In what follows, I will discuss how you can set VirtualBox to run in headless mode, and also how to set the virtual machine running pfSense to automatically enter the ‘saved state’ mode when you shut your Windows host down, and how to make it automatically start again when you boot your host.

Firstly, I need to say that I have spent quite a few hours trying to figure out on my own how to run VirtualBox as a service, so it can detect power events on the host, such as shutdown, logoff or startup. Especially the shutdown / logoff part. No, don’t even think about Group Policies, since in Windows 7, during shutdown, all programs are closed first and only afterwards it runs whatever scripts we set. Which means that we cannot tell VBoxManage or VBoxHeadless to nicely shut down our VM or to save its state.

The best bet is VBoxVmService, developed by an enthusiastic VirtualBox fan and available for free on Sourceforge. Download the latest build here and after unzipping it, read the Howto in the docs folder. It is very explanatory and simple.

By the way, don’t fret if the service does not start your VM right away so don’t try yet to debug it; just reboot after installing the service.

Still, the service is set for delayed start, so your VM will not start right away after your Windows boots. I didn’t quite like the idea, so in the VBoxVmService.ini file (you’ve read the Howto for VBoxVmService, right?) I have set my VM’s AutoStart option to no, and then created a small VBScript file to execute automatically at startup. It is a much faster option.

Note: C:\Program Files\Oracle\VirtualBox\ is the full path for a default VirtualBox installation. If you changed its location, you need to modify the path in the script accordingly.

1. Type the following code in a text file and then save it as headless_start.vbs:

Set WshShell = WScript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell")

cmd = chr(34) & "C:\Program Files\Oracle\VirtualBox\VBoxHeadless.exe" & chr(34) & " --startvm" & " pfSense"

obj = WshShell.Run(cmd, 0)

set WshShell = Nothing

Copy the file in C:\Windows\System32\GroupPolicy\Machine\Scripts\Startup

2. If you have Windows 7 Professional and up, or Vista Business and up. Run the Local Group Policy Editor as administrator (the easy way: click the Start orb and type in the search box gpedit.msc).
3. Go to Computer Configuration > Windows Settings and left click Scripts (Startup/shutdown).

4. In the right side of the window, right-click Startup and select Properties. In the properties window click the Add button and then browse to the VBScript file which we have created earlier for startup and select it:

5. Click OK, and then OK again.
6. If you have a Home Edition of Windows 7 (or Vista). Copy the VBS file in C:\Users\[yourusernamehere]\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup. This will work only for the specified user.
7. Still having problems? Check on SevenForums.com for a wealth of advice on how to run programs at startup in Windows 7 / Vista.

Now, if you need to access your VM console, you now have to identify the IP address of your VirtualBox Host-Only Network (type in ipconfig in a Command window) and then connect to it using Remote Desktop Connection available in Windows 7 (we used the port set in Part 3). See the next two screenshots:

 Done!

Just in case: if you need some more quick VBScript files to control your VM when in headless mode, here they are:

1. To save state: headless_savestate.vbs:

Set WshShell = WScript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell")

cmd =  chr(34) & "C:\Program Files\Oracle\VirtualBox\VBoxManage.exe" & chr(34) & " controlvm" & " pfSense" & " savestate"

obj = WshShell.Run(cmd, 0)

set WshShell = Nothing

2. To force reset: headless_reset.vbs:

Set WshShell = WScript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell")

cmd =  chr(34) & "C:\Program Files\Oracle\VirtualBox\VBoxManage.exe" & chr(34) & " controlvm" & " pfSense" & " reset"

obj = WshShell.Run(cmd, 0)

set WshShell = Nothing

3. To shut it down (ACPI power button): headless_acpiturnoff.vbs:

Set WshShell = WScript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell")

cmd =  chr(34) & "C:\Program Files\Oracle\VirtualBox\VBoxManage.exe" & chr(34) & " controlvm" & " pfSense" & " acpipowerbutton"

obj = WshShell.Run(cmd, 0)

set WshShell = Nothing

Congrats! You are done.

