DNA PRINTING IS HERE; WHAT NEW LIFEFORM WOULD YOU CREATE?

Cambrian Genomics has figured out how to print DNA in a process that greatly reduces the cost.  They make the first hardware/systems for laser printing DNA.  As company CEO, Austen Heinz puts it “We print life. Life is very simple, it’s just code. Four letters — we print that.”  He invented a 3D laser printer that prints custom DNA sequences.  The idea behind the company is that everything that’s alive is simply code.  If you remember back to your biology class, the primary nucleobases — adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T), and guanine (G) — form base pairs in a specific order to create strands of DNA.

Cambrian Genomics uses proprietary process to assemble ACTG to create custom DNA for customers. The process is truly revolutionary.  You can either alter current DNA to create characteristics like a plant that glows in the dark, or create brand new DNA.  The process lets you play God in creating things that don’t currently exist in nature.

It’s currently much easier to alter existing DNA than to create new DNA into a new lifeform, but the possibility exists.  As you can imagine, there are significant government clearances that are needed for these processes, and Cambrian Genomics leaves that part to the customers to deal with.

However, think about the possibilities.  Heinz proposes “Plants can be made to take out much more carbon out of the atmosphere. We can make humans that are born without disease that can live much longer. We can make humans that can interface directly with computers by growing interfaces into the brain.”

3D DNA printing is not without its obvious controversy though.   There is a larger movement dedicated to banning all GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms).   There is also significant concern about what effects there could be of releasing GMOs into the environment–also known as the Jurassic Park Effect.  There are current government safeguards in effect to help prevent this now.  All GMO products must first go through a rigorous approval process before a project can be started.  Then, there is government testing that occurs after the product is created to assure that there no ill effects of creating such a product.

Heinz explains how the current regulatory environment in America is fairly open for plant life, but locked down for animal and human life.  However, in Europe they are locked down on plant life, but much more open on human life.  In the UK has the first 3 parent child which is in a sense a GMO.  Heinz presented the possible paradox that GMO people could be anti-GMO activists in the future, but ironically be a GMO themselves.

Advertisements

#science-controversy, #science-fictions, #science-news

World First As Message Sent From Brain To Brain

A man wears a brain-machine interface, e

A technique known as electroencephalogry recorded thoughts.

In a world first, a team of researchers has achieved brain-to-brain transmission of information between humans.

The team managed to send messages from India to France – a distance of 5,000 miles – without performing invasive surgery on the test subjects.

There were four participants in the study, aged between 28 and 50.

One was assigned to a brain-computer interface to transmit the thought, while the three others were assigned to receive the thought.

The first participant, located in India, was shown words translated into binary, and had to envision actions for each piece of information.

For example, they could move their hands for a 1 or their legs for a 0.

A technique known as electroencephalogry – which monitors brain signals from the outside – was used to record the thoughts as outgoing messages and send them via the internet.

At the other end, electromagnetic induction was used to stimulate the brain’s visual cortex from the outside and pass on the signal  successfully to the three other participants in France.

The report’s co-author, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, said: “We wanted to find out if one could communicate directly between two people by reading out the brain activity from one person and injecting brain activity into the second person, and do so across great physical distances by leveraging existing communication pathways.

“One such pathway is, of course, the internet, so our question became, ‘Could we develop an experiment that would bypass the talking or typing part of internet and establish direct brain-to-brain communication between subjects located far away from each other in India and France?”

The research team was made up of researchers from Harvard University, as well experts from France and Spain.

#brain-to-brain-transmission, #news, #science

Self-Folding Robot Suggests Answer to Common Objection to Intelligent Design

An article that recently appeared on Google News, “Origami robot doesn’t need a human to assemble itself and start working,” has a fascinating video of a self-folding robot that mimics the way proteins or insect wings spontaneously fold into their functional form.

This suggests an answer to a common objection to the theory of intelligent design. The objection, stated in various forms by thinkers dating back to David Hume, goes something like this:

We do observe that intelligent designers build complex technology. But they never build things that grow, reproduce, or evolve — i.e., we humans never produce things like life. Thus it’s inappropriate to analogize between human-designed technology and living organisms because human-designed technology lacks key features of life. This causes the argument for design in nature based upon nature’s similarities to human designs to break down.

This objection has always seemed less than compelling to me. Consider reproduction. True, humans haven’t (yet) produced technology capable of self-replication or reproduction in the biological sense, but why should that count against the argument for design? Surely something that cannot reproduce or self-replicate is less complex than something that can. But if human technology (which cannot reproduce) is less complex than biological systems, yet it is designed, doesn’t that suggest a fortiori that living organisms — which are more complex and can reproduce — were designed? In other words, the flaw in the analogy seems to strengthen the argument for design rather than weaken it.

