to family and friends to lure them to malicious sites, where they might be tricked into revealing private information. They warned that hackers could use the template of this attack to launch copycat efforts.
The presence of the photos upset many Facebook users, who took to Twitter to say they were weighing whether to deactivate their accounts.
Part of Facebook’s success has stemmed from its ability to get developers to create games and other applications that work seamlessly on the site’s platform. But giving such leeway to outside programmers means the site is also vulnerable to hackers, Wisniewski said.
Facebook could be doing more to stop these kinds of attacks, he said, such as checking the credentials of programmers who register with the site and giving users the option to double-check any actions before they take effect. The company has made an effort to make things seamless, he said, but convenience often comes at the expense of security.
“The technical pieces of this aren’t going to matter,” Geopfert said. “The idea that it happened and that the platform is more risky than you thought is damaging.”
Washington Post Co. chairman and chief executive Donald E. Graham is a member of the Facebook board of directors.
Custom Search
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
MW3 sales reach $400 million
Activision Blizzard Inc. said its "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" had the biggest launch of any game ever, a sign the company's best-selling franchise is continuing to grow.
Released by Activision this week, 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3' shattered game sales records, earning over $400 million in twenty-four hours. Dan Gallagher reports from San Francisco.
The game's success is seen as crucial to Activision, which has shifted its strategy toward releasing fewer, better-quality titles each year.
Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter has said "Call of Duty" makes up one-third of the company's $4 billion in annual revenue. Activision faces a threat this year in "Battlefield 3," Electronic Arts Inc.'s latest shooter title.
Activision said Friday that within the first 24 hours of the new "Call of Duty" game's release, 6.5 million units were sold for $400 million in North America and the U.K.
"We believe the launch of 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3' is the biggest entertainment launch of all time in any medium, and we achieved this record with sales from only two territories," Chief Executive Bobby Kotick said.
North America and Europe account for the bulk of Activision's revenue. The company draws a relatively smaller share of its sales from the Asia-Pacific region.
This marks the third year in a row that the "Call of Duty" franchise has set a release-date record.
Still, the sales figures are hard to put in context because videogame makers don't typically report first-day sales, Wedbush's Mr. Pachter said.
It is unclear whether the company used extra marketing to drum up the debut, or what portion of a game's overall sales take place on the day of its launch.
"God save them with this trend that they've established," Mr. Pachter said, referring to Activision's penchant for releasing "Call Of Duty" first-day sales figures. "One year it's going to sell fewer units than the earlier version."
Activision said it sold 6.5 million copies of its new videogame in 24 hours. Above, a customer in New York.
Late last month, Electronic Arts said five million units of "Battlefield 3" were sold in the first week the game was available. A spokesman declined to provide first-day figures.
Both games are expected to be among the industry's top sellers this year. The competition between the two titles is hotter than in previous years, when the companies released the games at different times.
Activision said the sales data were gathered by Chart-Track and retail customer sell-through information.
That's some news that came to mind today,
not that you care.
Released by Activision this week, 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3' shattered game sales records, earning over $400 million in twenty-four hours. Dan Gallagher reports from San Francisco.
The game's success is seen as crucial to Activision, which has shifted its strategy toward releasing fewer, better-quality titles each year.
Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter has said "Call of Duty" makes up one-third of the company's $4 billion in annual revenue. Activision faces a threat this year in "Battlefield 3," Electronic Arts Inc.'s latest shooter title.
Activision said Friday that within the first 24 hours of the new "Call of Duty" game's release, 6.5 million units were sold for $400 million in North America and the U.K.
"We believe the launch of 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3' is the biggest entertainment launch of all time in any medium, and we achieved this record with sales from only two territories," Chief Executive Bobby Kotick said.
North America and Europe account for the bulk of Activision's revenue. The company draws a relatively smaller share of its sales from the Asia-Pacific region.
This marks the third year in a row that the "Call of Duty" franchise has set a release-date record.
Still, the sales figures are hard to put in context because videogame makers don't typically report first-day sales, Wedbush's Mr. Pachter said.
It is unclear whether the company used extra marketing to drum up the debut, or what portion of a game's overall sales take place on the day of its launch.
"God save them with this trend that they've established," Mr. Pachter said, referring to Activision's penchant for releasing "Call Of Duty" first-day sales figures. "One year it's going to sell fewer units than the earlier version."