<<Part 5: Configuring VLANs. Removing Windows’ TCP/IP stacks

1. You have installed pfSense. After the VM restarts, click inside the window and then press F1 to boot. Then in the welcome screen type in 1 in order to boot pfSense:

2. Setting the virtual LANs. When asked if you want to setup the VLANs type in y and Enter:

3. Now, as you can see in the next screenshot, you have to tell pfSense which of the two NICS is the WAN interface and which one is for LAN. In what follows I will set em0 for WAN and em1 for LAN (as that is how we have set the interfaces in VirtualBox at points 4 and 5). If you get mixed up about which one is which, just compare the MAC address displayed by the pfSense installer with that in VirtualBox Manager. Whatever you do, just make sure that the WAN interface is the one bridged to your physical NIC, whilst the LAN interface is the one which is bridged to Microsoft Loopback Adapter:

4. Enter the parent interface name for the new VLAN (or nothing if finished): em1

Enter the VLAN tag (1-4094): 20

Enter the parent interface name for the new VLAN (or nothing if finished): em0

Enter the VLAN tag (1-4094): 10

Enter the parent interface name for the new VLAN (or nothing if finished): just press Enter:

Enter the WAN interface name or ‘a’ for auto-detection: em0.

Enter the LAN interface name or ‘a’ for auto-detection: em1.

Enter the Optional 1 interface name or ‘a’ for auto-detection (or nothing if finished): just press Enter.

5. You’ll have to confirm the assigned interfaces, so when asked if you want to proceed, type in y and then Enter:

6. The system will apply the changes, after which it will display the typical pfSense console. If you didn’t mess up the WAN vs. LAN interfaces, you should be able to see the WAN NIC having an IP assigned from your physical network:

Done! Now you can start doing some basic configuration, such as setting a password, but the real thing is yet to come: the friendly web interface is what is going to be needed in order to configure pfSense.

1. If you’ve installed and configured the VM correctly during the previous step, you should now be able to access the web interface. You do that by typing the IP of pfSense’s LAN interface in your web browser (you should be able to reach it, as it is bridged to the Loopback adapter). Ignore any security certificate related warnings:

2. In the next window use the default credentials to login in into the administrative interface. User: admin, password: pfsense

3. Now you’re in the main window: the dashboard. Update pfSense if needed (also, don’t forget to change your login credentials):

4. Click on Services > DHCP Server. Make sure that the check box Enable DHCP server on LAN interface is ticked. The system should have created the default settings for the DHCP service:

5. Now you should be good to go. Go to your Network and Sharing Center in Windows, Click on Change adapter settings on the left, then in the main window identify your physical network card and right-click on it (since we talk about a laptop, it is most likely a wireless card, but you can apply further what you’ve learnt in this tutorial and protect all your connections; only don’t forget to add more interfaces in pfSense). Click Properties, and then uncheck the boxes for Internet Protocol Version 6 and Internet Protocol Version 4:

And that is basically it. Open you browser of choice and navigate to whatever page. It should work, although the first time Windows will tell you in Network and Sharing Center that it has no internet connection. Don’t forget, if you want to be completely secure, you need to learn how to configure pfSense. Maybe in the future I will come back with some more tips and tricks on that subject.

<<Part 4: Installing and configuring pfSense on VirtualBox

Part 6: Running VirtualBox headless. VM auto save state/resume>>

1. Now, first thing first: I was saying that we need to run our virtual machine effortlessly, as in having it automatically suspending / resuming when turning off / on the host. It means that for the day-to-day usage we will normally run VirtualBox headless. When doing that, we can get access to our VM through MS Remote Desktop. But to be able to do that we need to enable the VRDP server, which is done on a per-VM basis. The easiest way is to do that in the VirtualBox Manager:

1. Click on Settings and then Display. Click on the Remote Display tab and check the Enable server box. Type in a number – say, 5010 – for Server Port (later, for convenience, you’ll use Microsoft’s RDP to access the VM from your PC, since VirtualBox will be running headless. Nevertheless, that will only give you access to the console of pfSense. For the complete configuration of the firewall you’ll use a browser anyway). Set Authentication Method to Null:

3. Click on Storage, then under the storage tree click on the CD icon (red arrow), then click the icon for setting up the virtual CD/DVD drive (green arrow). Click on Choose a virtual CD/DVD disk file and browse to the pfSense .iso file which you have downloaded during part 1:

4. Now click on Network on the left toolbar. We need to set two NICs. Click on the Adapter 1 tab and in the Attached to drop-down box select Bridged Adapter, whilst making sure that in the Name drop-down box the name of your physical card appears, NOT the Microsoft Loopback adapter  (so this will now become the firewall’s WAN interface, bridged to your physical NIC):

5. Going further, click on the Adapter 2 tab. Check the box to enable the adapter, in the Attached to drop-down box select Bridged Adapter, whilst making sure that in the Name drop-down box you choose Microsoft Loopback Adapter (so this will be the firewall’s LAN interface, connected to your logical NIC, the Loopback adapter). Then click OK:

6. Go to VirtualBox Manager, right-click the pfSense virtual machine and click Start. When the VM starts, click inside the window and then in the welcome screen type in 1 in order to boot pfSense:

7. pfSense will take a few seconds to load the drivers and initialize the devices, after which it gives you the option to launch the installer. You’ve got nine seconds for that. Press i:

8. In the following window you can customize keymap and font settings or simply choose Accept these settings (the default ones should do for most users):

9. In the next window choose Quick Install. It will warn you that the installer will not ask any questions and that it will erase the entire HDD. Of course, it is the virtual HDD, so don’t worry. Then enter OK.
10. Wait for the installer to finish copying files. Then it will ask you to choose the kernel. Go with the uniprocessor kernel:

It should install successfully and then ask you for a reboot. Proceed accordingly. DON’T FORGET TO REMOVE THE ISO IMAGE FROM THE VIRTUAL CD! Done! Time to configure pfSense’s LAN and WAN interfaces.

<<Part 3: Installing VirtualBox and creating a new VM for pfSense

Part 5: Configuring VLANs. Removing Windows’ TCP/IP stacks>>

1. Install VirtualBox with all the default options. It’s just a matter of clicking Next a few times.
2. Login on Windows as administrator. Browse to the folder where you have downloaded the VirtualBox Extension Pack and double-click it. Click Install.
3. Agree (you have to) with the TOS and you’re done.

Before you create the VM, consider all the options you may want to enable in pfSense (web proxy, Snort, VPN, etc.), in order to allocate resources appropriately. Also, don’t forget that you need two network interfaces. A good start is the Selection & Sizing section on the official website. Anyway, if in doubt, you can always revise the settings of your VM after creation. The virtual machine which I created had this configuration: 1 CPU, 128 MB of RAM, 2 GB HDD, and 2 NICs (I don’t intend yet to use Snort – that will need a minimum of 512 MB of RAM).

So let’s proceed:

1. Start VirtualBox
2. Click New
3. On the next window type in the name of the VM and choose the OS and version (pfSense, BSD, and FreeBSD in my case). Then click Next:

4. Now set the amount of memory:

5. Select a virtual hard disk option. Choose Create a hard disk:

6. In the Virtual Disk Creation Wizard, leave the default option unchanged (VDI), unless you plan to use this VM in the future with a different virtualisation software, such as VMware Workstation:

7. Set the size of the virtual disk file as dynamically allocated, so the virtual disk’s size will increase progressively, as it fills up (up to the maximum set, that is):

8. Set the maximum size of the virtual disk:

9. You’ve finished setting up the virtual disk. Click Create:

10. Now you have finished with setting up the VM. Again, click Create:

That’s it.

<<Part 2: Installing Microsoft Loopback adapter on Windows 7

Part 4: Installing and configuring pfSense on VirtualBox>>

In what follows, I will describe how to install the Microsoft Loopback adapter on Windows 7 (apparently it works the same for Vista). For other flavours of Windows, such as XP and 2000, 2003 Server, a very simple search will do the job.

Installing Microsoft Loopback adapter on Windows 7:

1. Login as Administrator (you’re operating on Windows 7 as a standard user by default, right?!)
2. Open Device Manager
3. Right-click your computer name (in my example that is Envy-14):

4. Click Add Legacy Hardware. Press Next
5. In the next window choose ‘Install the hardware that I manually select from a list (Advanced)’. Press Next:

6. Scroll down and select Network Adapters. Press Next:

7. In the next window select Microsoft  on the left side and then scroll down to Microsoft Loopback Adapter. Click Next:

8. A window will ask you to confirm the installation. Click Next

9. A window will confirm that the hardware has been installed. Click Finish

Done! You don’t need to configure it yet, as you need a gateway which will soon be the virtual machine running pfSense.

<<Part 1: Preamble

Part 3: Installing VirtualBox and creating a new VM for pfSense>>

Mind you, apart from Windows 7, I cannot have any other properly configured OS on my laptop, due to hardware peculiarities (switchable graphic cards being one of them). Consequently, no Unix-like OS with nifty security features installed ‘bare metal’. Not just yet.

So, inspired by this article about how to protect your pc with IPCop in a virtual machine, I thought about building a similar setup. The whole notion is pretty simple: run an enterprise-level Open Source firewall as a virtual machine, bridge it to your network card, install the Microsoft Loopback adapter, then castrate Windows so it cannot access the Internet directly – that is, uninstall the TCP/IPv4 and TCP/IPv6 stacks of the physical NIC. Thus you run all your Internet traffic through said firewall, whose WAN interface would be the bridged virtual NIC, whilst its LAN interface will be the NIC bridged to the Loopback adapter.

