Spammers not shy about punctuation sneakery

Punctuation can be a beautiful thing, and a wonderful tool in the battle to achieve clarity in communications. But now it appears it can be a tool for evil, as well.

Security firm Symantec reports that spammers are now using a particular type of hyphen to make it easier to get URLs into messages and on web pages without being caught by filters designed to block known links to dubious sites.

The hyphen in question is the soft hyphen. From a visual standpoint it looks exactly the same as a standard hyphen–but to a computer it is a signal that it marks as an acceptable, and perhaps even as a preferred, place to split a word or phrase over two lines if needed.

That can be particularly useful in word processing and desktop publishing, as it avoids the software simply breaking up words to fit and, for example, replacing “therapist” with “the rapist”. (I wish I could say that was a hypothetical example…)

When it comes to HTML, there’s a dedicated code (­­) for the soft hyphen, but many browsers are set to hide the character unless it is actually used to break a word over two lines.

The spammers take advantage of this by inserting a soft hyphen in the middle of a URL. The viewer doesn’t see any difference in the address, meaning it looks legitimate (in the sense of being a real website address.) The browser simply ignores it, meaning a click on the link takes the user to the correct address.

But a filter that relies on scanning for bogus links won’t necessarily be able to realize that knownbadsite.com is the same as known­badsite.com, and thus won’t block the link. (That’s a slightly simplified explanation of the procedure, but the principle is the same.)

The good news is that more advanced URL filters can work around the problem. It’s also likely that HTML 5 will limit the issue by making sure all browsers interpret HTML code in the same way.


Ron Moore in Talks to Reboot The Wild, Wild, West Series

TV is quickly becoming my favorite form of media delivery these days, with film taking the back seat by a mile. I’d far prefer getting invested in a series than putting all my hopes and dreams in a few hours of film, only to come up disappointed and upset that I can’t actually get my money back. In recent years I’ve fallen in love with series that manage to captivate my imagination and titillate my geeky side, but probably none so much as the new Battlestar Galactica. I can even forgive the show for its lukewarm ending because everything else about it was mind-blowing to me. The acting, the storyline, the philosophy, the James Callis…

Anyway. Those of you who pay attention might remember I’m sort of a steampunk gearbrain, so you can imagine my absolute moment of squee when I heard the rumor that, according to Entertainment Weekly, Ron Moore, the mastermind behind the new BSG series, is in the planning stages to put together a new version of The Wild, Wild, West. The TV series. (You might also note that I’ve got quite a thing for cowboys, in general.)

I’m willing to bet that in the steampunk community you’d be hard-pressed to find a film that stirs as much ire as the rebooted film The Wild, Wild, West—you know the one I’m talking about, with Will Smith and Kevin Kline and that horrendous mechanical spider (which, even my dad complained about, and he’s not even into steampunk). That film is reviled. It had so much potential. And hey: it’s kinda pretty. The aesthetic is there at times, especially in the set design and costumes. But having tried to watch it a few months ago and failed to make it through even the first fifteen minutes, I can assure you it is a crime against film-making.

The original series was far cooler, but it’s definitely dated. Finally enough time has passed since the awful movie that we can start again.

And hearing this, well, I was physically jumping up and down. If I could have picked anyone to give The Wild, Wild, West the proper treatment it would be Ron Moore. Steampunk has suffered in movies and television for time out of mind, with directors always opting for camp and cuteness—or just implausibility in general—and forgetting the stories and the philosophical tensions that are so inherent in the genre. Yes, these grown up topics can be translated to a larger audience, as Moore has proved. And it’ll be damn fine, too, if it gets the greenlight. I’m thinking a grittier, sexier, darker approach, with lots of cool guns and inventions. And don’t start me daydreaming about the casting…

Yes, at the moment this is just rumor. I understand that there’s a chance it might not happen at all. But I am going to be waiting with bated breath for news on this, and I’ll keep you posted.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Curtain-twitchers recruited for CCTV monitoring

Some people are really really nosy. The police can’t be everywhere at once. Put those two points together and you’ve got a simple, if controversial, solution to low-level crime.

Internet Eyes, which is launching in the British county of Devon, allows internet users to monitor CCTV footage from participating businesses. They’ll then get a token fee for watching the footage, but can report any crimes they see. Whichever viewer makes the most legitimate reports each month wins a £1,000 (approximately $1,600) reward.

There are several measures in place to stop people abusing the system. Viewers are not told where the camera they are watching is located, and they will never see footage from their own post code (zip code) area, which is designed to stop them recognizing the location and attempting to tackle offenders themselves.

To cut down on bogus alerts (such as deliberately wasting the time of business owners), there’s a membership fee ranging from £1.99 a month to £12.99 a year (approximately $3.20 to $20). It would take two hours of monitoring a day to make back this money in usage rewards, though clearly the hope is that most people will be attracted by the £1,000 prize (or simply their own nosiness.)

Users are also limited to making five reports a month, though any report found to be legitimate doesn’t come off this total.

Each user is able to monitor four cameras at once, with the cameras changing every 20 minutes. Once a user reports a crime, the customer whose premises are covered by the camera gets a text message alert, plus a screenshot if they have a picture-message phone.

To encourage “responsible use” of the system, once a viewer makes a report, they are switched to a different camera. While that’s an understandable move to cut down on voyeurism, it does create the risk that somebody who stumbles across a particularly exciting feed will be tempted to hold back on reporting it until events have played out.

The company behind the scheme told the BBC that more than 13,000 people have already registered an interest in signing up. It explained the original plan was not to charge viewers, but this was a legal requirement under data protection laws which also require that the company verify the age and identity of participants, who must be at least 18.