It's indeed a pleasure to be back here in Helsinki and in wider, I have very long standing association. In fact, arriving last evening and during a very short walk, which I had to take because my luggage had not arrived, so I had to walk up to Stockman briefly last evening. I can't tell you it, there was a rush of a sense of nostalgia from many years ago and over the years I've been coming back here. So thank you very much, Tony, for inviting me and giving me this opportunity to talk. I'm back in a different incarnation this time and that's the way I'm going to speak to you. This is on the global crisis, but I will do an analysis of the global crisis and where it's going, but to do a lot of that from the point of view of developing economies and emerging economies. For two reasons, one is that fits in perfectly with my current charge in the World Bank, the World Bank with its focus on developing countries and the poor, you do want to focus on what's happening there. And also my previous experience, which Tony mentioned in India, working as chief economic advisor, I was actually doing, tracking a developing country and emerging economy and through the period of the European crisis and European crisis and the American crisis. Actually, and in some ways I had a wonderful view of the global crisis because when the American subprime crisis developed, 2006, 2007, and became a full-fledged crisis, 2008, I used to live in the US. So I was watching it actually happen almost outside my doorstep, the crisis brewing. And then by 2009, the crisis had moved out to the rest of the world. And I also actually moved to the rest of the world. I went to India in 2009. So I went sort of following the crisis. There are some people who go chasing the monsoon. They chase the monsoon all over to understand the monsoon. So without quite planning to do so, I went chasing the crisis all over and got a bird's-eye view of that. So I am going to use this dual perspective and tell you about where I think we stand, what are the prospects, with all the uncertainties. Of course, this economic life in general is full of uncertainties and maybe economic life is even full of even greater uncertainties. So with all those caveats, I will do a little bit of speculation and looking into the future. The center of the theater of today's crisis is Europe. There is no getting away from that. But in some sense, the big concern is the developing world. And for the following reason, that Europe is now technically, the Eurozone is in recession, which means you've had two successive quarters of negative growth. The emerging economy with all its slowdown is still growing. I mean, Indonesia is growing at about 6.5%. China is down to 7.5%. China's growing slower. India annual growth is down to 6.5%. Quarterly growth down to 5.5%. Brazil down to 2%. But these are all by industrialized country standards. These are not bad figures. However, you have to remember that these emerging economies, despite their very, very rapid growth, all of them harbour huge populations that happen to be precariously poor. A slight difference in situation, they actually have the risk of malnutrition and suffering. In a way you can't think of in the industrialized world. So both the theater is in Europe and the slowdown in Europe is more marked. In terms of human tragedy, these things can blow up in a very big way in the developing world, despite the fact that they seem to be growing somewhere between, say, 2% and 7.5%, which is China. Despite that fact that they are growing, they can be a hard hit. Also they can be a hard hit because within developing countries, and I'll come back to this in a moment, there can be very different experience for different income groups. And that also can make a difference to how people at different stages of the income spectrum suffer in different ways. And if the suffering is great for people who are already precariously poor, this can be dreadful. So this is by way of explaining why despite the fact that my focus is going to be the crisis in industrialized countries, I'm going to speak from the perspective of the developing and emerging world. Let me go back first and take a look at what happened in 2008, the subprime crisis. I'm going to give you a very, very simple account of this. A very simple explanation of this and at times it is worth looking for the simplest of explanations. I have to tell you something which is there in my book beyond the invisible hand about simple explanations, which I was last week, about 10 days ago, reminded of because of an Italian edition of my book which will come out and my publisher drew my attention to the story that I was telling to stress the importance of simple thinking instead of straight away jumping into complication.  In the middle of the night, Sherlock Holmes nudges Watson and says, Watson, look at the sky and tell me what you can deduce. So Watson looks at the sky, it's full of stars. In London with its fog, you would never see so many stars. So Watson said, gosh, I did not know that there are so many stars. Well, if there are so many stars, I deduce that there must be lots of planetary systems. If there are lots of planetary systems, I deduce that there will be some planets like Earth. If there are some planets like Earth, I deduce that there must be at least one other planet like Earth with life there. So I deduce that there is life in the universe outside of Earth. By then, Sherlock Holmes is very impatient. He turns to Watson and says, no, Watson, someone stole our tent. Watson's mistake is a mistake far too often you see in the academic world. Our love of complication is such that we pursue endlessly complicated deductions when there may be a simpler truth to follow. Now, I don't want to oversimplify the analysis of what happened. It is a complex enough one, and I have to apologize by saying that what I will say will not be a watertight description, but still I feel there's something to the simple line. So let me begin with 2008 and the subprime crisis, the way it happened in the United States. The broad outlines you all know, the US had begun starting a couple of years earlier to lend money for home buying to customers who are considered subprime in the sense that normal considerations bank would not lend to them. They were worried about the ability of these people to repay. But for a variety of reasons, including some change of the law and pressure from the government, they started lending to these subprime people and they all were buying houses, which at first sight seemed like a very nice move. You're reaching out to these poorer people. But you have to remember, this was reaching out not with one time grant and aid, but with loans which have to be repaid. So what happened after a while was some of these people began to default on these houses. They were not being able to pay back the loans that they had taken. When that happened, the hardship of these people had another implication for the banks. I am dropping some complications in the story and pushing that aside. What happened with these banks is the bank balance sheet of the bank when a bank gives out a loan to a home buyer, the balance sheet of the bank has two sides to it. High probability that this money will come back to me, so I've given $100,000, but it shows on my balance sheet as money that will come back to me. But there is also a probability that there will be a default. If there is a probability of default, then I will get hold of the house because I'll go and foreclose the house, I'll take away the house. So there's a probability that I will not get the money, but I will get the house. And the house has a certain value. So this is on the bank's balance sheet. When the defaults started and the houses were going back onto the market, with so many homes going back onto the market, house prices started falling. When house prices started falling, something began going wrong on the bank balance sheet. When you don't get your money back and you get the house back on your balance sheet, the value of the house that you had had changed by the time that you were getting the house back. So when the banks were going and foreclosing the homes, the value of these homes were dropping. And as more homes were being put back into the market, the prices were dropping and the balance sheets of banks began