Only that I want to develop the idea further.

First of all, I want to use pfSense, because I’m slightly biased towards *BSD and its superior security features. Then, with pfSense, I can easily add, if needed, an IDS/IPS (Snort), a web proxy (Squid), or force the encryption of all traffic through a permanent VPN tunnel. It can be configured and scaled to match whatever level of security related paranoia.

Also, in order to reduce the time required for the Internet connection to become available, I need my virtual machine to run seamlessly, without having to manually start it or save its state every time I boot / shut down the host. Needless to say, that means running VirtualBox as a Windows service.

The configuration used for this tutorial:

HP Envy 14 – i5 520m | ATI 5650 & Intel HD Graphics | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD | Windows 7 Professional 64-bit

I am sure that, as long as you have enough RAM to spare, depending on the features which you’d want to add to pfSense, any spec would do.

Required software and preparation:

At the time of writing (July 2011), the most recent version of pfSense available is 2.0 RC3 and, as recommended on the official website, it can be used in production.

Also, the VirtualBox version which I am going to install is 4.1.0 build 73009.

Time to gather all the goodies:

Go to this list of mirrors and download pfSense. You can choose your preferred version, CPU, and CPU instruction set architecture.

You can download the latest VirtualBox release and the VirtualBox Extension Pack here, or look for other builds on this page.

You will also need to install the Microsoft Loopback adapter. To understand what it does, in the unlikely case you don’t know already, check this page.

I assume that you know how to operate your software-based firewall on Windows, if you have any enabled (ZoneAlarm, Comodo, Windows Firewall, etc.), so you can add the virtual networks to your trusted zone.

Before you proceed to messing up with your system, it is sensible to have a tested, recent, full backup. I personally use DriveImage XML for ghosting my home PCs – it has never let me down. Also, Windows 7’s Backup and Restore Center is doing a very good job.

Now start the backup routine for your system and have a cup of coffee whilst it does its job. Two or many more if you have a slow drive and / or a large primary partition.

Part 2: Installing Microsoft Loopback adapter on Windows 7>>

The vast majority of mass media and politicians has been taken by storm in the last few days; too quickly for them to start thinking clearly and coherently (no surprise here). Does the fairly similar case of entertainment industry vs. digital revolution ring a bell?

Assange is seen as anything, from villain to superhero, but not for what he really is: an extremely intelligent agent of change with quite an ambitious and complex plan (which goes beyond just ‘revealing the truth’). Interestingly, his goals might not necessarily (or exclusively) be rooted in an anti-American agenda, as some may like [us] to think. His target is a global system, which, depending on what side of libertarianism you are, may or may not appear as necessitating alteration.

In this short article about Assange and the way the image of ‘hackers’ is being depicted in some tabloid, beyond listing some conceivable motives such as fame, altruism, pure activism or just vanity, I did not delve too much into what could have been his true motivation. That has happened for a few reasons, notably lack of information, lack of time to search for that information, and also because that was not my intention for the article anyway.

There is a precious hidden gem that one is at risk of not gaining by only absorbing news from any news aggregator or broadcaster: understanding. Worse, even when focusing on [pretty much] impartial sources such as The Guardian (which newspaper I regard as an example of professionalism), one may still be at risk of conserving a narrow field of view.

That happens firstly because one may grab just the facts one is interested in, and, paradoxically, also because those facts may be in a near pure form when collected from objective sources. Without adding into the mix subjective but divergent, and also unrelated perspectives, lateral thinking might be replaced by one-sided thinking, so in short, there is no real opportunity for profound understanding.

Like many others, during the last few days, I monitored the evolution of the diplomatic cables leak story, whilst oscillating between sympathy for the WikiLeaks’ crusade and its founder’s struggle, revolt against the unfair image of Britain as depicted in the diplomatic documents, and also (valid?) concerns regarding the possibility of local, regional (and why not, global) conflicts.

Yet, just watching or reading the news did not help me with gaining the insights I wanted, so I went across the blogosphere looking for different views and comments. This pertinent, critical analysis by UC Berkeley graduate Aaron Bady, which I found by mistake (and of whose reading I would insist upon), has sown the seeds which I needed to initiate my own investigation and hence gain some understanding of the whole issue.

