4SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr It takes more than just your IT staff to make it happen.by: Jim DeitchThe Sony, Home Depot, Target and other recent cyberhacks have credit union executives asking, “What can we do to prevent similar hacks to our systems?”And it’s a good question.Notably, most hackers don’t enter the security perimeter through traditional IT security systems. The “headline hacks” almost always begin with an employee or vendor inadvertently providing access. Lesser known financial services hacks have resulted in significant losses:A financial institution employee at work clicked on a link from an email that was supposedly from the president of that institution. The link inserted malware, which a hacker used to obtain complete network compromise, customer data, and a gateway into other systems in a federally insured financial institution.An employee clicked on a “spoofed” Wi-Fi connection that was thought to be secure. Logon information was stolen, and systems were compromised through insertion of malware into the initial compromised laptop. continue reading »
The most amazing thing about Tuesday night’s college basketball action, even more incredible than Duke’s comeback from a 23-point deficit, was that everyone watching on television got the identical picture of doom for “the Commonwealth’s” two top-25 teams.A television camera affixed to the top of the goal at Kentucky’s Rupp Arena showed everyone how LSU center Kavell Bigby-Williams scored the game-winning tip-in to beat the No. 5 Wildcats by knocking the ball into the goal as it rested on the rim from teammate Skylar Mays’ original attempt at the decisive basket. Bigby-Williams’ goal was not a legal play, but neither was it reviewable under NCAA basketball’s instant-replay rules. MORE: SN’s March Madness bracket projectionsSome 76 miles away, another TV camera on top of the backboard at KFC Yum! Center showed how Louisville guard Ryan McMahon’s left foot rested on the no-charge line as Duke freshman Cam Reddish barreled into him. Officials initially called it a charge, because McMahon clearly was in legal guarding position in advance of being contacted by Reddish. But the play can be reviewed using replay, and McMahon’s foot on the line allowed them to overturn the call to a block and award free throws to Reddish. He converted, and No. 1 Duke won, 71-69.It seemed incongruous, that one of these plays could be reviewed by replay and one could not.Because just as a defender’s presence inside the no-charge zone is not a subjective call but an objective one, so are the concepts of goaltending (when the defense blocks a shot that is directly above the goal or on its downward path) or basket interference (when an offensive player touches the ball as it rests on the rim or floats directly above the goal).The rim and the imaginary cylinder extending above it are as identifiable on video as the no-charge zone. As well, so is the moment when the ball begins its downward path on a shot attempt.When SMU was eliminated from the 2015 NCAA Tournament by UCLA on a disputed goaltending call, it was believed that controversy might spark the NCAA men’s basketball rules committee to use replay to establish whether the ball is inside or outside that cylinder in such circumstances.J.D. Collins, the NCAA’s coordinator of men’s basketball officiating, told Sporting News the members of the rules committee discussed this situation at its meeting two years ago and decided against it — and not without reason. There may be unintended consequences to making such a rule change.“Let’s say someone takes a shot, the ball’s in the air and the official says, ‘That’s goaltending.’ Then they review, and it wasn’t goaltending,” Collins said. “Now it’s a loose ball, so we go to the possession arrow, and the wrong team might get the ball. There are some outcomes to that, that are not intended outcomes.“I think everyone just said, ‘Why don’t your referees get it right?’”MORE: Kentucky star PJ Washington making up ground in All-America raceCollins said he expects the issue will be discussed at the committee’s meetings this spring. This is what is known as a “rules-change year”; the committee generally tries to make significant changes only biannually so that those new regulations that are put in place are given sufficient time to demonstrate their value. But it still might not make sense to make goaltending/basket interference reviewable.UK coach John Calipari reminded reporters after the LSU game that the NCAA changed the rule about whether a shot-clock violation was reviewable after the Wildcats were beaten in the 2015 Final Four with the help of a basket scored by Wisconsin’s Nigel Hayes that might/might not have been released before the shot-clock expired.“They said it was not reviewable, and then they changed the rule to say: Why would you want to lose a game on a shot-clock violation and it’s easy to go check?” Calipari said. “Well, this one’s easy to go check, too. Just go check it. Why would you not? Why would that not be reviewable? So we’re like Wilt Chamberlain. We change rules.”It’s as easy as Calipari says — in the right circumstance. In the case of the Kentucky-LSU game, there would have been no problem. On review, Bigby-Williams’ play would have been overturned as an offensive basket interference call, and the Tigers and Wildcats almost certainly would have gone to overtime.But if an official blew the whistle in another game to signal for offensive basket interference without a goal being scored and a subsequent replay review showed the call to be incorrect, the same problem of establishing possession would arise. The possession arrow might point toward the defense at that moment, which would get the ball back even though the offense had done nothing wrong in its attempt to score.“It feels like what we have right now isn’t complete, but even if we change the rule, we might not complete everything and there’d be outcomes where it would be backward,” Collins said. “I think it’s complicated.”
The mystery surrounding the disappearance of ‘Tiger King’ star Carole Baskin’s second husband, Don Lewis, is deepening and may be pointing to a murder coverup.A pair of handwriting experts believe that the signatures on the will and power of attorney documents were ‘traced’ or forged.Don Lewis, second husband of “Tiger King” star Carole Baskin, disappeared in 1997 and the missing persons case has been closed allowing Carole to move om an marry husband number three.Recently, after the Netflix docuseries “Tiger King” reignited interest in Baskin’s missing husband, experts examined key documents and found that they were likely forgeries. The handwriting experts postulate that someone traced Lewis’ signature on his marriage license and copied it onto his will and power of attorney.Not only that, but one handwriting expert concluded that the signatures of the witnesses and the notary are also identical to one on another on both the will and power of attorney. This led the expert to conclude that one or both of each pair of signatures was forged through tracing.Netflix’s smash-hit “Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness” tells the bizarre tale of Joe Exotic, a zany gay polygamist owner of a private zoo in Oklahoma. He goes to battle with animal rights activist Carole Baskin and eventually gets convicted in a murder-for-hire plot to off her that lands him in prison for 22 years. Throughout the documentary, Joe and his compatriots repeatedly accused Carole of killing her second husband, millionaire Don Lewis.Twenty-three years ago, Don Lewis vanished while married to Carole. Five years later, a judge declared the missing husband dead, which permitted Carole Baskin to inherit his substantial estate.The new finding in the Clarion Ledger about Carole Baskin’s missing husband is the product of reporting by the renowned investigative reporter Jerry Mitchell, whose work was instrumental in reopening cold cases of unsolved civil rights era murders.
Howard’s Oliver Ellison, left, and Pittsburgh’s Lamar Patterson, right, fight for possession in the first half of an NCAA college basketball game on Sunday, Nov. 17, 2013, in Pittsburgh. (AP Photo/John Heller)by Nate BarnesAssociated Press WriterPITTSBURGH (AP) – Head coach Kevin Nickelberry wanted to limit Pittsburgh forward Talib Zanna’s impact against his Howard Bison in Sunday’s game.And limit Zanna the Bison did, but that didn’t help in the game’s outcome as Pitt beat Howard 84-52.“We had to just battle him,” Nickelberry said. “We just wanted to use our two-headed monster and try to get him in foul trouble.”Nickelberry’s two-headed monster is 6-foot-9-inch Oliver Ellison and 6-foot-10-inch Marcel Boyd. They were the largest players Zanna faced yet this season, after he dominated an undersized and undermanned Fresno State front line Tuesday with a 19-point, 10-rebound double-double.The Bison cared so much about surrounding and harassing Zanna that they played a zone defense for the first time this season.“Bigs can’t beat us tonight,” Nickelberry told his team. “The guards have to beat us. And their guards killed us.”Zanna got in foul trouble early, according to Nickelberry’s plan, and played just six minutes in the first half. Zanna scored only four points on three shot attempts, and pulled in just three rebounds.It was Pitt’s guards, led by Lamar Patterson, who did in the Bison.Patterson helped Pitt to jump out to a 9-0 lead when he fed freshman forward Michael Young for a dunk and later sank a three-pointer.Patterson shot 4-of-4 from deep in the first half, 5-of-6 overall, and entered halftime with a game-high 16 points. His performance led the best shooting percentage in a half in school history, as Pitt made 81 percent of its field goals and opened up a 48-24 halftime lead.“Last game we just couldn’t find the touch,” Patterson said. “Today, we found it. That’s just how it is, some games it goes in, some games it doesn’t.”Patterson finished with 20 points on 7-of-11 shooting, next to five rebounds and four assists.“I’m a versatile player,” Patterson said. “I like to show different aspects of my game every time out.”Also on the perimeter, guards James Robinson, Cam Wright, Durand Johnson and Chris Jones combined to score 32 points.“It was a really good performance by us,” Dixon said. “The starting guards especially. James, Cameron and Lamar were really good.”Good shot selection proved to be a key.“I think we took a lot of bad shots in the last game and missed some open ones,” Dixon said. “Tonight we took almost all the good threes, and I think that was a big part of it. It usually comes down to shot selection.”The Panthers cooled off in the second half, but still shot 58 percent from the field. Defensively, Pitt held Howard to only 17 field goals and 36.2 percent shooting.Michael Young found the most success of any “big” Sunday, with 11 points on 4-of-4 shooting. Other than Young, though, it was the play of Pitt’s perimeter assets that helped counter the Zanna’s ineffectiveness.“We tried to cut off what we thought was the head of the dragon,” Nickelberry said. “But obviously there were more parts to the dragon than I thought.”