Computer Security: Enormous Twitter Attack

A while ago, I received a spam email. The email came from an obviously hacked attack, and contained nothing but a Web URL.

This usually means either a phony pharmacy spam or a computer virus. Since I am interested in these things, and since I keep virtual machines with redundant backups so I’m not too concerned about malware, I followed it. It lead to a GoDaddy site which redirected to a PHP redirection script living on a hacked Web site which led in turn to a fake antiviurs page–a page that throws up a phony virus “warning” and prompts the mark to download an antivirus program to “fix” the problem. The supposed “antivirus program” is, of course, actually malware. Pretty run-of-the-mill stuff. I reported it to the Web hosts and moved on.

Then, a few days later, I started seeing Twitter posts that were just a URL. These posts led to a hacked site…which led to the same redirector, which then led on to the same malware sites.

Then I started seeing more. And more and more and more. And still more.

I did a Google search. Just one of the hacked sites, an Indian site called cowmamilk.com, had over 257 **MILLION** mentions on Twitter, which some quick investigating shows were coming from at least 500,000 Twitter accounts that were being used to blast the URL far and wide. 257 million searchable mentions for just a single attack URL!

This is a huge scale attack, flooding Twitter with hundreds of millions of mentions of hacked Web sites that in turn redirect to a traffic handler which then sends visitors on to computer malware.

I did some more investigating, mapping out the patterns of redirections, visiting the sites again and again with my browser user agent set in different ways, watching what happened. After a while, I was able to build a map of the attack, which looks something like this:

And I found some really interesting things.

More technical details, as well as screen shots of the malware sites, under this cut. If you’re interested, clicky here!

Movie Review: Snow White and the Huntsman

As a kid, I never got a lot of exposure to all the usual Disney fairy tales. Most of what I know about them is through cultural osmosis; I know that Rapunzel has long hair, Sleeping Beauty had to be wakened by a prince, Cinderella is the one who ridea round in a gourd and is inattentive of her footwear, Bambi is the one whose mother got killed, and so on. But the finer details of the storybook princesses are largely lost on me; they're kind of a blur in my mind. One of them has something to do with a spindle, but I'm not sure which one, or why. I had thought that the poisoned apple was a Sleeping Beauty thing, but apparently that's not the case. Is Rapunzel part of the same story with Rumpelstiltskin in it? I'm not quite sure.

So when we walked into the theater last night, I was more nearly a blank slate than the average bear. I knew only the sketchiest outlines of the Snow White story–that it involved dwarfs and a mirror–but that's about it.

I am not, therefore, terribly qualified to speak as to whether the reboot is a better story than the original. I'm not quite sure about the whole scene where James T. Kirk almost runs his car into a giant canyon that has, for some inexplicable reason, opened up in the middle of Iowa, but…oh, wait, sorry, that's a different reboot I'm thinking of.

What movie was it I was going to talk about? Oh, right, Snow White. The one with the evil queen in it. (Aren't there other evil queens? I seem to recall an evil queen in Sleeping Beauty, at least. Or am I confused?)

The movie goes something like this:

Good Queen: I just pricked my finger on a rose that was growing out of season. That gave me an idea. We should have a baby!
Good King: lol wat?
Good King Okay.

The GOOD QUEEN and the GOOD KING have a CHILD, who they name PRINCESS SNOW CINDERELLA RAPUNZEL.

Prince From Another Castle: Hey, Snow Rapunzel Sleeping White, do you want an apple?
Princess Sleeping Rapunzel Beauty: Sure!
Prince From Another Castle: Psych!
Princess Sleeping Cinderella: I have found a bird with a broken wing.

Princess Cinderella Beauty looks at the BIRD with INNOCENT WIDE-EYED WONDER.

Good Queen: We will take care of this bird.

They TAKE CARE of the BIRD.

Good Queen: My work here is done. I think I'll die now.

The Good Queen DIES.

Good King: Wait, what?
Cut for spoilers

Thoughts from BayCon: Polyamory, kink, community, divisiveness, and us vs. them

I’m just back from BayCon, an annual science fiction convention in the San Francisco Bay Area. I quite like cons, and I’ve been going to cons of various flavors for more than two-thirds of my life, though this was a bit unusual in that it was a much more businesslike trip than most of the other cons I’ve attended. My expenses were paid by a group of folks who really wanted to see me present (which was awesome, and I’d like to say “thank you” to the con organizers for helping make that happen), and I spent three days on various panels talking about everything from polyamory to creativity.