Any reader, however, should be aware of the fact that, due to my slightly libertarian views and nerdy preoccupations, I have a personal bias towards Julian Assange & Co. Still, whatever opinions I express in this article are kept as objective as possible; thus, please try to keep a vertical stance and also don’t curse me too much if you suspect subjectivity.

So, what does Julian Assange try to achieve through WikiLeaks? The above mentioned analysis contains one of the most plausible views that I have found (forget about US propaganda) and that is, put simply, provoking the collapse of the complex system of governmental authority based on secrecy – or “governmental conspiracy”, as Assange calls it – not only in America, but perhaps everywhere.

First of all I need to briefly introduce the reader to the idea of mechanistic systems, since the article I just recommended is not based on this idea  (don’t run away – it is damn simple; it is basically a machine). Generally, the mechanistic principle (fundamentally a heritage of the Industrial Revolution) regards natural wholes (principally living things) as being like machines, composed of parts lacking any inherent relationship to each other, and with their order imposed in a centralised way (quick reference: ‘mechanism’ on Wikipedia).

In organisational practice, this view has been translated into strict hierarchical arrangements of human systems, bureaucracies, and tight control schemes, in which people (especially lower echelons) are regarded more like automatons, rather than complex, emergent entities. In this respect, one would somewhat regard military organisations, governmental and intelligence agencies, and diplomatic structures as mechanistic systems. Yet, as I will show, things at the moment are not quite like that.

The opposite, at least in Burns and Stalker’s view, are the organic systems, which are not hierarchical in the same way as mechanistic systems, as they are still layered, but based on the expertise of its constituents. Organic structures could rely, for instance, on indoctrination, strong organisational culture built around motivation and self-development, and the ability of its constituents to behave as proactive, self-organising actors.

At least from what I have observed in my (not so many) years of managerial experience, as well as in some contemporary readings in the fields of sociology, management, and systems thinking, in organic systems there is an emphasis on the power to achieve goals through people, whereas in the mechanistic ones there is a clear tendency to gain power over the people and then use them as [seemingly] mindless instruments for achieving organisational goals.

Thus mechanistic structures have to rely on tight command and control systems, rather than on transparency and mutual adjustment of the actors. It is almost common sense the fact that bureaucracies attempt to control both their internal and external environments through exercising the principle of power over. But how do they do it? As far as I remember now, systems and complexity thinkers such as Ackoff, Kuhn, or Gharajedaghi agree (in different words, but similar concepts) that controlling the flow of information might just be the best tool for exercising the power over.

And mechanistic structures are damn good at controlling every bit of information that flows in and out, as well as inside them. Which in turn doesn’t do them a favour with respect to flexibility, innovation, and more importantly, high sensitivity and responsivity to threats. Can you think of any governmental agency which doesn’t need those? (Well, you must remember the complaints of the FBI agents regarding the lack of hierarchical response to their warnings regarding the 9/11 attacks).

In Assange’s view, as explained by Mr Bady, the “governmental conspiracy” relies on internal control of information in order to ensure the secrecy of all its operations. (Obviously, controlling the flow of information also ensures that the majority of actors in the external environment are also being kept at bay.) Yet, too much control of information may hinder the activity of internal subsystems (i.e. operatives, spies, military, and diplomats), so the architects of the system have to ensure that there is a certain liberty in accessing the available information. (The sort of liberty that has allowed a disgruntled, young intelligence analyst to copy over 250,000 classified documents without even being traced.)

I do not have the time right now to read Assange’s essays, and also my intention is not to critically analyse Aaron Bady’s article, but it appears that in Julian Assange’s view, as quoted, the “governmental conspiracy” cannot be a pure mechanistic structure – like a traditional hierarchy – otherwise the top of the pyramid can be a single point of failure. (Oops, cannot help but to point out at the similarity to computer networking, where a single point of failure (SPOF), especially at the top level, can bring the entire network down if it indeed fails; Assange is a ‘hacker’, remember?)

As a result, the organisation has to be a blend of organic and mechanistic structures. Aaron Bady explains it as “acephalous” (as in, having no head), but “[with] certain amount of centralization […] (otherwise there is no conspiracy)”. “Too much centralization makes the system vulnerable”.

That’s right; too much centralisation means the risk of a big single point of failure, as well as that of many other SPOFs, at the top of many internal pyramids. Also, too many management layers will definitely transform the organisation into a slow and ineffective bureaucracy, in which the flow of information will be hindered at every level.

So in a purely geeky tradition, Assange thought of a bug. Mind you, it may sound like a big revelation, but it should not be, and I almost feel ashamed that I haven’t thought of it in the first place (though I have an excuse: ahem, I did not know that those essays by Julian Assange exist).

