Posted by: Sk | February 21, 2009

12 How do you recognize a securized picture?

As somewhere mentioned in  a blog that was started with the purpose of analyzing the equivalence between the psychic system and an electronical system (among other legal questions and observations) and ended up building up electronical towers and vividly fighting against internet scams and frauds, it all started one day I had, for professional reasons, to write a letter to Microsoft, the director of the school I was working for had asked me for. Quite innocently I just copied the address from their web page and pasted it on a Word document when some strange alterations warned me of the fact that a wicked virus had entered my system. I thus didn’t keep the document in the computer but in a 3 1/2 inches disk, which though was completely annihilated and proved such a high electronical charge, that put into other computers in order to try recovering the information it distroyed at least three functions of them temporarily.

Don Quichotte roaming in the depth of my unconscious decided immediately to revenge such an offense, as his medieval Spanish mind could not understand how and why the name of a road belonging to the State of California may merit such virulent protection.

As this happened November 2006, I have had a long time to study all sorts of security systems and how to recognize them, and as I don’t know anything about electronical languages, I was obliged to use empirical means whith though the great help of specifically Adobe Photoshop and even Paint.

Of course I don’t think my observations are exhaustive but they may be of great help for all those innocent people who think they may keep a picture in their computers for private use (to have a look at it from time to time) without gravest damage occuring to their equipment.

Actually, security systems are of three kinds (all inside of the limited frame of my observations):

1. a system ‘retires’ the page the very moment or a little later the function ‘keep image as’ is used in one computer (observed in Chinese and Russian pages, it shows the weakness of the usual retardment in activation: actually it is possible usually to have emptied the page of 30 images before it starts working)

2. a system does change the format of the image from a jpeg or other to an unknown format which is not readable by most of the computers (this system is little secure: in fact, it is enough to open the image through Windows, for example, than keep with formate .gif and then use paint to get the usual jpeg format)

3. the image is securized in itself and while keeping it in the computer, it interacts like a virus that may cause damage to the same

– As already remarked somewhere, most pages allow either the ‘keep page as’ (which creates automatically a folder with the whole information in the page) or the ‘keep image as’ as legal functions (no crack program used), except of Flash pages or moving Flash containing pages (insertable in Dreamweaver, for example). Strangely some Flash pages do still allow the copying of static elements (usually as parts: upper right, and low left and the kind, which are though easily reconstructable in Paint: see pages of Amaretto di Saronni, Sankt Petersburg University in Russia, and some etc. And sometimes as inserted elements: logo of Loewe, pictures of Dior, etc.) Which means that Flash pages seem to show weaknesses in security in some parts for unknown reasons (usually in secondary sections as contact, or other)

The only absolutely secure sites I have encountered until now are the ones of Yves Saint Laurent (also in the same field Lou Lou de la Falaise) and the one of Epiphany (with static elements that can’t be copied), which though allow the keeping of the whole page in a computer (usual weakness of Flash) through ‘keep as *mht’. And some other (I think Kubrick’s site and a few I didn’t note).

How do you recognize a ‘virus’? While keeping the image somewhere it produces a double which shows the flaggy symbol that marks usually open documents. As the document is not open and has still a double, it means that there is an ‘active function’ going on working and probably infecting the computer. It is enough to erase the double (eliminate) in order to avoid some possible terrible side effect.

In fact, little people know that images and more specifically .gif images may keep in a very reduced space tons and tons of information (security programs, codes of origin, even spy programs and harmful virus). Most of the time this is impossible to detect by my simple means although there is a way to avoid those harmful creations enter a computer: while copying images to a cd and then opening them in another computer or the same (do never, never, never keep such information of unknown origin IUO in the computer itself), there are two possibilities: either to simply copy the images to the computer or to use the Windows function to transmit the information, which usually takes hours because precisely it detects harmful to the computer images, which can thus be located, isolated and eliminated.

Some that would not pass control can though be detected otherwise: this in cases only though where the programs implied are extremely sophisticated and thus expensive (careful with the owner!). How? While carefully opening them in Adobe Photoshop or Paint and selecting a part which is taken away through for example ‘cut’, the ground appearing is not white. Usually in highly sophisticated images, it becomes either yellow (Rothschild R) or black (Japanese security system in architecture images). If you see something like this, you better leave the work of art for another moment except if you have become a skilled system dancer. These systems seem to be ‘activators’ causing implosion of the computer, impossibility of burning information on cd, or burning the whole cd through a laser mechanism.

The other way to detect security which is usually not that harmful but may have as consequence that you loose your work of art because the electronical traces attach the picture to some unknown origin is using the colour functions in Adobe Photoshop. By using the function ‘image/adjustements/tone, saturation/saturation’ the fact of moving the cursor to the right does produce the appearance of very vivid colours that usually form ‘cubes or squares’ or even ‘amounts of many little very colourful masses of points’: both are the traces of electronical security systems. In very expensive pictures (Inés de la Fressange, for example, but also Carolina de Monaco or Stéphanie, etc) security centers itself around the eyes, so that the fact of altering the appearance and thus the security causes irreversible damage to the picture itself.

There are always means, but it’s not our purpose to reveal all our secrets.

