Your online habits may be less dangerous than you think if they involve the less savory aspects of the web: According to Cisco’s annual 2013 Security Report internet users are 182 times more likely to get malware from clicking on online ads than visiting a porn site. It turns out, the site on the gray or black market edges of the web most of us traditionally think of as dangerous aren’t the biggest threats to your online security, instead:

“The dangers […] are often hidden in plain sight through exploit-laden online ads that are distributed to legitimate websites, or hackers targeting the user community on the common sites they use most.”

Those common sites include online shopping and search engines, which were 21 and 27 times more likely respectively to deliver malicious content than counterfeit software sites according to Cisco. Unsurprisingly, the Pew Internet & American Life Project reports of the 81% of American adults who use the internet some 91 percent report using search engines to find information and 71 percent buy products online.

Of course, many online users (around 10 percent according to one 2012 study) are already using ad-blocking software to avoid being served possibly malicious ads. And the proportion of online resources and time devoted to racy material is up for debate, with just 4 percent of the 1 million most popular of sites in 2010 revolving around sex and 13 percent of searches being for erotic content.

Beyond the eye-catching numbers about the relative safety of surfing for porn, the Cisco report identifies a number of other emerging threats — key among them the rise of Android malware exploits and the possible info-security minefield represented by the internet of things.
Read more

A Republican senator who serves on the Armed Services Committee said on Friday he does not believe Chuck Hagel should need 60 votes to be confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said on MSNBC this morning that he does not intend for vote for Hagel; but when asked if he would support a filibuster of the former Republican senator, Blunt said he would not and that Hagel should receive an up-or-down vote:

BLUNT: I will be voting no in the committee and then assuming there’s a vote on the floor I’ll be voting no on the floor.

CHUCK TODD: Well there’s two ways — and there’s a third way to vote no on him which of course is the issue of a filibuster. Would you support a filibuster of Chuck Hagel’s nomination?

BLUNT: I doubt it. I doubt it. I think for somebody who’s going to be there the length of time the president serves as opposed to a Supreme Court judge, that a majority in the Senate should be able to confirm. I wouldn’t intend to be a part of that majority but certainly my strong inclination would be that this is a vote that should be done by a majority rather than a 60 vote standard and this person’s going to leave the day the president leaves that makes a difference.

Watch the clip:

While only a handful of Republicans have said they will vote against Hagel, it does appear that he will get some GOP support. And with the Democrats in the majority, it seems increasingly likely that Hagel will get confirmed.

By Ken Sofer

Amid the continuing political turmoil in Egypt, which left over 50 dead in Port Said in the past week, several members of Congress are threatening to block the $1.5 billion U.S. economic and military assistance to the government in Cairo. Roughly $450 million in promised economic support for Egypt is already on hold in Congress, despite White House efforts to get the money released.

While Egypt’s progress under President Muhammad Morsi towards an open, democratic state has been frustrating and often ineptly managed, the United States needs to remain engaged in efforts to influence the political and economic transition in Egypt, as well as bolster security in one of our most important allies. Both actions will require continued support for a full range of U.S. policy tools — including the annual security and economic assistance the U.S. has delivered since 1979 — and a more robust diplomatic engagement with the multiple centers of power that have emerged in Egypt during the past two years.

U.S. assistance and support for Egypt must be reformed in the long run to reflect new realities, but ending aid to Egypt is a blunt tool that should be reserved for red lines in the relationship, such as a coup d’état, a sharp authoritarian turn, or Egypt reneging on its treaty obligations with Israel. As incoming Secretary of State John Kerry recently stressed, now is not the time to rashly cut off support to Egypt. Clearly, Egypt’s people and leaders will determine its trajectory, but the United States can play a positive role in shaping outcomes.

Congress should release American aid to Egypt to help stabilize the country’s intertwined political, economic and security crises. Egypt remains in the very early stages of what will likely be a protracted period of change. With so much uncertainty and change in the broader region, the United States must continue to invest in building a stronger foundation for an ongoing, mutually beneficial partnership with Egypt as it makes its long, slow march towards true democracy.

For more on the current clashes in Egypt and U.S. options, see “Advancing U.S. Interests and Values at a Time of Change in Egypt” by Brian Katulis, Peter Juul, and Ken Sofer.

The Associated Press reports the U.S. is weighing a tougher response to Chinese cyber-espionage following the revelation this week that both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal were hacked — allegedly by hackers backed by the Chinese government:

“Two former U.S. officials said the administration is preparing a new National Intelligence Estimate that, when complete, is expected to detail the cyberthreat, particularly from China, as a growing economic problem. One official said it also will cite more directly a role by the Chinese government in such espionage.

The official said the NIE, which reflects the views of the nation’s various intelligence agencies, will underscore the administration’s concerns about the threat, and will put greater weight on plans for more pointed diplomatic and trade measures against the Chinese government. The two former officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified report.”

A New York Times story on Wednesday revealed a four month assault against the company starting after a Times investigation into the billions accumulated by Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s family during his tenure. The Times systems were compromised, with hackers obtaining all Times employee passwords and access to 53 employee personal computers. One Times journalist, John Schwartz, noted that story explained a lot of recent security measures, including random password resets.

The hackers typically worked regular Beijing hours, according to Mandiant, the security company hired by the Times to investigate, and while chief security officer Richard Bejtlich cautions “If you look at each attack in isolation, you can’t say, ‘This is the Chinese military,’” the Times analysis identifies the Chinese government as the likely culprit.

The Wall Street Journal announced it was the victim of a similar series of attacks Thursday, noting that the hackers appeared interested in sources and information, not financial details. Chinese Embassy spokesman Geng Shuang responded to the allegations made in both stories. “It is irresponsible to make such an allegation without solid proof and evidence,” he said. “The Chinese government prohibits cyberattacks and has done what it can to combat such activities in accordance with Chinese laws.”

Read more

Chuck Hagel’s neocon critics are likely glowing after his lackluster performance during his Senate committee hearing on his nomination to become the next Secretary of Defense. But while the usual suspects are reveling in their one moment of joy in their anti-Hagel smear campaign, the hearings probably said more about the direction of the Republican Party (see: Ted Cruz) than anything else. The Republican senators’ bitterness, lack of civility and contempt for a decorated war hero who volunteered for front-line service in Vietnam didn’t do any favors for the image of their party.

Yet most fair-minded Americans didn’t see much to disqualify Hagel as the next Pentagon chief. With the exception of the Wall Street Journal — whose neocon editorial board has allowed its pages to call Chuck Hagel an anti-Semite — the nation’s leading newspapers agree:

The New York Times: [I]t’s clear that Mr. Hagel is very much in the mainstream of American foreign policy, has a résumé and experience that would be valuable at the Pentagon and is capable of speaking his mind, even if he allowed himself on Thursday to back off on some positions, like his concern for Palestinians, in the face of a Republican attack on his nomination. Republicans on the military affairs panel may vote against him for political reasons, but they have no cause to do so, and he should be confirmed by the full Senate.

Los Angeles Times: It was clear before former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearings that he possessed the necessary personal and professional qualifications to serve as secretary of Defense. Hagel’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday demonstrated that his views about foreign and defense policy are not only well within the mainstream but consonant with those of the president who selected him.

USA Today: Republican senators roughed up their former colleague Chuck Hagel throughout his confirmation hearing Thursday to be secretary of Defense, but they produced no convincing proof that his views are outside the mainstream or that the decorated Vietnam combat veteran is unfit to head the Pentagon.

The Washington Post didn’t publish an editorial on Hagel’s hearing in today’s newspaper, but the Post ed board wrote early last month that it supports the former Republican senator’s bid.

Most of Hagel’s hearing focused — not on pressing issues the Defense Department may face, like Syria, force structure, military spending, veteran unemployment, homelessness and suicide or national security threats like climate change — but rather on smears and policy distortions on Israel and Iran the neocons have been leveling at Hagel for the past two months.

And while Hagel didn’t handle the onslaught as well as he probably could have, as CAP’s Matt Duss writes today in the American Prospect: “Despite yesterday’s performance, the odds are still good that Hagel will be confirmed as our next Secretary of Defense. He’ll move on. But it appears that congressional Republicans, who continue to play to the same right-wing base with the same belligerent ultra-nationalism that majorities of Americans have rejected in two successive presidential elections, simply can’t.”