deteriorating. Once the balance sheets of banks started deteriorating, the credit market started going tight. And at that stage, actually in everyday life, you could not quite perceive that there is a crisis going on. But I remember the Economist magazine had a very nice description of what is happening in America, where you wouldn't know at the individual level at everyday life that something is going wrong. They said it's like the early problems deep down in your plumbing system, where it's gradually getting clogged, but it's not yet affecting your everyday real life. But once the clogging of the financial system became deep enough, the real life started getting affected because the water supplies were going down, meaning real commodity production started going down. America's economy was beginning to tank. Given that the United States is the biggest economy in the world, when the US economy began to slow down, there was a crisis that was being felt all around the world, including Europe. But in Europe, in the meantime, something else had happened. Europe had had one of the biggest human-made deliberate economic experiments in the world. Probably the biggest human-made deliberate experiment was communism. The second biggest was the construction of the Eurozone country. Most economic institutions that you see in life evolve. They happen slowly. No one did it deliberately. But the Eurozone was a deliberate construction. And I think it's a very, very worthwhile venture. It's not surprising that when you're trying to make such a huge construction that there will be some fault lines in that construction. And indeed there were some fault lines. This is not to blame anyone because no one saw these fault lines, including investors. But these fault lines began showing up. After the global crisis of 2008, the fault lines began showing up. And the fault lines took the following form. When the Eurozone came into existence, first of January 1999, 11 countries getting onto the same currency. There's a beautiful chart. Unfortunately, I don't have that chart with me here. You have this very, very beautiful chart which shows that all the Eurozone countries borrowing costs were roughly the same. So if you want to borrow money, whether you're Portugal or Germany, roughly the same interest you have to pay. Which means investors were viewing all the Eurozone countries in some sense like one unit. So whatever is the risk with one country is the same risk with the other and the interest rates are roughly the same. If you look at the chart of interest rates, it's virtually the same up to 2008. In 2008, there's a sudden realization which begins to dawn on the investors that the Eurozone is a monetary union. It's not a fiscal union. When a sovereign borrows money from you, that sovereign has to pay you back. So the default risk could indeed be different across different countries. As this idea dawned on the investors, the borrowing costs of these countries just diverged. That graph is beautiful. To 2008, it's virtually the same line. Then it spreads out open. Germany can borrow money at negligible interest rate. Greece and Portugal to borrow money, they have to pay very high interest rates because the borrowers, the lenders' perception had changed. And indeed, as we now know, and no one can say that I knew all the time because no one really fully understood this, that having a monetary union without an adequate amount of fiscal coordination between the regions or the countries can cause a problem. And indeed, this did cause a problem. So once the American crisis was there and the whole economy was rocking, Europe was beginning to be sucked in to this crisis. And this was happening, first of all, because the borrowing costs began to rise, and this led to one particular problem. Some countries in the eurozone which had their borrowing costs drop when they joined the eurozone because the investors were treating them as safe country just because they are a part of the eurozone ended up borrowing a lot during that period because their borrowing costs have gone down. So when the borrowing costs began diverging, you suddenly realize that the debt burden has shut up on some countries. That's where Europe stands. And the European, so the fiscal deficit has increased because of that and also because in trying to stem the global recession of 2008, 2009, virtually every country in the world and by now India and China and Brazil are also playing the same game. Every country is running up a larger fiscal deficit as a homage to John Menard Keynes's classic of 1936. They're all going in for a fiscal stimulus which is probably the right thing to do. But with the fiscal stimulus and the fault lines of the construction of the eurozone showing up, Europe's debt burden becomes very large and there are other special problems to this. One of them became very, very evident in August 2011 when I was still the chief economic advisor to the Indian government. Early August 2011 was an important incident with a very paradoxical reaction in the world financial markets. But then again, that links up to what I was saying earlier. Early August 2011, standard and powers downgraded United States, if you remember. This sent shockwaves through the world. United States being downgraded from its triple A status sent shockwaves but the consequence of those shockwaves were very interesting. Money started being pulled out from most places in the world certainly all the weaker economies of Europe and that money was going into US treasuries. So after US gets downgraded, money flows into US treasuries and actually even in India, we were feeling the money being pulled out of Indian stock markets and this was happening worldwide from emerging economies and money rushing into US treasuries. And what had happened again relates to what I was saying earlier. Just think, if you lend money to the US treasury, you know that the chance of a default on that is negligible, why? Because the US has a central bank and the worst comes to us, the US can print some more dollars and pay you back and you know that the US will not want to have a default on its record so the US will go out of its way and it still has a central bank it can turn to. But imagine now think of the countries in Europe. Spain, you've lent a lot of money to. Spain can no longer give you a guarantee of paying back because Spain does not have the printing capacity anymore. That's gone to the central bank, ECB. So the monetary union without the fiscal, with fiscal autonomy created this strange problem that the country that is borrowing from you does not have the capacity to pay you back by printing money. Not the best option, but the US has that option which European countries did not. So the realization that it is risky to lend to European countries which no longer have their own central banks meant that money was now rushing despite the US being at the core of that particular turbulence, money began rushing into United States and we were in a full-fledged crisis again by 2011. So 2008 was a crisis, 2011 is another crisis. And this time the developing countries are being hurt even more. So let me now switch back to the perspective from the ground in a sitting in a developing country. Let me give you the story of the country that I know best, India. It is really a change in the world situation. People who are chief economic advisors before me to the Indian government some 20 years ago, they would tell me how every morning you get up and you check the local price of onions, tomatoes, et cetera in India, check maybe what's happening on the Indian stock market. But I can tell you during my last year in India every morning you get up and check quickly what's happening in Europe. Because if the crisis deepens anymore, you know there will be an impact. And the impact is so very visible. India had a remarkable round of growth from 1994. It was growing very rapidly, but from 2003 and certainly from 2005, the country was growing very, very rapidly. From 2005 to 2008, three consecutive years of approximately 9.5% growth which used to be unthinkable in India. I mean I used to live in India for many decades and never thought that India would get into a plus nine growth whereas it had done it for three consecutive years. Then comes the crisis, 89, the world is mired in crisis and India's growth rate drops to 