There’s quite a lot of interesting stuff that came up during those panels, some of which I’ll no doubt be blogging about for the next several days or so. One thing in particular that I want to talk about, though, concerns the way those of us who are active in alternative lifestyles tend sometimes to create and foster–sometimes deliberately, sometimes unintentionally–an atmosphere of exclusion and ostracism that perpetuates the very same kinds of things that we claim to be working against.


One of the panels I was on concerned the topic of defining alternative relationships. Throughout the panel, several folks, both on the panel and in the audience, referred to people who are neither polyamorous nor into BDSM by terms like ‘mundane’ and ‘muggle.’

And this is, I think, a huge problem for those of us in the kink and poly communities, or indeed in any sort of non-traditional social or relationship community.

Now, it seems to me that the problem with doing this should be self-evident. It’s self-congratulatory and divisive. It creates a completely unnecessary schism. It lumps everyone who isn’t into whatever we’re into in together as though they are all part of one great undifferentiated lump, which is just blindingly stupid; there are lots of folks who are neither kinky nor poly but who nevertheless are anything but normal. (I’ll warrant that the life of folks like James Cameron, who designed and built the world’s deepest-diving submersible because he wanted to check out what was going on at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, or Elon Musk, who designed and built the Falcon/Dragon successor to the Space Shuttle entirely privately on a shoestring budget because he thought that starting a private spacefaring company might be a cool thing to do for a living, are rather more interesting than the life of the average sci-fi fan even if those folks never once lift a flogger or date more than one person at the same time!) It does exactly what kinky and poly folks complain they don’t want others to do to them–it judges other people based on stereotypes mostly ridiculous and assumptions mostly baseless.

And, all those things aside, it’s simply bad policy.


I am a pragmatist. I tend to be less concerned with how people “should” behave and more concerned with what sorts of behaviors actually work.

And I think that every single derisive use of words like “mundane,” “vanilla,” “muggle,” and so on actually ends up hurting the folks who use them.

The problem with describing people outside of one’s community this way, aside from the fact that it’s arrogant, dismissive, and inaccurate, is that it recognizes no distinctions between all those “normals.” To someone who dismisses anyone not kinky or poly as a “mundane,” a Unitarian who works for acceptance, sex-positivity, and compassion is no different from someone who belongs to Westboro Baptist Church, America’s most well-known trolls.

And not only is that stupid, it’s counterproductive. It alienates potential allies. It pre-emptively antagonizes folks who are simply neutral. It creates an us vs. them mindset which, at the end of the day, the “us” is almost certain to lose; when the “us” is a single-digit, or perhaps at the most optimistic a low double-digit, percentage of the size of the “them,” fabricating an us vs. them mentality is simply bad tactics.

It is also exclusionary. A lot of folks who are poly, or kinky, or both, tend not to be part of the kink and poly communities, because this “us vs. them” mentality subconsciously shapes attitudes and opinions in ways that limit participation in the community.


When I lived in Tampa, I was for a number of years a regular host for PolyTampa, which appears to be as of this writing the longest-running polyamory support group in the country that’s still ongoing.

Anyone who’s been part of the community for any length of time has probably noticed that a disproportionate number of folks in the poly community tend to be geeky, middle-class, pagan, gamer…the stereotype of the “bi pagan poly gamer geek” is prevalent for a reason.

But it might not be the reason that people think.

I’ve watched a lot of folks talk about why the poly and kink scenes are so overwhelmingly gamer geek pagan bi (and, though it rarely gets mentioned, white and middle-class), and the explanations I hear usually fall along the lines of “Well, once you’ve started questioning monogamy and relationships, it follows naturally that you’d question other things, like religion and culture and stuff too. It’s because we’re so openminded and unconventional!”

Which, honestly, sounds like self-congratulatory horseshit to me.

There’s another reason, though I think it’s more subtle. It’s something I think a lot of folks in the poly and kink communities are blind to; namely, that the communities are hostile to anyone who ISN’T cut from the bi pagan gamer geek cloth.

I don’t think it’s deliberate or malicious, mind you. (At least not usually; there are some exceptions, like one exceedingly unpleasant chap I encountered on Facebook recently who claims quite stridently that all monogamous relationships are abusive, anyone who prefers monogamy does so only because he wants to control his partners or he simply hasn’t broken the brainwashing of conventional culture enough to look at relationships critically…but I digress. Not everyone in the community shares anything like those beliefs.)

