Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Dev.SN ♥ developers

Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password


Site News

Join our Folding@Home team:
Main F@H site
Our team page


Funding Goal
For 6-month period:
2020-01-01 to 2020-06-30
(All amounts are estimated)
Base Goal:
$3500.00

Currently:
$3500.00
100.0%
Stretch Goal:
$2000.00

Currently:
$1254.52
62.7%

Covers transactions:
2020-01-01 00:00:00 ..
2020-06-30 21:00:33 UTC
(SPIDs: [1207..1407])
Last Update:
2020-07-01 02:02:58 UTC
--martyb


Support us: Subscribe Here
and buy SoylentNews Swag


We always have a place for talented people, visit the Get Involved section on the wiki to see how you can make SoylentNews better.

Poll

Is this a good poll?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Maybe
  • So

[ Results | Polls ]
Comments:0 | Votes:5

Site Funding Progress

Funding Goal
For 6-month period:
2020-01-01 to 2020-06-30
(All amounts are estimated)
Base Goal:
$2000.00

Currently:
$126.74
6.4%

Covers transactions:
2020-01-01 00:00:00 ..
2020-01-31 06:46:05 UTC
(SPIDs: [1207..1216])
Last Update:
2020-01-31 12:48:47 UTC
--martyb

posted by Subsentient on Monday August 17 2020, @04:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the pseudoscience dept.

Did a journal retract your paper on homeopathy? Meet the journal that will publish your complaint:

In 2016, Homeopathy lost its slot on Thomson Reuters’s (now Clarivate’s) influential journal rankings list after an analysis found that more than 70% of citations in the papers it published were of papers it published. That led Elsevier to cut the journal loose — although it remains in business under the umbrella of Thieme, and has since earned its impact factor back.

Part of Homeopathy’s mission under new ownership, it seems, is to criticize journals that have spurned its contributors. Well, one journal, anyway.

Last November, the journal published a commentary by two researchers of Verona. The piece objected to the retraction earlier in the year of a paper on homeopathy and wound healing by one of the authors, Marta Marzatto — who didn’t agree with the decision then and hasn’t gotten over the slight [...]

In June 2019, the journal PLoS ONE retracted an original research article, published in 2016, which described the effects of homeopathic Arnica montana on interleukin-4 treated human macrophages. The results showed an increase in extracellular matrix gene expression, including the gene encoding fibronectin, which is one of the main proteins involved in connective tissue healing. Here, the authors of the article discuss the critical points raised by the journal in the retraction note, with a focus on the specific methodological aspects of research on high dilutions of natural compounds. The editorial arguments made to justify the retraction did not prove any methodological errors, nor scientific misconduct. As a general rule, when a study published by a group of researchers raises scientific doubts because the results appear at variation with the commonly accepted knowledge in a field, the study is repeated by other scholars and any contrasting results are published and/or discussed. Therefore, retraction of the Arnica m. study by PLoS ONE is a violation of the conventions of scientific publication and knowledge-sharing methods derived from honest experimental method.

And earlier this month, the journal took another shot at PLoS ONE. In this case, the authors, a group from Mexico City, tried the old "like cures like" approach:

In April 2020 PLoS ONE retracted an original clinical research article, published in 2015, in which we demonstrated that individualized homeopathic treatment improves depression symptoms in climacteric women. The original assessment of this study was carried out by an expert in psychiatry (depression research) with close to 35 years’ experience in the field of mental health. During post-publication discussions, no serious breaches of scientific procedure or misconduct were even insinuated. Our team answered all “points of concern”, raised by the current PLoS ONE editors, in extensive detail. All these were potential limitations of our study, which would usually be addressed by one of several appropriate post-publication actions, ranging from discussion of the concern within a systematic review, through to correcting the study itself by adding a correction notice. Therefore, in the interests of transparency and accuracy, a summary of the most relevant points is provided, so that a fair-minded reader can objectively form a clear opinion.


Original Submission

posted by Subsentient on Monday August 17 2020, @02:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the hard-to-swallow dept.

Jack Daniel’s-Maker Suffers REvil Ransomware Breach:

US wine and spirits giant Brown-Forman has become the latest big-name brand to suffer a serious ransomware-related data breach, cyber-criminals have claimed.
The Jack Daniel’s-maker has released few details about the incident but claimed it successfully prevented attackers from encrypting its files.

"We are working closely with law enforcement, as well as world class third-party data security experts, to mitigate and resolve this situation as soon as possible,” it added in a brief statement.
“There are no active negotiations.”

However, as is often the case, the attackers appear to have taken extra steps to force a ransom payment from the company. They told Bloomberg that 1TB of corporate data is now in their hands and it will most likely be leaked online in batches to turn up the pressure on the Louisville, Kentucky-headquartered firm.

The group apparently responsible for this attack is Sodinokibi (REvil), which, like Maze and other gangs, maintains a dedicated leak site to post stolen data on.
As per previous attacks, it has already shared screenshots of file names as proof of its claims, some dating back over 10 years.


Original Submission

posted by Subsentient on Monday August 17 2020, @07:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the this-is-why-I-don't-do-infosec dept.

Teen charged with illegally accessing publicly accessible documents over government web portal:

A 19 year old teenager was charged with 'unauthorized use of a computer' after downloading over 7,000 records from the Nova Scotia Freedom-of-Information web portal. The teenager whose name has not been released, has been accused of stealing documents from the portal, with many of them being publicly accessible and redacted.

Between March 3rd and 5th of 2018, approximately 7,000 documents containing sensitive information including birth dates, social insurance numbers, addresses, and client information related to government services were stated to be illegally accessed.

Nova Scotians were only notified of the breach a week after it had been discovered and last week a Halifax teenager was arrested and charged in relation to the incident. If found guilty, he could face up to 10 years in prison.


Original Submission

posted by Subsentient on Monday August 17 2020, @05:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the peace-of-mind dept.

New tool checks if a password has been compromised, without sending it to a remote server:

A new system that securely checks whether your passwords have been made public in known data breaches has been integrated into the widely used password manager, 1Password. This new tool lets customers find out if their passwords have been leaked without ever transmitting full credentials to a server.

Security researcher Troy Hunt this week announced his new version of "Pwned Passwords," a search tool and list of more than 500 million passwords that have been leaked in data breaches. Users can access it online and developers can connect applications to it via an API.

Within a day, the company AgileBits had integrated Hunt's new tool into the 1Password password manager. AgileBits' announcement describes how it works:

Troy's new service allows us to check your passwords while keeping them safe and secure. They're never sent to us or his service.

First, 1Password hashes your password using SHA-1. But sending that full SHA-1 hash to the server would provide too much information and could allow someone to reconstruct your original password. Instead, Troy's new service only requires the first five characters of the 40-character hash.

To complete the process, the server sends back a list of leaked password hashes that start with those same five characters. 1Password then compares this list locally to see if it contains the full hash of your password. If there is a match then we know this password is known and should be changed.

Original Submission

posted by martyb on Thursday July 09 2020, @09:10AM   Printer-friendly
Paste your code into a comment on this story.
posted by martyb on Tuesday June 23 2020, @10:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the go-for-it! dept.

Test story to put comments on (2020-06-23)


Original Submission