6.7%. What is done in that year is India goes in for a big fiscal stimulus. And the same thing was happening in Brazil, same thing was happening in China, in Indonesia. I got a very good view of this because I was a part of a lot of G20 negotiations. So I would be regularly in meetings with these country economists and get to discuss the situation over there. So you are beginning to see this fallout elsewhere. With the stimulus package in place, most emerging economies picked up again. India in fact in 2009, 10 and 10, 11 was back again not to 9.5% growth but 8.4% growth for two successive years. But then when the crisis comes again, the second dip in 2011 with the Eurozone crisis this time the sovereign debt crisis, the growth begins to plummet, plummet seriously. India's growth goes down to 6.4%. Quarterly growth is down to 5.5%. Some industry, the sector industry and manufacturing is now below 1%. Over the last couple of months it's gone below 1%. Business growth is down to below 2% overall growth. India luckily the overall growth is still, the quarterly is at 5.5%. China 7.5%. But China used to grow at 10%. So you're seeing the slow down just all over in the second round. And there are lots of accompanying problems that are arising in emerging economies. One accompanying problem is the following. The world is beginning to now see a kind of inflation and stagnation experience which is very, very unusual. What's happening increasingly, the growth is reasonably well coupled. The industrialized countries and poor countries are moving together, but inflation is tending to be decoupled. And you see this happening in 2010, even the early part of 2011, is that as rich countries are injecting liquidity into their system to get a revival in their economies, this liquidity is not getting the growth up in their countries, but this liquidity is in fact what it's doing is injecting some pressure on prices in developing countries. And in fact around 2010, you see inflation extremely high in Argentina, extremely high in Vietnam, pretty high in Turkey, pretty high in India, reasonably high in China. So emerging economies are inflating. So in one place I described this as a kind of salad bowl statflation. So it's like some parts are tomatoes, some parts are carrots. So some parts are inflating, some parts are stagnating. The industrialized world is stagnating and some parts are inflating. And this is raising some very deep questions on global economic structure. And one of them is to do with the following, that this was realized sometime in the 17th century that for most activities, it's good to have competition. There should be lots of people producing clothes, lots of people producing housing material, lots of people producing food. But in one particular domain, you don't want competition. The money-creating authority. It's best to have a monopoly. A single economy should have a single money-creating authority. Bank of England gets created in 1694 with that in view. I think the Riksbank was already created, the Swedish one even before that, but central banks are being created. Single economy with a single money-creating authority. That world worked pretty well. Monetary policy rules were developed for that world. But just think about the kind of world we are gradually moving into. In today's world, the walls between countries are becoming lower and lower. Goods flow from one country to another with grates. Labor also flows. This was the hard barrier till a long time, but now labor flows in a very unusual way. At times, they themselves move. At times, the jobs move and find where the skilled labor is wherever in the world. So labor is also beginning to move. And capital, of course, moves very easily from one country to another. So the world is gradually becoming like a single economy. So we are, in some sense, we have created many central banks, one for each nation. But with the world becoming a single economy, at one level, we are going back into the predicament that we have tried to avoid in the 17th century, one economy with many central banks. And some of the coordination policies that we are seeing in monetary policy, I think, happen to be an malaise of this new world that we are living in. And there is no doubt this is no one's making, no one did it individually. But this is the reality of the world. And we will have to find new structures of policymaking, new forms of coordination, coordination of fiscal and monetary policy. This morning I've been talking to officials and ministers here. And we were talking about the importance of a certain amount of fiscal policy coordination also across countries that we need. The same way that today we use the ILO to talk in terms of labor market policy coordination, WTO to talk of trade cooperation, we need something similar in terms of fiscal and monetary policy. Where do we stand? With growth beginning to go down in emerging economies, and there is another frightening development which is taking place. First of all, let me just show you, I don't want to use too much of this. I've got a couple of transparencies. I'll show you the interconnection between the industrialized world and the poor countries. This is, effectively you can think of this as borrowing cost for developing economies. And you see the Lehman crisis over there. When the Lehman-Babas crisis takes place with nothing happening in developing countries, the borrowing cost goes up. It's suddenly more expensive to borrow for these countries.  These I need, I may come back to some of this. Yeah. This is another thing in today's world which is greatly worrying and which is what I meant, that poor countries, even if growth is going at say 2% to 5%, there can be a lot of distributional effect because the prices of certain food items are climbing. The maize price situation is very bad in the world, wheat price situation is very bad in the world. And I can tell you, in a country like India, the bottom 40% of the population spends 60% of their money on food.  So when food prices rise, even if the whole country as a whole is growing by say 5.5%, the bottom segment that spends a disproportionate amount of their money on food, that segment is getting hit very badly. So it is a precarious situation for the world, but where are we expecting to go? Let me do a little bit of speculation on that and with that I will stop. This is a figure from World Bank Research which I want to show you. If you look at industrial production, there has been a little bit of pickup in that blue shaded zone. You can see industrial activity picking up in the Euro area in China. This happened over the last couple of months and the reason for that is to do with ECB policy. And indeed that has given us some peace and I'm going to do a little bit of analysis of that, do a little forecast about what might happen and stop and then be happy to take questions. So this graph shows that you're doing a bit better and indeed we are saying that we are hopefully turning around the corner, but there is a downside risk and I will not distract you with this picture anymore. I will go back to a talk of what the downside risk may be and why did we do better? When the, so I'm going back again to where I was when the sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone area deepens in 2011, one very major move was made. In fact, towards the end of 2011, it was a bit of a nail-biting situation in emerging economies. I was extremely concerned and my counterparts, I knew from our G20 meetings, they were all concerned in emerging economies that if there is a major European crisis, then we are going to feel that in a very deep way with our growth plummeting. But that crisis was averted through a policy which was, I think at that point of time, the right policy, long-term refinancing operations. This is the ECB injected money into the banking system in two tranches. In December 2011 and February 2012, it lent money to banks all over Europe, a total of roughly $1.3 trillion. So it's a massive infusion of money. So many banks which were rocking suddenly stabilized and there was some peace. The markets improved, the global situation began to improve. Earlier this year, you had Draghi make the statement, whatever it takes, ECB will do. And any country that gives some assurance that they are going to undertake some fiscally responsible