During the course of the time I spent hosting PolyTampa, I noticed a fair number of people who would come to a single meeting, hang around for a bit, and then leave, never to be seen again. I also spoke to several folks who talked about being polyamorous but also about how they felt unwanted and unwelcome in the poly community, because they weren’t pagan, New Age, geeky, gamers, or techies.

I don’t think there’s a lot of pagan New Age gaming geeks in the poly community because being poly means challenging accepted social norms about religion, hobbies, or attitudes. Quite the opposite; I think there are a lot of pagan New Age gaming geeks in the poly community because the poly community can be quite unfriendly to folks who aren’t pagan New Age gaming geeks.


Now, let me be clear that (with very, very few exceptions) I don’t believe it’s intentional. Aside from that one unpleasant Facebook fellow, I’ve never encountered anyone in the poly community who would tell someone else “you’re not welcome here.”

However, as I’ve said before, any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

It doesn’t matter that it’s down to social incompetence more than maliciousness; the fact is, the poly and kink communities do tend to see the world in a polarizing, us vs. them light, and do often make themselves unfriendly to folks outside the pagan New Age gaming geek mold.

It’s subtle–so subtle that the folks who do it are probably totally unaware that they’re doing it. It happens through a process of normalization–of seeing everyone who doesn’t fit the pagan New Age gaming geek mold as a “mundane,” a “normal,” a “muggle,” part of an undifferentiated mass. It happens through tacit, rarely acknowledged expectations that if you’re poly, of course that means you aren’t Christian, you prefer video games to NASCAR, you have the free time and the money to meet and socialize at restaurants, you get the jargon and lingo of the geek crowd.

I’ve had folks come up and talk to me after poly meetings to say that they feel unwelcome because they are evangelical Christian, or because they’d rather go fishing than play World of Warcraft. Like I said, it’s not intentional, it’s subtle, but it shows in a thousand different ways. There are subtle little expectations, occasional barely-acknowledged disparaging remarks about all those other folks who, heh heh, just mindlessly cling to some mainstream religion instead of, you know, something more spiritually thoughtful like paganism, the offhand remarks about how the rest of the world is just stuck in the boring rut of vanilla sex… All of these things create an unmistakeable social subtext: this is who we are, and if you’re not one of us, you’re one of them. The Mundanes. The great boring unwashed mass of People who Just Don’t Get It.

And we’re cleverer than they are, oh yes. We appreciate diversity more than the mundanes do. We understand the value of being our own individual, something all those people don’t. Because, you know, they’re all the same. And they aren’t as smart as we are, or as tolerant, or even able to challenge their own assumptions. You know, the way we can.

It seems that being subjected to unwarranted prejudice and unfounded assumptions tends to make one skilled at doing these very things to others.

During the panel, when a few of the panelists had derisively referred to non-alt people as “mundanes” and “normals” several times, I chipped in that I don’t use that sort of language because I find it unnecessarily divisive and totally inaccurate. It creates a myth of “normalcy” that doesn’t actually exist; the mundanes that the other panelists derided do not, in any real sense, actually exist.

After the panel, a woman approached me to say that she was Mormon and in a D/s relationship, and found the kink community to be quite hostile. The assumptions that came from her being Mormon rather than pagan–she must be politically conservative, she must be anti-gay, she must be a blind puppet of organized religion–were subtle but real to her. When people in the community assume a baseline of pagan New Age gaming geek and talk about “mundanes” and “muggles,” she saw a rejection of her in that–or, perhaps, a rejection of a distorted funhouse mirror picture of her, as rife with unchallenged assumptions as any that poly or kinky people will ever be targeted with.

And that’s a damn shame. We need to do better than that.

Movie Review: The Avengers

Okay, so I don’t really do comic books. By which I mean I really, really don’t do comic books. (I do like Watchmen, but that’s, like, totally different because it’s a graphic novel and not a comic book, and stuff, which is different because of reasons.)

I walked into the theater with my sweetie zaiah, her husband, their daughter, a gigantic barrel of popcorn, and a prayer of hope that Joss Whedon wouldn’t let me down. After all, he gave us Firefly, right? Man’s got mad skills.