Moreover, the objection is based upon the presumption that human technology will never reproduce. Who is to say what human technology will be able to do in the future? We’re now starting to build self-folding robots. Why is it so hard to imagine that in the future, human technology might reproduce and grow and self-assemble? (In fact, computer simulations can reproduce all of these capacities already.) This objection seems to retreat into the gaps as human technology becomes more and more advanced. And, incidentally, much of that progress comes as human technology mimics nature.

In short, the objection claims that differences between human technology and natural structures count against intelligent design in nature. But I think the logic of the objection is backwards. Here’s how I would frame it:

  • (a) If intelligent causes make more complex and efficient designs than unintelligent causes,
  • then (b) if nature’s designs are more complex and efficient than human technology, and
  • (c) human technology is designed,
  • then (d) nature’s features must also exhibit some design.

True, human technology and natural features are not always identical. But those differences tend to point towards design in nature rather than against it.

#intelligent-design, #news, #science

A Google Site Meant to Protect You Is Helping Hackers Attack You

virustotal-inline

Before companies like Microsoft and Apple release new software, the code is reviewed and tested to ensure it works as planned and to find any bugs.

Hackers and cybercrooks do the same. The last thing you want if you’re a cyberthug is for your banking Trojan to crash a victim’s system and be exposed. More importantly, you don’t want your victim’s antivirus engine to detect the malicious tool.

So how do you maintain your stealth? You submit your code to Google’s VirusTotal site and let it do the testing for you.

It’s long been suspected that hackers and nation-state spies are using Google’s antivirus site to test their tools before unleashing them on victims. Now Brandon Dixon, an independent security researcher, has caught them in the act, tracking several high-profile hacking groups—including, surprisingly, two well-known nation-state teams—as they used VirusTotal to hone their code and develop their tradecraft.

“There’s certainly irony” in their use of the site, Dixon says. “I wouldn’t have expected a nation state to use a public system to do their testing.”

VirusTotal is a free online service—launched in 2004 by Hispasec Sistemas in Spain and acquired by Google in 2012—that aggregates more than three dozen antivirus scanners made by Symantec, Kaspersky Lab, F-Secure and others. Researchers, and anyone else who finds a suspicious file on their system, can upload the file to the site to see if any of the scanners tag it malicious. But the site, meant to protect us from hackers, also inadvertently provides hackers the opportunity to tweak and test their code until it bypasses the site’s suite of antivirus tools.

Dixon has been tracking submissions to the site for years and, using data associated with each uploaded file, has identified several distinct hackers or hacker teams as they’ve used VirusTotal to refine their code. He’s even been able to identify some of their intended targets.

He can do this because every uploaded file leaves a trail of metadata available to subscribers of VirusTotal’s professional-grade service. The data includes the file’s name and a timestamp of when it was uploaded, as well as a hash derived from the uploader’s IP address and the country from which the file was submitted based on the IP address. Though Google masks the IP address to make it difficult to derive from the hash, the hash still is helpful in identifying multiple submissions from the same address. And, strangely, some of the groups Dixon monitored used the same addresses repeatedly to submit their malicious code.

Using an algorithm he created to parse the metadata, Dixon spotted patterns and clusters of files submitted by two well-known cyberespionage teams believed to be based in China, and a group that appears to be in Iran. Over weeks and months, Dixon watched as the attackers tweaked and developed their code and the number of scanners detecting it dropped. He could even in some cases predict when they might launch their attack and identify when some of the victims were hit—code that he saw submitted by some of the attackers for testing later showed up at VirusTotal again when a victim spotted it on a machine and submitted it for detection.

Tracking the Infamous Comment Crew

One of the most prolific groups he tracked belongs to the infamous Comment Crew team, also known by security researchers as APT1. Believed to be a state-sponsored group tied to China’s military, Comment Crew reportedly is responsible for stealing terabytes of data from Coca-Cola, RSA and more than 100 other companies and government agencies since 2006. More recently, the group has focused on critical infrastructure in the U.S., targeting companies like Telvent, which makes control system software used in parts of the U.S. electrical power grid, oil and gas pipelines and in water systems. The group Dixon tracked isn’t the main Comment Crew outfit but a subgroup of it.

He also spotted and tracked a group known by security researchers as NetTraveler. Believed to be in China, NetTraveler has been hacking government, diplomatic and military victims for a decade, in addition to targeting the office of the Dalai Lama and supporters of Uyghur and Tibetan causes.

The groups Dixon observed, apparently ignorant of the fact that others could watch them, did little to conceal their activity. However, at one point the Comment Crew did begin using unique IP addresses for each submission, suggesting they suddenly got wise to the possibility that they were being watched.