Activision said it sold 6.5 million copies of its new videogame in 24 hours. Above, a customer in New York.
Late last month, Electronic Arts said five million units of "Battlefield 3" were sold in the first week the game was available. A spokesman declined to provide first-day figures.
Both games are expected to be among the industry's top sellers this year. The competition between the two titles is hotter than in previous years, when the companies released the games at different times.
Activision said the sales data were gathered by Chart-Track and retail customer sell-through information.
That's some news that came to mind today,
not that you care.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
MW3 vs BF3
MW3 vs BF3
As the holiday season approaches so too does the colossal out break off two new first person shooter video games, Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3.
Battlefield 3 was released on October 25, 2011 and Modern Warfare 3 on November 8, 2011. Battlefield seemed to use the tactic of releasing their game out first to appeal to more gamers. But the truth is that many people still aren’t familiar with the battlefield franchise as opposed to the Call of Duty powerhouse. In the past all games from the Call of Duty Modern Warfare series have been successful with nearly no other shooting game to compete with it. This year brings the most exciting challenge to the Call of Duty label as Battlefield 3 offers explosive game play and an unmatched new graphic system.
Although many people will pass up Battlefield and go with the safe bet in buying Modern Warfare, gamers should do some research. Battlefield 3 shows all aspects of war in their third blockbuster game. The graphics are truly amazing, and the all around feel to the game is electrifying. Any gamer could not honestly asking for a better experience, so Battlefield 3 is a wise choice when debating Modern Warfare vs Battlefield 3.
That's some news that came to my mind today,
Not that you care.
As the holiday season approaches so too does the colossal out break off two new first person shooter video games, Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3.
Battlefield 3 was released on October 25, 2011 and Modern Warfare 3 on November 8, 2011. Battlefield seemed to use the tactic of releasing their game out first to appeal to more gamers. But the truth is that many people still aren’t familiar with the battlefield franchise as opposed to the Call of Duty powerhouse. In the past all games from the Call of Duty Modern Warfare series have been successful with nearly no other shooting game to compete with it. This year brings the most exciting challenge to the Call of Duty label as Battlefield 3 offers explosive game play and an unmatched new graphic system.
Although many people will pass up Battlefield and go with the safe bet in buying Modern Warfare, gamers should do some research. Battlefield 3 shows all aspects of war in their third blockbuster game. The graphics are truly amazing, and the all around feel to the game is electrifying. Any gamer could not honestly asking for a better experience, so Battlefield 3 is a wise choice when debating Modern Warfare vs Battlefield 3.
That's some news that came to my mind today,
Not that you care.
Steam hacked!
Steam is one of the world's largest distribution networks for online video games - has been hacked, leaving the user accounts of 35 million vulnerable and potentially exposing their credit card details and billing address to hackers.
It follows the prominent hacking of Sony's PlayStation network in April, which affected 77 million accounts globally, 1.5 million which were Australian.
Valve, the company behind Steam, issued a message to users informing them of the breach today. In it company head Gabe Newell said its online forums were defaced on Sunday November 6 in the US and that on further investigation it found that the intrusion went "beyond the Steam forums".
That's some news that came to my mind today,
Not that you care.
It follows the prominent hacking of Sony's PlayStation network in April, which affected 77 million accounts globally, 1.5 million which were Australian.
Valve, the company behind Steam, issued a message to users informing them of the breach today. In it company head Gabe Newell said its online forums were defaced on Sunday November 6 in the US and that on further investigation it found that the intrusion went "beyond the Steam forums".
That's some news that came to my mind today,
Not that you care.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Modern warfare 3!!!
So i have finally got my hands on a copy of this game , and what can i say I'm loving it! Some say its very similar to MW2 but i really don't see that as a bad thing. well enough of this back to the game!
That's some news that came to my mind today,
Not that you care.
That's some news that came to my mind today,
Not that you care.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Google considering Pay TV.
GOOGLE is considering a plan to offer paid cable-TV services to consumers in the US. The move could unleash a new wave of competition within the traditional TV business.
Google has looked at ways to expand a previously announced project to build a high-speed Internet service in Kansas City in Missouri and Kansas, adding video and phone service in a mirror of offerings from cable and telecom companies, according to people briefed on its plans.
As a result, Google has discussed distributing major TV channels from companies like Walt Disney, Time Warner and Discovery Communications as part of the video service, though the discussions were exploratory and no final decisions have been made.
