The basic parts and anatomy of a good scientific poster.
![Best Software For Scientific Poster Examples Biology Best Software For Scientific Poster Examples Biology](http://www.jemome.com/cdn/2012/01/science-poster-presentation-examples_64716.png)
Good Hackers Can Do Bad Things, Too. Famed white hat hacker Marcus Hutchins—better known as “Malware. Tech”—was arrested by the FBI yesterday while trying to fly home to the United Kingdom from Las Vegas.
Best Software For Scientific Poster Examples Seafood
![Best Software For Scientific Poster Examples Veterinary Best Software For Scientific Poster Examples Veterinary](http://brand.cfaes.ohio-state.edu/sites/ctbrand/files/templates/research_posters/ResearchPoster_30x21_Kicker.jpg)
![Best Software For Scientific Poster Examples Asco Best Software For Scientific Poster Examples Asco](http://i2.wp.com/p2i.eval.org/wp-content/uploads/p2i-Research-Poster-After-3.jpg)
The 2. 2- year- old security researcher gained mainstream fame earlier this year as the guy who stopped the destructive Wanna. Cry ransomware from spreading, and had been partying with friends near the Black Hat and Defcon hacker conferences before his arrest. Now, he faces serious federal charges for allegedly creating the Kronos banking trojan. But he’s supposed to be the good guy!
Here’s the thing: Good people do bad things sometimes. It’s possible that good hackers, the ones we celebrate for stopping malware, also create malware, perhaps for profit or perhaps because they’re bored. It’s possible, but some people just can’t believe that Hutchins would ever do something like this: We don’t know if Hutchins is guilty.
- A comprehensive and coherent set of mathematics standards for each and every student from prekindergarten through grade 12, Principles and Standards is the first set.
- Free Topic Selection Wizard, science fair project ideas, step by step how to do a science fair project, Ask an Expert discussion board, and science fair tips for success.
That’s up to the courts to determine. However, what we know so far about the young man’s precarious situation is intriguing to say the least. In the days leading up to his arrest, Hutchins was going big.
During the hacker conferences, Hutchins was throwing parties at a $1,9. Airbnb which, incidentally, is home the largest private pool in Las Vegas, Gizmodo alum William Turton reports at the Outline. Hutchins also rented a Lamborghini and asked his Twitter followers where he could find a race track. He contemplated renting a helicopter for a tour of the Grand Canyon.
He shot a very scary machine gun at a shooting range. Spending lots of money and having fun isn’t against the law, but it is curious in retrospect. The recently unsealed federal indictment claims that Hutchins not only built the Kronos malware, which enables a hacker to steal bank credentials, but also advertised it on Alpha. Bay, the dark web marketplace that US and European authorities seized a couple weeks ago.
It’s unclear if Hutchins’ arrest is connected to that seizure. The indictment claims that Hutchins sold Kronos, at least once, for $2,0. The indictment also claims that Hutchins uploaded a video to You. Tube about how Kronos works, a detail that the Department of Justice thinks is incriminating evidence.
Did federal authorities let Hutchins party his face off during Defcon and Black Hat, so that they could collect more incriminating evidence against the young security researcher? Did Hutchins’ money come the sale of malware that makes it easy for evil hackers to rob unsuspecting computer users? Did Hutchins lie when he said he was donating the $1. Wanna. Cry to charity, instead choosing to spend the money on exotic car rentals and a lavish party house?
We don’t know the answer to any of these questions, and we probably won’t for quite some time. But it certainly is possible that a white hat like Hutchins possibly, maybe did some bad things a few years ago.
In the hacker world, it’s not uncommon for hackers to start off wearing black hats and end up changing their ways. Usually they get caught doing the bad stuff and then spend some time in prison. Here are some examples. Kevin Paulson is the legendary hacker who became famous for taking over all of the phone lines that led to Los Angeles- area radio stations so that he could be the 1. Porsche back in 1. He was arrested in 1. Now, he’s a senior editor at Wired.
Then, you’ve got Kevin Mitnick, another famous hacker. Mitnick was charged for over two dozen cyber crimes in 1.
Now, he runs his own security company, consulting large companies and even the FBI on how to keep their data safe. And who could forget Samy Kamkar. When he was just 1. Kamkar created a worm that he unleashed on My.
Space, where it soon became the fastest spreading computer virus in history. He pleaded guilty to a felony, avoided jail time, and was on probation for three years, during which he was not allowed to touch a computer. Now, he’s one of the most famous white hat hackers in the world, spotting vulnerabilities in everyday devices and advocating for better privacy.
He’s even testified before Congress. One thing deserves repeating, though: We don’t know if Hutchins is guilty. It’s entirely possible that the feds got the wrong guy, and we can all go back to remembering Malware. Tech for being the nice person who saved a lot of people from getting hacked and held hostage by the Wanna. Cry ransomware. If he did do it, however, he wouldn’t be the first white hat hacker with a black hat past. In fact, he’d be in good company.
Scientific Program - IAFS 2. Chairs: Helio Buchmuller, Brasília, Brazil, & Chris M.
Milroy, Ottawa, Canada. The questions of forensic science: The five W +H (Who, What, Where, When, Why and How) or the 7 questions of Quintilianus revisited (Quis, Quid, Ubi, Quibus auxiliis, Cur, Quomodo, Quando)». Panel – Sheila Willis, Michelle D. Miranda, Doug Lucas, Peter de Forest, Claude Roux, Frank Crispino, Pierre Margot.
Panel members are presenting papers in other sessions that develop issues related to this topic (science vs junk science, Lucas; Intelligence, Crispino, Roux, Ribaux; Accreditation and certification of processes, Crispino and Roux; invited presentation, Roux; operational laboratory product, Willis; education de Forest, Margot). Participants may wish to follow those and come with questions! In a time of crises (NRC report, closure of the Forensic Science Service in the UK, discussions about error management, focussing on processes, etc), this panel intends to revisit the fundamentals of forensic science. Faced with a passed event and the time asymmetry of causation (Cleland, 2. It is only possible to reconstruct the past based on reliable (physical data) or less reliable information (such as witness statements) and by logical treatment of all the collected information. The questions that were raised in the Antiquity allegedly by Quintilianus are there to remind us that questions can be set to address hypotheses or propositions in a systematic and exhaustive manner.
Quis ?, Who ? relates to the identity, which seems to be the only and ultimate question for many (fingerprints, DNA, chemical identity, specificity). Quid ? What ? relates to the crime question. Is it a crime? and what type of crime ? Ubi ? Where ? relates to the extension of the crime scene, but also to the contacts that may arise from the crime definition (what). Quibus auxiliis ?
Use of force, situational decisions taken by the authors of the crime. Cur ? Why ? this relates to the mobile of the crime (allegations, rational decision by criminals to use an un- protected target).
Quomodo ? How ? relates to the modus operandi and completes the critical appraisal of What and with what means. Quando ? When ? this is the essential historical issue of time and sequence.
One can see that all of these questions have an impact on different phases of an investigation or inquiry. Faced with a complaint, a denunciation, a crime, the first phase is one of diagnosis, supported by documentation, that help direct the attention to propositions that may be tested by directing to the detection of relevant remnants or traces that these propositions imply, precisely located on the documentation. With forensic intelligence the detection may be directed to specific traces knowing that there is an on- going crime series (as in epidemiology). The detection can be coupled to « scene of crime » technologies that may help focus on the most relevant items. Incoherence, absence of traces should incite a revision of the diagnosis or of propositions to direct further searches. This is completed by the collection and preservation of items for further analyses, if needed, often in specialised laboratories.
The documentation indicates the relevance, the position, the inter- relation between items. Most of the focus worldwide is directed to this lab based phase thinking that the analyses are purely technical whereas they should be considered in a logical analytical framework. Should we analyse to singularise (identify) (Who? By what means?) or to detect similarities for efficient database or intelligent searches (Why, when, how?), or to provide an information on activity (activity level propositions (circumstances – Where, when and how?). This may direct chemical, physical or biological analyses towards more or less selective and more or less sensitive technical approaches. Throughout, communications with other parties involved in the investigation should help decide on where to focus on the most relevant issues which may mean that some items are not further analysed, whereas others are analysed differently.
Intermediate reports of different natures can feed the intelligence process, the investigative process as well as give some definitive answers (source of a stain by DNA, fingerprint, alcohol/drug level). This is all truly context oriented and leading the analyses to test the case as it is being reconstructed.
None of this should be focussed on the issue (the causality), but what information is there, if a given causality is right or wrong. The final phase may be reporting for court purposes (for a very small minority of cases) and this should be transparent, balanced and focussed on the data and their meaning given the causalities as they are stated or perceived. After brief introductory presentations, the panel will include an extensive and interactive Q& A session. CLELAND, C. E. 2.
Historical Science, Experimental Science, and the Scientific Method. Geology, 2. 9, 9. Learning objectives: science in forensic scienceproblem solving as the underlying role of forensic sciencebeing critical towards the technological race as opposed to the knowledge and reasoning processes involved in forensic science. Prof. Pierre Margot. Switzerland (PNL0. Michelle Miranda. USA (PNL0. 2)Prof.
Frank Crispino. Canada (PNL0. Dr. Douglas Lucas. Canada (PNL0. 2)Prof Claude Roux. Australia (PNL0. 2)Prof Peter De Forest. USA (PNL0. 2)Dr. Sheila Willis. Republic of Ireland (PNL0.