Wicked programs inside of images (Oxford crest: but, whose helmet could it be the crest from?, Microsoft logo, etc.) do produce the blocking of  a certain number of functions in Adobe Phtoshop that may allow to change contents. Thus, the Oxford crest does not allow the writing inside of the same frame where you can read ‘Oxford University’: either it changes colour or it gets the flimmery aspect obtained through the function ‘mask’ (?) The Microsoft logo, does not allow the use of several functions such as ’stamp’ (tampón), or ‘cut’, and others.

It’s still possible, but it needs of a lot of study.

In fact, it becomes obvious while passing from the one to the other, that ‘desecurizing’ security is an extraordinary entertainment and an excellent exercise for intelligence. Thus, trying to take my ancestral revenge on Microsoft I discovered how amusing a certain number of precautions can be.

It’s true that I mostly work (luckily for many) intuitively so that I can’t even properly sell the whole amount of knowledge as obtained for the last year.

But the general frame that will finally allow knocking out the Microsoft security is easy to follow: the computer has one logic based on symbolic logic. Symbolic logic was developped by Wittgenstein/Russell around the English Oxford School. First, you have to know these very well. Then, any security system is the consequence of someone’s other logic which though has to be consequently in knowledge of the first. Which is to say, that the ‘Microsoft’ logic will deal with symbolic logic in a determined and specific way which will result in a unique security system as deriving.

I don’t like complications and adore taking my time. As I will never crack a program because it is against my ethics, I sometimes have to go my path around the meaning of crests and Coats of Arms in order to obtain a positive result. In fact, it is true that spending time in learning programming and electronics and cracks would have given Microsoft too much relevance for my revenge thirsty mind. It had to be something stupid, simple, almost ridiculous fitting my shocked surprise as resulting of the before mentioned event.

Of course a logic appears in many ways, even through esthetics, type of programs, arrangement of the same, commercial strategies, publicity and marketing. More or less all of us have some kind of ‘notion cloud’ accompanying a company even more so if it is a leader in some branch. Not cracking programs does not imply that my ethics do not allow cracking logics as they present themselves in a social and empirical, legal and licit environment.

I was thus happily passing from one to the other, where most of my pictures mostly in are nothing but the visual representation of progressively cracked elements of the logic in question. My work does finish by giving extraordinary results: the logic cracked, it is now necessary to find the means to reveal a Microsoft weakness inside of a legal frame. Tons of articles making differences between photographies and art, crests and logos and many other are supposed to build up the metaphysical frame accompanying the brutal attack of a mouse on a lion.

The psychic disposition allowing the attempt is finally obtained these days. The accidentally obtained Japanese security systems seems to show the right way as allowing to crack the Oxford crest through simple superposition. The basis of this system does construct a new ‘colour’: the vivid yellow on the ‘answer to Lempicka’. On this acquisition a certain number of psychic movements are represented in figures (’sta arxidia mou ta dio’ which is a not very polite Greek expression accompanying a disposition of the kind a proud ‘I don’t care a shit’, which is turned into the Hai Key – ‘be my friend, I kill you easier’): two almost contradictory psychic dispositions are thus put together in one sole picture.

That was yesterday morning. After, I went to sleep. I had a very peculiar dream, that had some kind of end, and I woke up, and said ‘the continuation of the dream in reality’ – stop – that’s the solution. Thus I continue the dream in reality which had the same end than the dream.

It may seem absurd and though even Russell would be convinced by the evidence that even dreams may affect computer systems. See: F thus V = V (logical mistake in computer systems) If F = non V, then non V = V. Can this ever be true? If no, then the computer will move in a different logic than yours. Thus you’ll never crack its logic. If though the first V is a dream *V, then the fact that *V and V in reality are the same or the second the consequence of the first (in time: thus), then you are moving in the same logic than the computer with one severe adavantage: the separation of fields does allow the factual truth the computer can never obtain.

That’s it. It didn’ take a long time after awakening that I find myself in front of a computer again, as if wanting to stay inside of the same disposition as arisen from the dream in order to launch a definite attack. How easy it looks then. How do you translate my ‘logical’ dream solution into a computer function?

Take Adobe Photoshop. You take the logo from Microsoft which is quite easy as they’re using Frontpage (keep image as) from their web site. You see immediately that the attempt may have quite horrid consequences (security). Take two and transfer them to Paint in order to change format from .gif to jpeg. Then you just take one of them and turn it 90° to the right. You paste the second on the first and logically, the security system blocks itself through the first, which is blocked by the second.

It’s now enough to use the yellow ground of unprecise Japanese origins in order to obtain a marvellous work of art that has erased all electronical marks of origin of the logo. Worse: you can keep it in a cd. Even worse: it meets WordPress’ security guidelines.

Consequence: the ilegal appropriation and securization of common good may have terrible results, were it one year later !

For others, less interested in symbolic logics but more concentrated on tender feelings arising of the human unconscious: the given function means, translated, whether a loves me or not, as I love a, the formal frame resulting of the relationship is true, or valid, or legal. This fits very well a mm logic, as the cause of ‘love’ is not to be derived from an essential characteristic of a, but of the undetermined consequence of a ‘factor’ which is not derterminable. In a normal mind it should look like : a (loves me V) thus b (loves a V) and viceversa = v), impositive truth which would never shock Microsoft.

Thus, it is necessary to walk over to another realm: the ff wing. Here, the clear differentiation of poles (answer to Lempicka) allows the construction whether ‘a loves me or not’, is validated through the pretension it were (dream or turn to the right) and thus: v in the subject (superposition of both).

And this evidence may schock Microsoft, even more so if it is … a work of art.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: