Bingo. The benefit here is that you can get your choice of rolling-release packages on any distribution you want without mucking up the base system.
1,147 karma · joined August 22, 2013
I'm just thinking that an entity could've downloaded some commodity malware (instead of writing their own from scratch) and modified it to suit their purposes, but the YARA sig would've hit on a lot of different variants of the same webshell versus a higher-fidelity match based on file hash.
1) Did you actually verify that the IPs provided were part of the Tor network, or did you just see that their rDNS records currently have the string "tor" in them, as you described in the article?
2) Did you identify the malware you reversed by file hash, or did you find something that hit on the provided Yara sig?
I think adding these details to the article might give technical readers some more insight into and more confidence in the methods used.
Instead of dealing with this thing, I suggest looking at some existing system management tools like Landscape for Ubuntu or Spacewalk for CentOS/RHEL to handle managed updates... or learning how to set up a cron job to email you when security updates are available.
Back in the day, 90% of the traffic I would see was just people trying to brute force Hotmail accounts via POP3, but occasionally I'd sniff the credentials for an IRC-based C2 for a botnet, and I'd log in and wreck the thing.
Put quite simply, the engineered varieties undergo toxicity studies and in-depth chemical and molecular analysis, and their agronomic impact is assessed through things like soil samples, and all of this data is compared to the same studies which are also done on their non-GM counterparts to assure that nothing unexpected has changed, and that the end result is "substantially equivalent." It usually costs around $30m, and takes between 10 and 15 years to complete the testing, regulatory, and approval process over many many generations of the engineered variety.
I'm really not aware of any studies like what you're looking for, but the data would be much more valuable looking at specific varieties of organisms, rather than based on what method was used to create them. Even then, confirming their chemical, molecular, nutritional, and agronomic equivalence with their non-GM counterparts really negates the need for those sorts of studies, because the crop ends up being indistinguishable (aside from a few crops engineered for the end consumer, such as vegetables with higher levels of antioxidants or higher levels of certain vitamins).
A wall of text follows.
------
I'm not really familiar with the methods used for varieties derived from breeding or mutagenesis, but I recall the last time that I looked, there was not any major standard testing being done there.
The first step in adding an isolated gene to a genome is to do a few modifications to the genetic payload itself. A marker gene is added as well as a promoter, and a termination sequence is appended to the transgene. The marker gene is used to differentiate which cells have successfully taken the transgene. In short, the targeted cells are grown in a medium that is normally toxic to the target plant. The marker gene encodes proteins which provide resistance to that medium, thus, the cells that survive in the medium are the ones which have had successful uptake of the gene. The promoter sequence controls when and how the transgene is expressed over the life of the plant, and the termination sequence simply marks the end of the payload.
Once you have your genetic payload, there are several methods used to get it into a plant cell. The first, and simplest, is a gene gun, which quite literally blasts a cluster of cells with particles coated in genetic material. Some of the cells survive and successfully envelope a particle coated with DNA, which eventually integrates into a chromosome. This is used for plants which don't readily accept other forms of modification, and was the method used to create Bt corn as well as golden rice.
Agrobacterium is another method which is generally more precise about delivering genetic material to a desired location, but various plants are resistant to the method. Unmodified, the agrobacterium infects plant cells through open wounds, and deposits a DNA payload during replication which causes tumors. The tumor-causing DNA payload is removed, replaced with the transgenic payload, and the bacteria carries out its job, infecting the plant and depositing the payload for a desired trait.
Soon, we will probably start seeing newer methods such as CRISPR/Cas9 become more popular (assuming they aren't as resisted as agrobacterium can be).
By precisely controlling the genetic payloads added to the genome, it is far easier to monitor protein expression and see exactly what has changed throughout a plant's lifecycle.
If and when successful regeneration of a whole plant occurs, evaluation of their offspring occurs. The first is a standard 90-day animal-feeding toxicity study. Data from this study is also compared to data from animal studies of the crop's non-GM equivalent. Various studies are also done on the source of the transgene. Gene characterization is also done to examine a gene's molecular structure and sequence, and look at its relationship to similar genes and their exhibited effects.
