Day: June 8, 2004

NetGear: Security Through Stupidity

This Slashdot thread about security problems with a NetGear router is hilarious (well, it’s probably not hilarious if you own one of these products).

A couple days ago it was revealed that the NetGear WG602 has a backdoor account that cannot be deactivated. And, of course, it didn’t take much effort for people to publish the account and its password on the Internet.

NetGear responded by releasing a patch. But the patch doesn’t remove the security problem — it simply renames the account and password. And, of course, it took no time at all for the new account name and password to appear on the Internet.

Maybe NetGear will step up like Bill Gates and announce that the more their boxes get hacked, the more secure they become.

Clueless Toronto Newspaper

The Toronto Star’s Thomas Walkom recently wrote a rather dull story about Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activities in the United States. Walkom, however, is clueless about the topic and makes two ridiculous errors in fact that are likely to be repeated by others.

First, he completely misunderstands Huntingdon Life Science’s maneuvers to incorporate in the United States rather than the United Kingdom. According to Walkom,

In the United Kingdom, the animal rights campaign against Huntingdon was so successful that the company faltered financially. Its saviour arrived in the form of a U.S. firm called Life Sciences Research Inc. that took over Huntingdon more than two years ago.

What an idiot. Life Sciences Research was created by the principals at HLS solely for the purpose of transferring the company’s incorporation to the United States. All the move to LSR did was shuffle the stock from one legal entity to another. Did Walkom do any research for his article?

Apparently note, as he also offers up this bizarre — and completely false — take on the Patriot Act,

In the U.S., authorities have used provisions of the so-called Patriot Act, enacted after Sept 11 2001, to target animal rights organizations. In particular, the act allows grand juries . . . to share information with one another. At last count, there were an unprecedented grand jury investigations across the U.S. looking into animal rights organizations as well as four aimed directly at SHAC.

Again, this is simply an idiotic misreading of the Patriot Act. Federal prosecutors have always had the ability to take evidence from one grand jury and share it with another grand jury. Federal rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure allowed the following exemption of grand jury secrecy long before the Patriot Act was passed,

(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.

What the Patriot Act’s provisions on grand juries did was make it easier for prosecutors to share evidence from grand juries with domestic intelligence and law enforcement officials. Before 9/11, federal prosecutors essentially needed a judge’s approval in most cases to share grand jury evidence with domestic intelligence/law enforcement agencies. The Patriot Act provides a broad range of exemptions to this where federal prosecutors are simply required to disclose to a judge that he or she has shared such information.

There’s nothing so far in any of the investigations of animal rights activists that required the use of provisions of the Patriot Act.

Source:

America’s home-grown dissidents. Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star, May 25, 2004.

Great Britain Announces Center to Explore Alternatives to Animals in Medical Research

In May, Lord Sainsbury announced that the British government would support the creation of a new national center designed to cut the number of animals used in medical research by pushing for ways to further implement the widely accepted view of replacing, refining and reducing such tests. Not surprisingly, the same animal rights groups complaining about the increase in animals used for medical research quickly attacked the plan as “a joke” and “a sham.”

The government’s plans are the result of a House of Lords report that urged the creation of just such a center for exploring non-animal research methods. An unnamed National Anti-Vivisection Society spokesperson complained to the Daily Telegraph that,

Now the government has hijacked the proposal, but made it a center which will explore both animal and non-animal research.

But Lord Smith of Clifton, who chaired the committee that produced the report, praised the government’s plans to create the new national center,

The government has accepted my committee’s recommendations to set up a center. i think the higher profile that the government is giving this question should reassure people that animals aren’t used willy nilly.

Which, of course, will never satisfy the animal rights activists who are against animal testing regardless of whether a given test is necessary or effective. As Geoffrey Thomas of the Dr. Hadwen Trust told The BBC,

I think it is very important that the emphasis is on replacement — and the three R’s is simply diverting attention and resources from that specific topic.

The National Anti-Vivisection Society’s Jan Creamer went even further, telling the Press Association that the center was “a joke.”

What the Government has announced today is a joke. This center is going to be governed by people who are committed to animal research. The Government had an opportunity to invest in cutting edge technologies and research. Instead they have gone for the same old people and the same old tired ideas.

Animal Aid’s Andrew Tyler dismissed the three R’s approach, telling the Press Association,

The only R that has any merit is replacement — given that experimenting on other species produces results that cannot be reliably applied to people.

Lord Sainsbury told the Press Association that while replacement is the ultimate goal, for the forseeable future animal research will be essential in animal research and both reduction and refinement are thus important goals. Sainsbury said only animal groups who accept the three R’s approach will be welcome on the new Center’s board,

It is not about having a debate between people from widely different positions. The extreme actions taken by some animal rights groups is a quite separate issue and we have made it clear as a Government that we do not tolerate that kind of behavior.

Sources:

Minister backs center to cut tests on animals. David Derbyshire, Daily Telegraph (London), May 22, 2004.

Animal rights groups attack new research centre. Neville Dean, Press Association News, May 21, 2004.

Shake up of animal tests expected. The BBC, May 20, 2004.

Eliminating Enzyme Suppresses Alzheimer's Symptoms in Mouse Model

Researchers at the Gladstone Institute of Neurological Disease recently published their research showing that removing a protein-regulating enzyme from mice suppressed Alzheimer’s symptoms in an animal model of the disease.

The researchers created genetically modified mice that expressed different levels of an enzyme known as Fyn. Fyn regulates the activities of many proteins. With Alzheimer’s disease, amyloid proteins accumulate in the brain and destroy synapses. In mice genetically engineered to completely block Fyn, however, the amyloid proteins were unable to damage the synapses and the mice lived much longer than typical mice used in the Alzheimer’s disease model.

Lead researcher Jeannie Chin said of the findings,

Our results suggest that Fyn lays a key role in Alzheimer’s-related synaptic impairments, and that it can worsen the toxicity of amyloid proteins. We are excited about the possibility that pharmacological modulation of Fyn might be of therapeutic benefit in this disease.

As Fyn plays a key role in a number of neurological processes, it is unlikely that it could be completely suppressed in human beings without severe side effects. The researchers plan to conduct further research to quantify what sort of benefit, if any, mice in the Alzheimer’s model receive from partial suppression of the enzyme.

Source:

Alzheimer’s pathology reduces, longevity improved in mouse model, Gladstone study shows. Press Release, University of California – San Francisco, May 19, 2004.