Perhaps a look at how the HIV retrovirus works may just offer the perfect metaphor in understanding part of his actions – that is, how a system can be turned against itself. When HIV infects cells in the human immune system, a special group of lymphocytes (called Cytotoxic T cells) will hunt down and kill those infected cells – basically the immune system is successfully attacking and weakening itself.

Julian Assange’s mission seems to be that of generating excessive mistrust inside governmental systems; if inoculated in the right way and amount, the resulting paranoia is expected to cause the implosion of these systems.

So any leak, no matter the press coverage (well, the last one has been a big blow), does not aim to embarrass any government. The leaks prove the penetrability of governmental systems, and thus increase their security-related paranoia (that is also a common, but necessary syndrome amongst computer geeks, like Assange).

The flow of communication between different parts of the system will then be hindered due to fear of leaks to the outside world. And this is not something supposed to happen necessarily only in America, but also in the already paranoid, totalitarian regimes, like China or North Korea, just because the possibility of classified data leakage has been proven. As Aaron Bady puts it very simply, “the conspiracy [can be destroyed], in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire […]. Wikileaks wants to provoke the conspiracy into turning off its own brain in response to the threat”.

Now here is the point where I need to explain why I brought into discussion the essential differences between organic and mechanistic structures. Organic structures are highly adaptable and therefore very resilient. A terrorist organisation is an organic system. They rely on the indoctrination and high determination of their constituents (hell, to commit suicide for a cause is enough proof of being determined, isn’t it?). Mechanistic structures just cannot put up so easily with organic ones. Think of any David vs. Goliath example.

Now, I am not the sort of person to jump into the same bandwagon with all the terrorist scaremongers. The high disregard for human rights, which we have seen happening part in secrecy once the ‘war on terror’ has been declared by the Bush administration, has disgusted me profoundly.

Yet, I do not expect governments to change too much their shoddy practices. But I also anticipate that they will tighten the secrecy belt as a result of the latest events. They will simply start to re-mechanise their structures, maybe more than before, in order to control the information, a fact which, as explained above, will make them more vulnerable, as well as inefficient. Finally they will just simply fail to do their job.

Eventually, I also know that there are quite a few lunatics out there who would like to repeat the London Tube bombings, or the 9/11 attacks.

I admire Assange, as it is probably obvious, for his intelligence, ‘geekiness’, beliefs, activism and persistence. I cannot help, though, thinking that in London, my friends, I, and millions of other people are relying heavily on the public transport and in that respect everybody, up until now at least, has returned home safely every evening.

I don’t discuss here whether the leaks are a security threat or not. They might, or might not be; it is not for me to judge. For the moment they represent at least a big embarrassment. Yet, people should not mistake the effect for the cause.

WikiLeaks is a whistleblowing website and its existence should be cherished. The attack on Assange and his creation moves the attention – at least for the moment – from the real cause of what has happened: the utter lack of responsibility and professionalism of those who have designed the system for manipulating sensitive diplomatic data in the first place.

Unfortunately, as it usually happens, ‘thee hackers’ will be again scorned, blamed and hated due to sheer lack of understanding and knowledge.

One example of technophobia is given by the editor and author Max Hastings (ahem, short for Sir Max Hugh Macdonald Hastings), who has just laid down a sad piece of ignorance in – not hard to guess – Daily Mail. Well, I don’t read that rag normally – the affinity for self-inflicted intellectual pain fortunately eludes me – but I couldn’t resist the title when seeing it on Google News.

In a nutshell, Mr Hastings’ tirade starts with the classic technology puts data at risk, so good ol’ paper is better type of discourse (a redundant subject, so I will not bother discussing it) and continues with red flags like scary omnipotent hackers (boo again!), “hacked company systems” (what the hell is that?), total loss of privacy and security, etc.

I don’t know much about Max Hastings, apart from what this article in Wikipedia says about him, and I assume that his career is built on significant achievements (well, significant at least for those who gave him certain titles). Yet, it looks like he also gained some blinkers along with those labels. In his biased and less than informed article he misses an important point.

Hacking is not about the dark side of computing. It is not about stealing card details and explicit honeymoon videos, or about building botnets. That is malicious computer use, which is indeed a crime, and the minds behind those acts are criminals. Hackers are a different breed. Hackers are subversive, intelligent, innovative and nevertheless gentle minds.

Hackers are like Alan Turing, the one who helped cracking the German ciphers used by the Enigma machine. And who previously, in 1937, has envisaged the Turing machine, a model still extensively used in the theory of computation. And of course, the same who, for the ‘sin’ of being homosexual, has been accused of gross indecency and chemically castrated immediately after the war. In this respect, Assange is a hacker, as he challenges and might just change journalism, diplomacy, and activism as we know them.

Lifehacker puts it better than I could ever try to: hackers “[challenge] people to do more with what they’re given. Hacking is a brand of disobedience that both expresses dissatisfaction with the status quo and does something to change it.” The ability to do more with the same inputs is called development, pure and simple. It differs from growth, which means merely “to increase in size or number” (here is more food for thought in less than ten paragraphs from Russell Ackoff, a great systems thinker).

So in this case, what the “no-hero” and “irresponsible ­mischief-maker” Julian Assange has done, was to push others to develop. To learn.

The US intelligence agencies will learn that the loyalty of a young army intelligence analyst cannot be nurtured through disrespect.

Some officers will learn to make the difference between a video camera and a rocket launcher, and spare the lives of innocent civilians.

Many diplomats (and not only them) will have to improve their communication skills, as they will need to put up with some hard work in re-establishing trust amongst their counterparts.

The civil society will learn again that the freedom of speech is not a given, but it requires the [self]sacrifice of a few individuals (whatever their motivations: fame, money, vanity, altruism, or activism). Curiously enough, even Sweden is eager to grab Assange, but as you might have guessed, not because they are burning with desire to give him the Nobel Prize for peace, obviously.

A horde of journalists should learn that people need to know the facts as they are, without being wrapped in editorial prejudice and regurgitated as truths.

Finally, many organisations around the world will learn that sensitive data should not simply be stored in a common pool from which employees can extract anything they want, in any quantity, without the possibility of being traced, and then put it on a memory stick. (What about blocking data-writing on external devices? What about granular user access control? The system architect responsible for this gross lack of professionalism should now be – at best – selling burgers in McDonald’s.)

And I hope that, for Mr Max Hastings and similar technophobic penmen, the “dreary old paper” will be indeed a safer choice. Preferably toilet paper, because it can be flushed quickly, after which it disintegrates. Well, Daily Mail is toilet paper too, but it has an electronic version and, oh dear, that technology is so bloody unsafe.

Picture from The Alien Next Door

I am lucky enough to be suffering from a sleep disorder: for the last 15 years or so I had no idea that what I used to call as insomnia is actually delayed sleep-phase syndrome (fancy name for a disorder… do I attract any impulsive sympathy for that?). Sleep is perfectly fine, but only starting with 02:00 to 03:00 in the morning. Or after staying awake for more than two days consecutively. The time spent waiting to get out of that second wind state gives me plenty of time for exploring conceptual mind traps. Like the one to which I dedicate this article.

Altruism has long been preached by some religious doctrines as a must-have human virtue, scorned as pure weakness by nihilists, revealed by genetics and some evolutionary theories as a sexual selection mechanism – that is, the survival of the nicest, and ultimately dissected and stripped of any graceful, humanistic connotations by neurobiology. Equally viable explanations, in my opinion, as it appears that there are as many facets of reality as there are minds looking at it (please remind me who said that because I own them a pint for copyright).

So, why selflessness? Depending through what sort of lenses you see the world, Jesus’ hints & tips on non-resistance and disinterested ‘love for the many’ might be a good example of altruism (see also the passage on “turning the other cheek” if you still have a bible laying around).

If Jesus and his gesture of self-sacrifice indeed existed, from a Christian point of view he could very well be considered to be the first documented example of real altruism, as he appears to be selfless just for the very sake of it. That, of course, would suppose excluding any traces of godly genes and seeing him only as a man. (No point in being both a god and an altruist, really.) Being generous with (and loving) someone who is going to kill you is a nearly perfect example of self-abnegation. Of course, mental health care practitioners may beg to differ.

Yet, if the above-mentioned story has a minimum chance to acquire some degree of plausibility, then Jesus should also be considered the last truly altruistic Christian, as his followers would expect either rewards or punishment in the afterlife. Which in turn supports the evolutionary biology’s concept of reciprocal altruism. Not the best answer, isn’t it? We might as well exercise Aikido, the martial arts take on love and nonviolence, since that would be a bit more practical than committing to Christian dogmas.

Mentioning evolutionary biology has just reminded me of evolutionary anthropology, whose theorists have come up with some interesting findings (which I will not try to critically assess here, as that is not my intention). One idea, which during my teenage days I considered particularly attractive, was that of altruism as a sexual selection mechanism (you know, the alpha males disguised as gentlemen…)

Whilst some biologists are still researching whether in the animal world altruism increases male’s chances to find a mate, with humans things are rather straightforward. Therefore, word of advice, gents: if you’re dating an intelligent and educated lady, be careful when you tip your waiter. Not too generously, as that may just make your naughty intentions quite obvious, but not too meagrely either, as it may spoil your chance to diversify the gene pool.

Now I will leave the pelvic region and the sensual connotations of altruism behind, and move back to the mind, in order to highlight a philosophical perspective on altruism. Unfortunately, as I always favoured existentialist and nihilist doctrines (yes, they are distinct; Nietzsche’s bridging of the two should not fool you) my outlook, in this context, may come across as narrow.

So, since I brought the great German nihilist in discussion, it is worth pointing out that, in his view, altruism is the refuge of the weak. One point should be made, though: he does not seem to refer to the fragile, tragic and gentle types, but to the pathetic ones. That is, the weak may try to gain control over the powerful by just helping them. What is that if not selfish behaviour?

Only three perspectives on altruism put on display, but I hope I have made my point. As I suggested in the other article, one may apparently have just one way of being genuinely good to oneself: by being good to others. It doesn’t really matter to which perspective you adhere (well, hopefully not to the last of the three that I outlined). Let your own selfishness (and, why not, even some vanity) do a good job for yourself and for anyone else around you.

Since this is a personal experience, let me first say that I am not trying to generalise my subjective point of view. My intention is only to suggest a new outer symbol to support you – if that is the case – in the process of learning about how you can learn about your own self. And develop. It is your own business how you perceive what I convey, and whether you want to internalise it or not.

In case you wonder… no, I do not condone the idea of snuff films, recorded executions, or anything that even suggests torment and sufferance. Actually, I find it mentally impossible to assimilate this sort of depictions – my memory just cuts off (as it did a while ago, for a few days, after unintentionally seeing the video of an execution in Afghanistan). Now, what I am talking about is just … dead bodies. Let’s say, people that have died due to – at least apparently – natural causes.

After losing my faith, long ago, during my rebellious teenage years, I kept on struggling to find a reason for being a good human being. The fact that what I have learned along the way with regard to altruism as a concept was, at least from a humanistic perspective, all but encouraging, was not meant to alleviate that struggle either.

Last year I paid a visit to one of my friends in Dublin. Coincidentally, BODIES… The Exhibition was in town. Artistically dissected and preserved human bodies, arranged in different postures, staring through acrylic eyeballs, and looking extremely dynamic despite their static positions. A must see, in my opinion.

However, the key point in my case is that, after seeing all that display of naked human flesh, fat tissue, disentangled intestines and blood vessels, I gained such a good picture of our day to day nothingness. As species we might seem special (to whom, I wonder? but that is a different story), but as individuals we are prone to be just little walking bits of obscurity if we don’t do something about it.

The hope for a next ‘something’ in our life (or after it) waiting to happen, deeply ingrained in our nature, is nothing but otiose clowning. We spend every single moment of our existence wishing and – worst of all, seemingly knowing – that ‘something is going to happen’.

Like this is not already enough, we instinctively don’t accept death as an end to everything. Unless you are the next Camus, van Gogh or Henry VIII, it is very unlikely that you’ll be surviving in the collective memory of any group – in case that you endeavour that idea. If you are lucky enough to be religious, at least you’ve got a painkiller.

That dead body over there, over time, is clearly not you; you will have gone by then. If it is to be more than just a forgotten pile of bones, or ashes (as per your choice) and a pathetic handful of short-lived memories, you have to live less for yourself. Whenever you can, whatever you can, to whomever you can – give. Give a part of what you are and even of what you own if you can afford that.

Give help,  ideas, hopes, kisses, smiles, food, shelter. Only then your ego will be so fulfilled that it is going to force you up the hill with the speed of light. Up there you will push yourself even more, in order to gain as much as you possibly can, in all respects, and then share again. Then up the hill once more, to the next peak. That might just be a good way to achieve success in your present life.

Does it mean that you have to be the next Mother Theresa or Saint Francis? Pretty much no; perhaps you would even look fairly stupid if you don’t love and treat yourself well. But you nevertheless have to give away a big part of you. If you don’t believe in loving-kindness (for instance, I don’t), you will do it for the sake of what you are, of what you can become in the process, and for the fact that you may value others’ future memories about you.