Compositional analysis and comparison is also done between the GM and non-GM varieties. The varieties are grown adjacent to each other in various locations and are then observed. Various plant components are analyzed and compared between the GM and non-GM varieties using GC/MS and other methods to examine nutrients, vitamins, proteins, fat content, fiber content, and so forth. This is to ensure that the new crop is chemically and nutritionally equivalent to its non-GM counterparts.
Beyond the compositional analysis, environmental/agronomic impact and equivalence are also assessed between the GM and non-GM varieties, usually during the period they're grown leading to compositional analysis. Soil samples are taken to examine nutrient absorption, and things like root structures are also examined and compared.
At this point, assuming all has gone well, a genetically-engineered crop is considered to be "substantially equivalent" to its non-GM counterpart.
------
I hope some of this was helpful, and that it made sense and that I wasn't too long-winded.
https://www.rt.com/usa/alien-bird-deaths-cia-un/
Here's an article they published about aliens and the CIA causing the deaths of migratory birds by spraying "chemtrails".
The fact of the matter is that GMOs contain the same genetic material we already consume on a daily basis. We understand how it impacts our bodies (it pretty much doesn't) and there is no distinction between genetic material from a GM organism versus a conventional organism. It's chemically and functionally identical (derived from the exact same nucleotide bases and the genes already exist elsewhere with the same function), and has the same impact on your body. This is something that we've studied for a very long time, and understand fairly well.
Now, when we specifically modify one or two quantifiable genes in an organism (instead of potentially thousands through mutagenesis or breeding), everyone loses their minds.
Our bodies are built to process DNA that we consume without adding it to our genome. This is why we can eat a steak without suddenly inheriting bovine genes. For a time, DNA can be found in our bodies from things we consume, but a fragment of DNA is not the same thing as a functional gene, and even if it were, it'd have to actively put itself in our cells somehow, and replicate.
A basic high school understanding of genetics is really all you need to understand that these breeding techniques are largely the same as what happens in the wild and what we've been doing for ages, if not actually safer since they're far more controlled.
The study you refer to, "rats fed with GMO food had developed tumors that were as big as their original size" used Sprague-Dawley rats, typically chosen in lab studies because the breed is known to quickly develop massive tumors regardless of other factors. The results in this study were not statistically significant, and were drawn from a sample size way too small, on a type of animal that is known to develop tumors on its own.
Furthermore, the numbers in the study actually showed that male rats who consumed glyphosate in their drinking water (because simultaneously testing multiple variables on groups of like 5 rats makes sense, right?) actually lived longer than those which did not, and all rats in the study grew massive tumors, even the control group.
If you're going to base an opinion on "science", please make sure you actually read the study and have enough knowledge to determine whether it's bullshit or not.
Thanks,
Someone who actually is "pro science"
From the article that you linked:
Additionally "Boehringer, which used the relatively safer low-temperature-process since 1957, in the same year warned the other producers of 2,4,5-TCP, which were using the high-temperature-process, pointing out the risk[vague] and providing suggestions how to avoid them."[28]
Internal memoranda revealed that Monsanto (a major manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. government in 1952 that its 2,4,5-T was contaminated.[29] In the manufacture of 2,4,5-T, accidental overheating of the reaction mixture easily causes the product to condense into the toxic self-condensation product TCDD. At the time, precautions were not taken against this unintended side reaction, which also caused the Seveso disaster in Italy in 1976.
The employment of 2,4,5-T by the military rapidly ended, according to the American Cancer Society, following the convincing results of a study in 1970 that found 2,4,5-T could cause birth defects in lab animals.[30]
So yeah, Monsanto warned the US government of the problem 10 years before the start of Operation Ranch Hand, and they were ignored. And I can't really fault a chemical company for manufacturing chemicals when the DOD orders them.
Edit: Wow, I just checked DistroWatch and they've been #4 for some time now...
Edit: dwrensha posted a related comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11176361) with a YouTube link of Bryan making the statement.