Dixon got the idea to mine VirusTotal’s metadata after hearing security researchers repeatedly express suspicions that hackers were using the site as a testing tool. Until now he’s been reluctant to publicly discuss his work on the metadata, knowing it would prompt attackers to change their tactics and make it harder to profile them. But he says there is now enough historical data in the VirusTotal archive that other researchers can mine it to identify groups and activity he may have missed. This week he’s releasing code he developed for analyzing the metadata so others can do their own research.

Dixon says it wasn’t initially easy to spot groups of attackers in the data. “Finding them turned out to be a very difficult problem to solve,” he says. “When I first looked at this data, I didn’t know what I should be looking for. I didn’t know what made an attacker until I found an attacker.”

Brandon Dixon

Surreptitiously Watching Hackers Hone Their Attacks

The data provides a rare and fascinating look at the inner workings of the hacker teams and the learning curve they followed as they perfected their attacks. During the three months he observed the Comment Crew gang, for example, they altered every line of code in their malware’s installation routine and added and deleted different functions. But in making some of the changes to the code, the hackers screwed up and disabled their Trojan at one point. They also introduced bugs and sabotaged other parts of their attack. All the while, Dixon watched as they experimented to get it right.

Between August and October 2012, when Dixon watched them, he mapped the Crew’s operations as they modified various strings in their malicious files, renamed the files, moved components around, and removed the URLs for the command-and-control servers used to communicate with their attack code on infected machines. They also tested out a couple of packer tools—used to reduce the size of malware and encase it in a wrapper to make it harder for virus scanners to see and identify malicious code.

Some of their tactics worked, others did not. When they did work, the attackers often were able to reduce to just two or three the number of engines detecting their code. It generally took just minor tweaks to make their attack code invisible to scanners, underscoring how hard it can be for antivirus engines to keep pace with an attacker’s shapeshifting code.

There was no definitive pattern to the kinds of changes that reduced the detection rate. Although all of the samples Dixon tracked got detected by one or more antivirus engine, those with low detection rates were often found only by the more obscure engines that are not in popular use.

Though the Crew sometimes went to great lengths to alter parts of their attack, they curiously never changed other telltale strings—ones pertaining to the Trojan’s communication with command servers, for example, remained untouched, allowing Dixon to help develop signatures to spot and halt the malicious activity on infected machines. The Crew also never changed an encryption key they used for a particular attack—derived from an MD5 hash of the string Hello@)!0. And most of the time, the Crew used just three IP addresses to make all of their submissions to VirusTotal before suddenly getting wise and switching to unique IP addresses. Given the number of mistakes the group made, he suspects those behind the code were inexperienced and unsupervised.

Connecting Attacks to Victims

At times, Dixon could track files he saw uploaded to VirusTotal and connect them to victims. And sometimes he could track how much time passed between the end of testing and the launch of an attack. Most of the time, Comment Crew launched its attack within hours or days of testing. For example, on August 20, 2012 the group introduced a bug in their code that never got fixed. The sample, with bug intact, showed up on a victim’s machine within two days of it being tested.

Dixon tracked NetTraveler in much the same way that he tracked the Comment Crew. The Travelers showed up on VirusTotal in 2009 and appeared to gradually grow more prolific over time, more than doubling the number of files submitted each year. In 2009, the hackers submitted just 33 files to the site, but last year submitted 391 files. They’ve already submitted 386 this year.

They made it particularly easy to track their code in the wild because even the emails and attachments they used in their phishing campaigns got tested on VirusTotal. More surprising, they even uploaded files they’d stolen from victims’s machines. Dixon found calendar documents and attachments taken from some of the group’s Tibetan victims uploaded to VirusTotal. He thinks, ironically, that the hackers may have been testing the files to see if they were infected before opening them on their own machines.

The unknown hacker or group of hackers that Dixon tracked from Iran popped up on VirusTotal this past June. In just a month, the party uploaded about 1,000 weaponized documents to the site and showed considerable skill in evading detection. In some cases, they even took old exploits that had been circling in the wild for two years and managed to tweak them enough to bypass all of the virus scanners. Dixon also spotted what appeared to be members of the PlugX hacking group uploading files to the site. PlugX is a family of malware believed to be from China that started appearing last year in the wild and has evolved over time. The PlugX group has uploaded about 1,600 components to VirusTotal since April 2013, and tends to use a unique IP address each time.

Now that the activity of hacking groups on VirusTotal has been exposed, they’ll no doubt continue to use the site but alter their ways to better avoid tracking. Dixon is fine with that. As long as security companies now have confirmation that some of the code uploaded to the site is pre-attack code, it gives them an opportunity to look for telltale signs and craft their signatures and other defense mechanisms before the code is released in the wild.