In September Google hired a former cable-TV executive, Jeremy Stern, who is spearheading talks with media companies, some of the people briefed on the plans said.
Free trial
The discussions underscore the intensifying battle for control of the TV set. In recent years phone companies have jumped into a market previously dominated by cable-TV operators and satellite-TV providers. Now companies such as Amazon.com are bulking up their content offerings, while Apple and others are trying to reinvent the viewing experience with iPads and other devices, and potentially a new type of television set.
Meanwhile, Comcast and other incumbent cable and satellite operators are fighting back, creating their own apps and lining up Internet-rights to programs that tie into their existing offline TV subscriptions.
Much is at stake. Television reaps more than $US150 billion per year in the US from advertisers and consumers paying monthly fees. Google, the biggest seller of ads on the Web, wants to snare a share of the TV ad dollars. And with its latest plan, Google threatens to undercut cable and satellite companies in subscription fees it may charge consumers.
Just last week, Google unveiled a series of deals with celebrities and production companies to create roughly 100 free, ad-supported online "channels" for its YouTube online video service.
Google has also launched Google TV, software that can be installed in TVs or on cable TV set-top boxes and helps people search and find content to watch from the Web and broadcast channels. Google released a new version of the software last week, after the first was slow to be adopted by consumers.
Google has been thinking about a move into TV for many years, says Keval Desai, a former Google product director who is now a venture capitalist at InterWest Partners LLC.
"TV is built on a closed system, which is why traditional cable and satellite operators are the only place where consumers can get ESPN and other channels," he said. As more TVs become connected to the Web, he said, "Internet companies like Google will be able to give you that same high-quality content," possibly at lower prices.
When Google unveiled its plans to build a test broadband network in one market, in February of last year, it said it didn't intend to build a nationwide network.
Theoretically, most entertainment companies could refuse to license their programming, with the possible exception of channels owned by distributors like cable operators. Even so, some media executives say that owners of channels historically have been willing to license their channels to various distributors, whether satellite-TV operators or phone companies, assuming they paid as much or more than existing outlets.
The big question is how broad Google's ambitions go.
Executives at the Mountain View, California company have kicked around other ideas with media executives in recent months. One is the possibility of expanding its YouTube lineup of channels by licensing a full complement of cable channels for paying customers, according to people briefed on the discussions.
That would turn YouTube into a "virtual" cable service. But another person familiar with the thinking at Google said that while there may have been preliminary discussions about such an idea, it is "not on the table right now."
Still, executives at some media companies say they believe that a technology company like Google or Apple will eventually offer a virtual service over the Internet that is similar in content to what's sold by wired or satellite TV providers.
That would go further than the idea envisaged by Google in Kansas City, where it would use only its own network to deliver the video. Such offerings could change the patchwork pattern of TV service in the U.S., where apart from satellite TV operators, most TV providers offer service only in discrete geographic areas.
The Kansas City broadband plan is well advanced. Google has said it aims to get that project up and running by early 2012. Currently, the top three TV providers in the Kansas City market, by subscribers, are Time Warner Cable Inc. and satellite firms Dish Network Corp. and DirecTV, according to data from SNL Kagan.
Google currently has partnerships with Dish and DirecTV to sell some of the companies' advertising inventory.
Quoted from http://www.theaustralian.com.au
Google has looked at ways to expand a previously announced project to build a high-speed Internet service in Kansas City in Missouri and Kansas, adding video and phone service in a mirror of offerings from cable and telecom companies, according to people briefed on its plans.
As a result, Google has discussed distributing major TV channels from companies like Walt Disney, Time Warner and Discovery Communications as part of the video service, though the discussions were exploratory and no final decisions have been made.
In September Google hired a former cable-TV executive, Jeremy Stern, who is spearheading talks with media companies, some of the people briefed on the plans said.
Free trial
The discussions underscore the intensifying battle for control of the TV set. In recent years phone companies have jumped into a market previously dominated by cable-TV operators and satellite-TV providers. Now companies such as Amazon.com are bulking up their content offerings, while Apple and others are trying to reinvent the viewing experience with iPads and other devices, and potentially a new type of television set.
Meanwhile, Comcast and other incumbent cable and satellite operators are fighting back, creating their own apps and lining up Internet-rights to programs that tie into their existing offline TV subscriptions.
Much is at stake. Television reaps more than $US150 billion per year in the US from advertisers and consumers paying monthly fees. Google, the biggest seller of ads on the Web, wants to snare a share of the TV ad dollars. And with its latest plan, Google threatens to undercut cable and satellite companies in subscription fees it may charge consumers.
Just last week, Google unveiled a series of deals with celebrities and production companies to create roughly 100 free, ad-supported online "channels" for its YouTube online video service.
Google has also launched Google TV, software that can be installed in TVs or on cable TV set-top boxes and helps people search and find content to watch from the Web and broadcast channels. Google released a new version of the software last week, after the first was slow to be adopted by consumers.
Google has been thinking about a move into TV for many years, says Keval Desai, a former Google product director who is now a venture capitalist at InterWest Partners LLC.
"TV is built on a closed system, which is why traditional cable and satellite operators are the only place where consumers can get ESPN and other channels," he said. As more TVs become connected to the Web, he said, "Internet companies like Google will be able to give you that same high-quality content," possibly at lower prices.
When Google unveiled its plans to build a test broadband network in one market, in February of last year, it said it didn't intend to build a nationwide network.
Theoretically, most entertainment companies could refuse to license their programming, with the possible exception of channels owned by distributors like cable operators. Even so, some media executives say that owners of channels historically have been willing to license their channels to various distributors, whether satellite-TV operators or phone companies, assuming they paid as much or more than existing outlets.
The big question is how broad Google's ambitions go.
Executives at the Mountain View, California company have kicked around other ideas with media executives in recent months. One is the possibility of expanding its YouTube lineup of channels by licensing a full complement of cable channels for paying customers, according to people briefed on the discussions.
That would turn YouTube into a "virtual" cable service. But another person familiar with the thinking at Google said that while there may have been preliminary discussions about such an idea, it is "not on the table right now."
Still, executives at some media companies say they believe that a technology company like Google or Apple will eventually offer a virtual service over the Internet that is similar in content to what's sold by wired or satellite TV providers.
That would go further than the idea envisaged by Google in Kansas City, where it would use only its own network to deliver the video. Such offerings could change the patchwork pattern of TV service in the U.S., where apart from satellite TV operators, most TV providers offer service only in discrete geographic areas.
The Kansas City broadband plan is well advanced. Google has said it aims to get that project up and running by early 2012. Currently, the top three TV providers in the Kansas City market, by subscribers, are Time Warner Cable Inc. and satellite firms Dish Network Corp. and DirecTV, according to data from SNL Kagan.
Google currently has partnerships with Dish and DirecTV to sell some of the companies' advertising inventory.
Quoted from http://www.theaustralian.com.au
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Blackberry streaming , Nope its all about sharing
BlackBerry has this morning launched its subscription music sharing service. And just like the smartphones themselves, BBM Music is a little bit different.
Unlike Samsung’s Music Hub and Sony’s Music Unlimited, BBM Music (the M stands for Messenger) does not grant users access to a catalogue of songs from major record labels, but rather 50 songs from their friends’ collection.
At any time, a BBM user can have 50 songs in their shared catalogue, with other users in their music community (BlackBerry’s term) able to stream and cache these songs on their own handsets. There’s no limit to the number of friends in a community, so if you can find 19 other people to join yours, you’ll have 1,000 songs to choose from.
There are some limitations, the biggest one being that everyone needs to be using a BlackBerry. Furthermore, you can only swap 25 songs per month, meaning that one hit wonder you liked for an instant could be on your phone for two months before you can get rid of it. There is also a cost: $5.99 per month, after a free 30-day trial.
Unlike Samsung’s Music Hub and Sony’s Music Unlimited, BBM Music (the M stands for Messenger) does not grant users access to a catalogue of songs from major record labels, but rather 50 songs from their friends’ collection.
At any time, a BBM user can have 50 songs in their shared catalogue, with other users in their music community (BlackBerry’s term) able to stream and cache these songs on their own handsets. There’s no limit to the number of friends in a community, so if you can find 19 other people to join yours, you’ll have 1,000 songs to choose from.
There are some limitations, the biggest one being that everyone needs to be using a BlackBerry. Furthermore, you can only swap 25 songs per month, meaning that one hit wonder you liked for an instant could be on your phone for two months before you can get rid of it. There is also a cost: $5.99 per month, after a free 30-day trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)