As it turns out, the Avengers movie is more an ode to the special effects technician’s art than to the storyteller’s art…but then again, it is based on a comic book. Or a bunch of comic books. Or comic book characters, or something, I’m really not quite sure.

The movie goes something like this:

The scene opens at a SECRET BASE. Lots of people are RUNNING AROUND in a PANIC.

Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson: There are lots of people running around in a panic. What’s up?
Distracted Scientist Dude: Sir, it’s the plot device! Our instruments show that it’s generating 38% more plot than it was before. If this keeps up, there may be no place in this movie to escape the plot!
Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson: Did you try turning it off?
Distracted Scientist Dude: Yes! It keeps turning itself back on!

The PLOT DEVICE emits a sudden surge of PLOT

Loki: Hi! I’m Loki.
Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson: Drop your staff.
Hawkeye: It’s okay, sir. He’s Loki. He’s a mischievous trickster god who likes playing games but isn’t usually actively evil. If we ignore him he will probably get bored and go away.
Loki: No, that’s the other Loki. I’m the whiney, kind of annoying narcissist who wants to destroy the world and then take it over, or something.
Hawkeye: Oh, sorry, my mistake.
Loki: Hey, don’t sweat it. Happens all the time.
Cut for spoilers…

Polyamory and the Elephant in the Room

I’ve been a part of the polyamory community for a very long time. In that time, I’ve seen a lot of folks talk about how they feel when their wives or husbands or lovers or significant others take on a new partner.

Naturally, a lot of people feel fear and angst when it happens for the first time. We’re brought up to believe in all sorts of notions like Soulmates and The One and Happily Ever After, so of course when someone we love expresses an interest in someone else, it’s a bit scary.

On top of that, a lot of folks feel jealousy, especially early on in a new relationship; the new lover can be seen as competition, the Other, someone dangerous and scary.

But after a while most of us find that our lovers have new partners and, even if there are some rough bits early on, it’s not The End of Everything. Our fears don’t come true; our lovers don’t leave us as soon as they realize how laughably inferior we are in every imaginable way to The New Shiny, and life is still happy.

So folks who’ve been around the proverbial block a few times generally will say things like “Naah, it’s not that big a deal when my lover meets someone new. As long as it doesn’t threaten our relationship, I’m totally OK with that.”

And that’s not necessarily a bad attitude to have. In fact, I think being relaxed about the prospect of a new relationship is, generally speaking, a very good thing in poly relationships. I’ve talked before about how when we’re afraid or insecure about something, we can often make choices that make it more likely that the thing we’re afraid of will happen; if we’re afraid our partners will leave us for a new person, we might emotionally push our partners away, or try to impose unreasonable controls on their behavior, or just generally act out in ways that make us disagreeable to live with, and then yes, the new person starts to look pretty appealing in comparison.

But there’s an elephant lurking in the room, one I almost never hear anyone in the poly community talking about. And that is: Yes, a new relationship really is potentially a threat to the existing relationship, no matter how poly-skilled the folks involved may be.


So there it is, the elephant in the room. Put simply: A new connection, a new relationship, is a threat to an existing relationship…in the sense that any significant change in any relationship is potentially a threat.

Marriage counsellors and therapists have known this for a long time.

A new child often threatens a relationship. Loss of a child, doubly so, or more…many, many otherwise healthy, happy relationships between genuinely loving couples can be destroyed by grief or loss. A change in financial status is a threat to a relationship; I’ve heard it claimed that more people break up because of financial stress than for any other single reason. And, perhaps paradoxically, it works both ways; couples will often break up after a significant positive change in their finances, too.

An illness or infirmary is a threat to a relationship. Many people find it difficult to cope with stressors like long-term illness or debilitating injury.

A new job is a threat to a relationship. Moving to a new city is a threat to a relationship. A change in the religious beliefs of one or both people can threaten a relationship.

Even something as seemingly simple and straightforward as buying a house can be a threat to a relationship. I mean, hell, I’ve seen people break up over pets!

The point is, any change whatsoever to the structure of a relationship is a threat to that relationship, whether we acknowledge it or not. Taking a new job in a distant city and deciding to have a child are both significant threats to a relationship, but you will rarely hear people say “Okay, I guess we can move to Denver, but only if it doesn’t put what we have at risk” or “Okay, we can try for a baby, but only as long as it doesn’t threaten us.” We don’t think of these things as threatening, even though a glance at the statistics shows that they are.

