ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why Blame Stophaus?

Updated on August 4, 2014

In The New York Times article “Devices Like Cable Boxes Figured in Internet Attack” (dated March 29, 2013), its author first blames the recent “powerful Internet attack” on Stophaus, an “elusive group of disgruntled European Internet users,” then, perhaps (suggests) Russian Internet service providers, then cable box providers and then users (with bad servers). Its suggested remedy? Call your local cable provider and “tell them you do not want to be running an open resolver - a tough question [they admit] when most of the world’s population does not even know what an open resolver is.”

But is the problem really as complicated as all that? Must we all become computer geeks to look at our email or send a message on Facebook? Is it truly so difficult and at once mystifying?

For one thing, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has a contract with one of the biggest cable companies in the country, a contract that enables it to to use (somehow) the cable box as a surveillance tool. It admits this capability in its own newsletter dated September 7, 2004. Therefore, why should anyone have to know what an “open resolver” is at all? Why doesn’t the FBI call its affiliate and tell them to close their resolvers [whatever they are]? After all, wouldn’t an “open resolver” interfere with its ability to carry out its own objectives? And is it a leap of thought to make the connection that perhaps all “open resolvers” might be open by necessity due to legitimate law enforcement activity?

Moreover, is finding an open resolver made easier when Group Policy is set by default for computer users that prevents them from using their computer as a local user? Are the computer manufacturers the ones enabling these hackers by inviting them to open resolvers by default?

Even if you discount that such activity would by necessity leave a resolver open (whatever that is), would you at least count the probability that over-the-top surveillance would inadvertently lead hackers to many servers and leave us open for attack by “disgruntled” foreign hackers? Is it a leap of the imagination to contemplate that in fact all this might be due to the over-the-top hacking of computers by not only the FBI (through cable boxes, for what we hope is legitimate surveillance [Oh God! We hope!!]) or disgruntled liberal activists (it is no secret that conservative computer users are discriminated against on-line more than liberal users) that is the catalyst by which groups across the world might gain access through these open resolvers (what is that again?)?

One thing clear to me - and I cannot claim responsibility even if I wanted to - is that my computer does not allow me to operate it as a “local user.” In the computer management files, I am configured as a user under the computer’s “Group Policy” for which there is a password (not created by me!) that when dismantled by my switching to “local user” (which should be my prerogative if I choose to block out remote users) disconnects me from control over my own firewall and Internet. My provider told me this setting is “by default” and I do not have the power to change it. Why?

Moreover, in the Help menu provided by my system, it instructs me to choose “Local User” as the setting - but I am not permitted to do so. Why? Obviously, the computer when initially configured had this setting available to users, but now it is not available to me? Why?

One thing I do understand even though I am not a computer geek: Stophaus does not care - I am sure - whether I write conservative articles about politics and medicine that are at variance to the political philosophy of this administration. It is not Stophaus who cares, for example, to take administrative control over my computer so I cannot print (by default my printer will not function UNLESS those controlling my computer get a copy), or write articles with my Word software (any word processing program I install on my computer is dismantled to prevent me from using it), which means that I am permitted NO RIGHT to even compose a letter or apply for a job, even when I paid for the word processing programs Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat so I could compose letters and apply to jobs.

It is not Stophaus or even its Russian counterpart who care to use ATI Technology devices and WatchDog computer devices (WatchDog is a program that allows hackers virtual administrative control over its victim’s computer) that prevent me from removing Webcam and YouCam from my computer (even though I use the proper removal tools). No sirree, it is not Stophaus that cares to “listen” and look at my face while I am at my computer, or who cares that I publish articles about the exploitation of me by doctors who networked to keep me from receiving medical care. In fact, by the characterization of its antagonisms, if it were them, they would not be wasting their time with me, personally, at all.

The real culprit? Rather than it all being due to “open resolvers,” bad or sloppy servers, or forgetful users, those hacking others computers for political reasons - in retaliation for simply holding an opposing view, for example - are the ones leaving open our “resolvers” that in turn are allowing giant disgruntled foreign Internet users open avenues to exploit our servers. And it is by purposeful computer design - the political operative's attempt to control all manner of free speech (even before anything is actually stated) - that Stophaus, or some other disgruntled foreign hackers, if not guilty now (it has denied its involvement), could be enabled to carry out an attack that would - as this article states - “hit everything at once, and that’s when this gets real.”

I do not know about you, but I find this article to be a total deflection from the real and true problem: overzealous need to control what should be free speech in our country. Efforts to silence half a population (about half the electorate) require a very strenuous all out synchronization of servers and hackers to implement effective control over the network, and to succeed at quashing a ripple of communication by a user requires that a “group” designated under a “group policy” would indeed - by all commonsense delineation (even if you’re not a geek), leave us all open to cyber attacks whether we be private users, a large corporation, or even those hard-working hackers intent on silencing all those with whom they disagree or who have something to say independent of “Group Policy.”

Conclusion: Simply allowing a user to choose their own local provider rather than Group Policy would make access to systems more challenging for a hacker, even if there remain “open resolver” issues, as well as demanding the government contact its local cable affiliate and order it to close its "resolvers" (whatever they are). How ridiculous to suggest that we call our local cable company to complain about something this article admits no one knows anything about.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)