We do, however, think of new partners as threatening, because they go right to the core of what society tells us is Bad And Scary. So we will say “Sure, you can pursue new relationships, as long as they aren’t a threat to our existing relationship”…but I don’t think that’s realistic. Of COURSE they are! They are a significant change in the emotional focus, composition, time, and attention. That makes them a threat to the existing relationship!


So there it is. I said it. I don’t think it’s realistic to say “I don’t mind new relationships as long as they’re not a threat.”

However, that doesn’t mean that I advise not doing it. Far from it! There are many things which we do all the time–have kids, buy a house together, take a promotion at work, start a new hobby–that potentially introduce stressors into our lives that could threaten our relationships, but that we choose to do anyway because they’re worth doing.

Since I find relationships to be one of the most rewarding parts of life, I think it’s worth the potential stressor in my existing relationships to be open to new relationships, and to have partners who are open to new relationships.

It’s scarier to acknowledge that any new relationship is potentially a threat tan to say “I am OK with my partner having new relationships because I don’t see them as a threat.” But I think it’s better to say “Any new relationship will potentially introduce new elements and new stressors to my relationship. I don’t mind, as long as I know that my partner is dedicated to preserving our relationship, and that my partner and I have the skills, the willingness, the desire, and the intention of making choices that will protect our existing relationship.”

In practice, there are a lot of things that I can do that will mitigate that stressor. One of those is to adopt a policy of resilience–to know that even if things change in my relationship, I will be OK. Another is to advocate for my needs; if I need something from my partner that I’m not getting, but I don’t ask for it, clearly and directly, then it’s not my partner’s fault if I don’t have it. Still another is transparency–always sharing with my partner, even things that might be hard to talk about or that I’m afraid my partner might not want to hear.

These tools don’t make it 100% safe for my partner to start new relationships. But then, nothing can do that; there’s no choice my partner makes that’s ever 100% safe for our relationship, and I think it’s time to acknowledge that.

Instead, what these tools do is they make it much less likely that my partner’s new relationships will actually end up damaging us. And, as a rather nice side effect, they also make it much less likely that any of life’s other stressors will threaten our relationship, too.

The poster of the Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies is now available!

I’ve placed an order for the first run of posters, so they are now available in my online store! The posters are 16″x20″ and printed on heavy semigloss paper; they look quite lovely.

There are some very (very) minor differences between this version and the last version; you can click on the link in the cart to embiggen the final version.

Still More on the Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies

Okay, here’s the third (and, with luck, final) go-round.

I’ve alphabetized all the definitions and done some tweaking of some of them. I think this makes for a much easier to read poster, though one consequence of doing that is there’s a definition in the right-hand column that is broken. Sorry, not much I can do about that.

I’ve also gone back to the parchment background. I tried a number of different styles of background, from metal to abstract swirly things, and I don’t think any of them work nearly as well. However, the observation that the parchment doesn’t really fit with the modern sans-serif typeface on the title is a good one, so I’ve changed the typeface on the title (and on the names of the circles in the Venn diagram).

I think this is pretty close to the final design. Let me know what you guys think!

As usual, clicky the image to embiggen.

Taxonomy of Fallacies poster, Take 2

Here’s the second go-round of the poster version. As usual, clicky the picture for a much, much, MUCH bigger version. I’ve made some changes based on feedback I’ve gotten in my LJ and in email.

This version has a metallic background, which might be more in keeping with the look of the design than the parchment, but I’m not sure if I’m so crazy about. The columns have been adjusted so that no definition breaks, and I’ve removed the icons from the circles.

I experimented with several ways to try to indicate on each definition which part of the chart it falls into, using different colors, icons, and bullets, and it all ended up looking cluttered…which is too bad, because I think the poster would benefit from it. But it’s very dense as it is, and struggling with competing requirements of even text alignment, having no definition break, and trying to color-code or tag the definitions was a bit much.

As usual, click the image to embiggen.

Edit: A third revision is now up here.

By popular demand: The Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies in poster form!

Since several people commented and emailed to say they’d like to see the post I made a while back on logical fallacies in poster form, I’ve spent a while redesigning the chart as a poster.

Here’s a first go-round of the poster version. As usual, clicky the picture for a much, much, MUCH bigger version. The finished poster will be 16″ by 20″. Comments welcome!

Edit: A second go-round of the poster is here.
A third revision is here.