management, the ECB is going to stand behind that country and not allow the sovereign to go down. And that statement also of a potential injection of liquidity gave a lot of peace and some of the turnaround that you see in the industrial figure and even financial markets if you've tracked over the last six months, you will see a calming of the financial markets which is done by this injection of liquidity. But think a bit hard. What the injection of liquidity does is it buys you time. It does not solve any of the fault lines in the system. Make no mistake that I don't think that ECB had any other choice. You had to buy time because in the end of 2011, the world would have spun into a major recession if the ECB had not acted. So ECB did right. ECB bought us some time by injecting this money. But when you've bought time, you have to do things with the time that has been bought. Otherwise the crisis will come back to you and there is a bit of a risk of that. We usually wake up to cliffs like the fiscal cliff. When the cliff is virtually upon us, the US fiscal cliff and the World Bank has done some calculations on that. Let me just quickly show you this. Yeah. If the US cliff does come upon us, so nothing happens and the full cliff hits us, the world economy is going to be hit very adversely and this is our calculations of the level of negative shocks that different countries will feel. No doubt that the US is going to feel the deepest shock and this is going to transmit to all over the world including South Asia, Middle East and North Africa. It's going to go all over the world. The shock is going to hit us. There's a lot of effort going on and I have to say on the fiscal cliff, I'm hopeful that the US is going to soften it up so you will not get hits of this kind. But there are other kinds of small cliffs and walls which are coming our way and we should be aware of this and begin to put our heads together and thinking about what can be done. One of them is what I've called somewhere European debt cliff or European debt wall. You can choose whatever you want to choose. The LTRO operations whereby 1.3 trillion euros were injected into the market. These are three year loans. So in December, 2014 and February, 2015, these banks will be expected to pay this back to the ECB. What have the banks done with these loans? We know that a large amount of these loans have been just put into sovereign bonds. They have put into Spanish sovereign bonds, Italian sovereign bonds and it's a little bit of an arbitrage activity going on on the part of these banks. ECB has given them the money cheap.  And that is the worry. That that is another debt wall that is moving up and is going to come upon us. It's a wall with two parts to it. One part in December, 2014. One part in February, 2015. And unless there are deep structural changes that are made and productivity pushed up in Europe during this time, we are going to get another big rocking of the global economy by the end of 2014 and early 2015. And that's what makes me feel that over the next two years, up to 2015, two and a half years, the downside risk for the world remains very, very large. So the European situation is going to be very difficult for two years, two and a half years. And Europe all said and done remains among the two biggest economic powers in the world. The US and Europe as a whole are two of the biggest economic powers in the world. And a slowdown in Europe is going to affect the situation in emerging economies. And I wish I could be very positive, but I think the best scenario is that this roughly stagnant situation will continue up to 2015 and then it will begin to pick up. And this is going to impact the developing countries. Where will the developing countries go here on? What is happening at one level in the world is also a change in the global, tectonic structure of the global economy. You know, with the modern technology, the biggest resource of the world, which is human capital and labor, the world market is becoming a single place. So emerging economies that have invested in their human capital, higher education, countries like China, today when Malaysia is doing very well, a whole lot of these countries, I think will after this rocky two to two and a half periods are over, you will begin to see big growth in these emerging economies. If industrialized countries, rich countries like Finland, like the Scandinavian countries, like United States, continental Europe, if these countries grow moderately well, they don't have to be rapid growers, but they are countries which are already well off. The world is back again to a reasonable keel from 2015 onwards. I do expect industrial emerging economies to grow very well, and I'll give you one set of numbers which I think in some sense sums up what's happening in India since I used to watch the Indian statistics very well. If you don't look at forecasters and economists, they look instead at investors and what they are doing, and you get a sense of the expectations they have of a typical emerging economy like India, and that actually ties in with my priors about India. The money that is going into the Indian stock market, the foreign money, that has gone very thin over the last one year or so. Not enough money is going out, very often the money is being pulled out of the stock markets. So short-term investment, volatile investment is going weak, but if you look at foreign direct investment, which is usually a bet on a country with a medium to long-term view, that in fact last year was India's record year. India got $43.8 billion of foreign direct investment into India, which was $5 billion more than ever before. So it seems that world financial markets are taking the following view about India. Risky over the next, over the short run, maybe over the next one or two years, it's a risky bet, but a good bet in the long run is the way the world is viewing this, the financial markets are viewing India, and my view of, actually not just India, but emerging economies is very, very similar, but I know the numbers best for India, so I'll give you the numbers. One particular indicator which again suggests that the prospects, the medium to long-term prospects are very good, is savings and investment. A country's growth is dependent for emerging economies, very dependent on how much you save and invest. India now saves and invests somewhere between 30 and 35%. China saves and invests more than 40%. And we know that as soon as investment and savings go above 30%, we know from the East Asian experience that growth tends to pick up very, very rapidly. This has happened in South Korea, this has happened in the early Taiwan, in Hong Kong, in Singapore. With these countries now investing so heavily, India, China, even more heavily, you expect that their long-term growth will be high. There are, let me just end by putting in words of caution of course. As I've been in small groups talking everywhere, economic growth does not depend on economics alone. It depends a lot on politics, it depends a lot on sociology. So the politics of the country, political institutions of the country, the sociology of the environment, social norms of the environment matter a lot. So some of these predictions could go wrong if political instability becomes very large. Also, economic progress can be nurtured if we can have the right social norms and cultural practices in place. And over here I feel this part of the world has really lessons for everywhere. There are studies which show cross-country studies. They're simple things like trust and trustworthiness in everyday life. Integrity in small interactions and exchange contribute to a society's economic development in a very big way. And I feel this is a lesson that we want to take it to the whole world that look, develop these little norms and practices, trust and trustworthiness on which Francis Fukuyama has written at great length. These are extremely important. They can nurture development further, growth further. And I think this part of the world has a bit of a lesson to take to the rest of the world. As far as political stability goes, the different countries have different regimes and different problems to cope with. Let us just keep our fingers crossed that they will have the wisdom to deal with their political realities as best as they can. Thank you very much.


To the left side in Tavernier, Phil Billing at the back post is unmarked. The ball in towards Billing, who heads it in! A ball of a ball of a Southern! Have a two-goal lead in Old Trafford! Their attacking moments have been few and far between in the second half, but boy have they made them count as Phil Billing off the bench puts the Gerries two up.  A Smith whips a ball in towards the penalty spot. Selenki with the header! And the ball with the nutty again! Oh my God. Another late-late show in the City Grounds to probably win by three goals to two. And Dominic Selenki has a first career hat-trick with a bullet header into the top right-hand corner. Once again, Deja Vu! Nottingham Forest 2, former three. Chelsea got it in midfield. Scott nice step over away from Pereira. Brilliant stop from Alex Scott driving to the edge of the area. Scott might go all the way himself here. Alex Scott still going! And finish by... Dispatched by Justin Clive. And Bournemouth and Travis since his big money move here. Clive gets the headlines. Scott did the work. Sinistera has got Watara still. Putting the energy in left-hand side. Sinistera wants a goal though. He's going across the top of the box. He's just... Oh! He wants a goal! He gets a goal! Sinistera beyond the flailing let-oh and a Christmas crack-up of an afternoon.


This data vault is equipped with a variety of security measures. How you defeat those measures is up to you. Bring the console, trigger the alarms now, and they will start destroying the data. Get extracted. They won't even know it's gone. This segment is yours. Head to extraction. As every moment passes, the oscaris burrows deeper.


In this study, researchers examined seven cerebrospinal fluid, CSF, and six plasma biomarkers in relation to beta amyloid, a better pet uptake to better understand the progression of Alzheimer's disease, AD. They found that a better levels change first, followed closely by levels of fast-related tau, p-tau, and total tau, t-tau. Neurograinin, YKL-40, and neurofilament light also increase after the point of a better pet positivity. These findings were replicated using the better, p-tau, and t-tau assays from five different manufacturers. Plasma biomarker levels had smaller dynamic ranges, with the exception of p-tau and t-tau, which were similar. Overall, these results suggest that the amyloid cascade hypothesis may be supported in humans. This article was authored by Sebastian Pankvist, Philippe Essinsel, Eric Stomruud, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


My son has been in burnout since November last year and has not been able to leave his bedroom or the house. We have lowered all demands and expectations for him, but this seems to have made his demand avoidance even worse. Could you please explain the best way to support a child through burnout? This is a very important question and it's multi-layered. Every child is completely individual. So let's address the fact that a child has been in burnout since November last year. That's not a long time for a child in burnout. I don't know the specifics around this is the burnout associated with school. If it's associated with constantly putting ourselves into an environment where we're masking or foaming, burnout can last days, weeks, months or years. If it's with school, it is going to take a while. When we bring our children home from school or when they're burnt out and we withdraw them for rest and recovery, we lower demands. Sometimes we have no demands and no expectations and we encourage rest. We also expect that the burnout might pass quickly, but what's actually happening is that once we've removed somebody from that situation, they're no longer in survival mode. It might be the first time in a long time that their body is no longer flooded with adrenaline and cortisol and stress hormones.  It's the thinking that creates the stress and the distress. So the child or the person is in a stress response. Threat response is activated consistently. That is in itself exhausting. When they're no longer in that state of being, the exhaustion is allowed the space to actually come about and set in. When a person is no longer in survival mode, which means they're no longer tense, they're no longer flooded with the stress hormones, they can actually relax for the first time in a very long time. Then trauma can actually start to set in. So that might mean that sleep is completely disrupted. It might look like a child that is sleeping all day and gaming all night because nighttime might be what is perceived by their brain as the safest part of the day. There are no people. There are no demands. Aside from that, other experiences where trauma might be setting in or deep rest might be happening is the eating patterns may change. They may be eating a lot more or they may be eating a lot less. They may start restricting foods or having just different eating patterns. They may introduce new rituals that will often look like OCD. Anxiety may be heightened. Now, this may be hard to understand because when we say that the person is no longer in survival mode and they can relax for the first time, the threat response never forgets. I talk about the limbic system and memory consolidation and that PDA is this incredibly protective beast that lives within and remembers everything that presents a lack of safety. What this means is even when we're out of that environment and we are able to breathe, the brain holds onto those memories and the limbic system reacts accordingly. So it can be that sudden noises or nightmares or certain smells or certain sensory input or certain memories are just flooding the sensory systems. What happens is the processing of all those really tricky experiences and those memories will start to show up and the child may not be able to communicate this. It would be rare for a 10-year-old to be able to say, hey, I think I'm experiencing the aftermath of trauma. Instead, we need to look at their behaviour and notice subtle or even significant changes. Recovery takes a long time.


Hello and welcome to this session. In this session we will discuss a question which says that, what is the equation of qualitative function shown in graph? Now let us start with the solution of the given question. Now we have given the graph of an upward facing parabola with vertex having coordinates minus 1 minus 2 and a point 9 on this curve that is the point with coordinates minus 4, 14. Now we know that equation of qualitative function in vertex form is given by y is equal to a into x minus h whole square plus k where coordinates of vertex are given by h k now here is minus 1 and k is minus 2. So let us prove these values in vertex form of qualitative function. Now let this be equation 1 so that h is equal to minus 1 and k is equal to minus 2 in equation 1 we have y is equal to a into x minus of minus 1 whole square plus of minus 2 this implies y is equal to a into x plus 1 whole square minus 2. Now we have to find a, now we know that this point with coordinates minus 4, 13 lies on this curve which is the curve of qualitative function. So for finding the value of a we will put e to minus 4 and y is equal to 13 in this equation. Now let this be equation number 2. Now let us put x is equal to minus 4 and y is equal to 13 in equation 2. So we have 13 is equal to a into minus 4 plus 1 whole square minus 2. This implies 13 is equal to a into, now minus 4 plus 1 is minus 3 whole square minus 2. This implies 13 is equal to a into, now minus 3 whole square is 9 so it will be 13 is equal to 9a minus 2. Further this implies 13 plus 2 is equal to 9a which implies 15 is equal to 9a. Now we divide both sides of this equation by 9. So we have 15 upon 9 is equal to 9a upon 9 which implies now 3 into 3 is 9 and 3 into 5 is 15 and 9 into 1 is 9. So we have 5 upon 3 is equal to a or we can write it as a is equal to 5 upon 3. Now this is equation 2. Now we put a is equal to 5 upon 3 equation 2 and we have y is equal to 5 upon 3 into x plus 1 whole square minus 2. So this is the required equation of this quadratic function shown in graph. So this is the solution of the given question. That's all for this session. Hope you all have enjoyed this session.


They all realize in the 1930s and 1940s that the age of laissez-faire or the age in which the state cannot be involved in the market is over. They realize that the state needs to be used and it's actually an attempt to use the state to change the market rather than remove the state from it. Now, we've seen many rich stories about how neoliberals are in favor of the state when it comes to questions such as antitrust, when it comes to questions such as competition, when it comes to questions such as democracy. But we've not actually had a proper story about how neoliberals thought about welfare. And this is the story we tried to tell where Hayek and Friedman, even some other neoliberals, have an idea of how you can still keep the welfare state but not make it as decommodifying or not make it as hostile to the market as it was in the mid-century and before. And the basic income or cash transfers are actually their solution to this problem, namely how can we have welfare without the welfare state? And welfare without the welfare state is actually a phrase that was coined by the economist Arthur Kemp, who was the head of the Mont Pelerin Society in the 1960s. He was a close affiliate of Friedman as well. And he asked himself the question, if we are to keep the welfare state, but we want to make it friendly to the market, what solution can we offer to it? Well, the idea is that we can just send people money and when they receive the money, they'll spend it on the market regardless. And in that sense, it keeps some essential aspects of the welfare state. It will still provide security, but it provides a very specific form of security that is distinct from the security people received before. So our conception of basic income has evolved over a very long and ancient period of time. So we can trace ideas of a basic income back to ancient Roman times. We can trace it back to the 16th century in England, and we can trace it back to the 18th century. But many of those ideas don't actually qualify as the basic income we know today. The basic income that is familiar to us today, that is defended by activists and by economists, actually was only born in the 20th century and is the product of a very specific moment in the 1930s and 1940s. Then it's still an idea that only exists in economics seminars. So if you look at people such as Milton Friedman or Jan Tinberg, a very famous economist, there are some of the first to actually come up with a fully fledged idea of a basic income as a cash grant that's paid continuously and that doesn't have a relationship to property most importantly. So if you look at the Roman examples or if you look at the American examples from the 18th century, they all relate to property in some way and that disappears in the 20th century. And an important part of the story is of course the changing conception of economic justice, changing conception of what the state does, a change in conception of how markets should relate to states, and that's really the story of which our basic income today is part. So Milton Friedman comes up with a version of a negative income tax in the 1930s and 1940s, but the idea is still born in a policy sense. It doesn't actually have any uptake either with political movements or with policymakers, but it's only in the 1950s and the 1960s mainly when in the U.S. you have deindustrialization, automation, a new form of unemployment, particularly in black communities that the basic income first acquires political plausibility, that it actually becomes an option. And in that sense we can see that it has an old history, but we also need to be attentive to how it's changed over time. Part of the argument we're making in the book is that it changes profoundly over time, that we need to locate its birth much, much later than we actually tend to do. So it's important to look at the forces that actually grant the basic income its attraction or its plausibility. So as we say in the book it's actually a latecomer in the history of ideas. It didn't exist for such a long period of time. It's only really in the 1950s and 1960s that it becomes a conceivable policy option. And there you can see it as a variety of dryers that give it strength. The first are just brute economic facts. So deindustrialization, the fact that there is neither agriculture or industry to absorb a labor force, so you have a form of unemployment which is quite different from the unemployment people knew before. Then there's the rise of the robots or the fact that more and more people are being replaced by machines, so it's not just deindustrialization but the fact that more and more industry is now automated. And finally it also has intellectual drivers in that there are changes in the economics profession. So the economics profession which usually talks about how a welfare state should function, how markets should function actually begins to conceive of an idea of welfare or how a welfare state should be organized which is much more friendly or much more open to let in markets into the welfare system as such. And once these drivers start to unite in the 50s and 60s, an idea which was confined to economic seminars before actually becomes the object of a mass political movement. And that is one of the most important developments first in the United States and then it migrates to Europe in the 1970s and 1980s when you have an inflationary crisis and unemployment crisis and then it actually goes global in the 1980s and 1990s, mainly in the global south which is experiencing the end of development as they call it and which is going through its own version of a debt crisis or structural adjustment as we call it. Then in the 2000s there's a short pause and it mainly becomes a subject for academics, so mainly academics write about the basic income and there's no mass political activity around it. Then of course after the credit crash of 2008, you again have the issue of unemployment and of debt that flares up. It again acquires an attraction that it didn't have for a couple of years and it mainly sees upstate for example in Silicon Valley or with tech CEOs and with loads of people in the NGO community. And there I think it's very important to keep in mind that it unites people from all across the spectrum in a way that can be quite surprising. So we know that Milton Friedman was one of the first people to invent the idea and then to propagate the idea in the public sphere. But what you have in the 60s already in the US is that you have both people on the new left and people on the new right who converge on the basic income as a way of replacing the older welfare state with a cash version or with a market friendly version. And it's not just to say that it's a sort of neoliberal device that's meant to trick the left. I think all kinds of political movements have their own reason to arrive at the basic income as a solution to the problems they face. And there I think the main distinction that needs to be made is that the basic income as a cash transfer is very different from the classical welfare state we knew from the 20th century which is based on what we call decommodification. So removing certain areas of human life completely from the market. So providing schooling or housing or transport or even work for free without letting the market determine how those sectors function. The basic income differs from that approach to welfare in that it says we leave the market intact so the market and the price system will continue to function. What we want to do is give people a modicum of security and provide welfare for markets rather than welfare outside of markets and thereby accept the necessity of a market as such. And there it is attractive to neoliberals but as I said also to people on the new left who all see a reason that the market now is the best arena or the best place for human freedom to flourish. It's very important to see what makes cash transfers or basic income as a subspecies of cash transfers precisely so attractive and plausible today. The first story is just one of state incapacity. So not state capacity, what can the state do but rather what can't the state do. And a state which has progressively given more and more power to the private sector which doesn't file the same taxes anymore, which doesn't have the same resources which doesn't employ the same number of people but outsources more and more duties and more and more capacities to the private sector actually finds it very difficult to also organize a welfare system. And in that sense cash transfers work because they appeal to a state which has shrunk which has become weaker but which still needs to provide for its population and for example if you have a central bank that still functions and people sometimes today call the US a central bank with a country attached then of course it becomes very attractive to just send out checks to everyone rather than for example building public schools or building public housing which requires an effort on behalf of the state which is much more ambitious. The second part is of course about the growing power of the private sector so if the private sector realizes that if people receive the basic income that they will still have to spend that money on the market they will still have to spend it on private goods that obviously appeals to parts in the business community who think that this is a way of doing welfare that doesn't threaten for example their prerogative over investment and that doesn't menace the idea that they will continue to be in charge. Those are the more economic factors. I think there's also a political I'd say cultural factor is that we live in a society in which so-called individualization or the idea that we can collectively deliberate and talk about needs has become much much more difficult. So we live in a very technologically proficient society we have all kinds of gadgets at our disposal but we have gotten much much worse at politics so we've gotten much worse at collectively talking about what it is that we need, what are the needs we have and if we're not able to articulate and render those needs concrete it becomes very plausible to simply give everyone a sum of money and let them spend it as they like and this is why choice is again the future in that sense. So there are economic factors involved but also cultural factors in that the state has become weaker business has become stronger and people have become more atomized or more disorganized they're not part of the same civil society institutions that they used to be and the welfare system simply changes with it and cash transfers are the complement to that. Our story about basic income as part of a broader story about poverty mainly relates to the question of how the crisis of the welfare state in 1970s so when stagnation and inflation actually start to kick off is characterized by a paradox. So on the one hand people are talking about the crisis of the welfare state but if you look at the actual statistics of welfare expansion and welfare expenditure there's a continuing expansion or a continuing growth in how much the state actually spends on welfare. You see it is not just the United States but also in Europe the welfare state actually grows rather than shrinks in the period of the crisis of the welfare state and there are a lot of really good books on it the argument we want to make is it's not just a question of quantitative growth but it's also a story of qualitative change so the welfare state might become more expensive but the way the welfare state is financed and the way people or states spend on welfare also changes. The basic income shows that even if you spend more money you can spend that money in a very specific way namely not by investing in public works or not by building schools or not by building roads or not by giving people jobs but by simply sending out more and more money individually and letting people use that in the private sector and in that sense it's not a story of the decline of social policy it's not a story of the decline of the welfare state but it's a story of what we call the commercialization of the welfare state so the welfare state becomes progressively more friendly to the market becomes more private than public than it was before and in that sense the welfare state doesn't disappear but simply change and this is also a story about poverty or how we conceive of poverty so in the 19th and in the 20th century poverty was often seen as a lack of access to concrete goods so the poor are people who don't have access to housing who don't have access to jobs who don't have access to healthcare what happens in economics in the 50s and 60s certainly with the neoclassical revolution and also with certain neoliberal strands is that poverty is increasingly conceptualized as what we call exclusively monetary so poverty is not a lack of access to concrete goods but is simply a lack of money the poor lack money if you give them money they're no longer poor but of course a much more abstract conception of poverty than the one that was there before and this of course also changes how poverty activism happens because the poor now can't organize in the sort of thick civil society institutions that were still there in the 20th century and are mainly represented by NGOs or by wealthy philanthropists who have also become increasingly powerful in the last 40 years and it's obvious why they would support something like the basic income because they think that poverty is just a lack of cash just give people money and then the problem will be solved so the reason we call basic income a variant of welfare without the welfare state is that it is not an attempt again to shrink or to deconstruct the welfare state it tries to take the welfare state for granted so if you look at people such as Milton Friedman but even Friedrich Hayek who are part of that neoliberal thought collective they all realize in the 1930s and 1940s that the age of laissez-faire the age in which the state cannot be involved in the market is over they realize that the state needs to be used and it's actually an attempt to use the state to change the market rather than remove the state from it now we've seen many rich stories about how neoliberals are in favor of the state when it comes to questions such as antitrust when it comes to questions such as competition when it comes to questions such as democracy but we've not actually had a proper story about how neoliberals thought about welfare and this is the story we tried to tell where Hayek and Friedman even some other neoliberals have an idea of how you can still keep the welfare state but not make it as decommodifying or not make it as hostile to the market as it was in the mid-century and before and the basic income or cash transfers are actually their solution to this problem namely how can we have welfare without the welfare state and welfare without the welfare state is actually a phrase that was coined by the economist Arthur Kemp of the Montelerin Society in the 1960s it was a close affiliate of Friedman as well and he asked himself the question if we are to keep the welfare state but we want to make it friendly to the market what solution can we offer to it well the idea is that we can just send people money and when they receive the money they'll spend it on the market regardless and in that sense it keeps some essential aspects of the welfare state it will still provide security but it provides a very specific form of security that is distinct from the security people receive before


whatever you're watching right now you're tuning in on facebook or youtube or going on our website and maybe you've stumbled on this prayer right now we want to pray agree with you and this prayer is going to be specifically against addictions to heroin cocaine gambling obsessive maybe eating all kinds of video games or pornography or whatever grip of the devil the devil has against you as a church we are praying right now for you to experience that freedom whatever you are there right now sitting just confess your sin to Jesus ask him to forgive you ask him to cleanse you right now from the sin receive that gift of no condemnation and as we pray for you right now just open your heart that holy spirit will touch you in the name of Jesus church let's just pray for them right now father in the name of Jesus I ask you the distance is not a barrier I pray that you will begin to just touch every person that is watching this video right now every person that is watching this service right now holy spirit that the distance is not a barrier to you right there in their country in their house right there in that part of the house that you will visit them that the addiction to drugs is going to be broken right now in the name of Jesus that addiction to alcohol is going to be broken right now in Jesus name that that addiction to smoking that addiction to pornography and that addiction to gambling and that addiction to all kinds of perverted sex in the name of Jesus Christ that it will be broken that addiction to video games that it will be broken over your life in Jesus mighty name all kinds of strange addictions, eating strange things like ice cubes and eating all kinds of things like toilet paper and sand and all kinds of weird things that addictions every spirit of bondage we come against you right now in Jesus name we break your grip right now over the lives of the people that are watching this and we release freedom to come wherever you are at right now the Holy Spirit is touching your body the Holy Spirit is bringing that there's those cravings are leaving right now in Jesus mighty name that urge is leaving right now in Jesus mighty name some of you you just need to throw away those cigarettes right now and you will experience the freedom in your life for you are watching this right now Holy Spirit fill the room fill them right now with your presence and with your glory fill them with just a miracle from you in Jesus mighty name we pray thank you for praying with us I know that God did something right to us let us know comment below so that we can celebrate with you in Jesus name


All right next up. We have Zephyr giving a talk on symbolic computing moving on moving on up Please give him a warm tour con. Welcome. Thank you guys Gosh, how are you guys doing for tour con 20? It's been so long. I Actually remember when I was in high school. I think this was to her con seven We've gave a talk about tour hidden Unknown it's unknown what he gave a talk about he mentioned. He was really high on LSD about halfway through and It it was a talk it really went from topic to topic. There was accusations.  It was a great talk But I wondered you know as he got into his description of How he had come to give this talk and why this talk was was important, which didn't make any sense at all I I wondered like what kind of conference would possibly host such a An event and so when I had my own stream of consciousness based presentation, I knew who to take it to Anyway, this is about symbolic execution, which I have been I have been dealing with now for How I would say the past three years I'm sure many of you here have heard of symbolic execution Maybe even part of like, you know a more broad temperamentally aligned dynamic taint analysis Or maybe like particular pieces of tooling like when the cyber grand challenge happened A tool called anger came out of that and that's been been of considerable interest And Just going over, you know what symbolic execution is You know rather than some vague description of it. It's really quite simple You provide symbols rather than concrete input as arguments to functions and there's a variety of ways that you can manipulate these symbols a very very common if antiquated method is to supply some kind of Transformation some description of what a transformation entails on each symbolic variable And then as you go through the program just as if you were running in an emulator You make a note of that again very similar to dynamic taint analysis Once you're at the end of that the end of that being some arbitrary slice of the time that it took for a Program to get from either, you know one basic block to another or from, you know, some wall clock time to another you can Create the set of Transformations that happen to that variable and then run that through something like a SAT solver and SMT solver some general purpose Solver for determining what input yields what output which if you're writing computer exploits You know, that's critical like that's a that's a huge feature if you can determine What do I need to provide to this function as input in order to get it to be in this state? if that state is even possible to be in and even more broadly like there are tools that exist that can make a They can produce a general memory model of a computer program and that memory model is Subject to all kinds of interesting restrictions about what kinds of things that can handle but in general it allows you to work with the the most basic case of Here's a sized allocation I have somehow or another gotten the ability to write out of the boundaries of this sized allocation and That's a bug. Tell me about any condition that that can happen in either in tandem with a fuzzer or Through, you know, some some mechanism like I was discussing earlier I'm not gonna talk too much about the history. I originally intended this talk to be, you know full Complete understanding of how symbolic execution works and what it what it entails and that was a little bit optimistic This this is just the the original is a paper called select and Select just in a sentence or two told you everything that I just spent the past five or ten minutes doing Symbolic execution precedes a normal execution except the values may be symbolic formulas over the input symbols Just like solving for x with you know, your algebra problem from from middle school high school, whatever You can solve for x with a little bit more complex rules Just instead of the the rules of equality and transitivity and all that you you have the the rules of x86 or you know See standard, whatever whatever is appropriate All right Select a fantastic computer program really groundbreaking And paper called effigy came about which for reasons that are some combination of politics and chance takes off And this methodology of symbolic execution remains influential in Program verification for years, but it takes a few more until computers are fast enough and the state of research is At the point where it is Being applied by non-academics to the question of can we find exploitable vulnerabilities in computer programs using symbolic execution and There's been a lot of doubts about whether this is a feasible path forward. I mean, I know that Elkheim tough Who's the author of AFL as well as Poff if you've ever used that You know, he he he basically ground it down and said this will never be used to find any non-trivial number of vulnerabilities in real computer systems and I think I'm I'll be happy to tell you that I Actually show off a few vulnerabilities Including one zero day So get out your cameras And it's it is indeed difficult and it's a much different procedure than fuzzing But I think that at the end of this talk you you'll have the power to Work with a lot of these tools like CNBC, CLEE, whatever the case may be and find and exploit a very basic stack or heap overflow Before we get into that, you know, why should you use a? You know tool that employs symbolic analysis or or more abstractly the abstract analysis of computer programs You know, it's it's tough to to say I mean you always will have a manual analysis given sufficient focus will be superior to any other form of analysis that I can foresee in the near future, but a Tool like CLEE is going to be able to give you very fine-grained analysis of what conditions can be systematically proper can be problematic and What can be detected and What kinds of conditions can be detected that result in? Whatever memory corruption or or who knows Memory leaks, however It's really slow though. I can tell you that even tracing through Some of the variables that I had in Erlang the Erlang runtime system is one of the vulnerabilities I'm going to discuss finding here You know, obviously Erlang is interpreted computer programming language. It's You know, there's bytecode instructions and then it calls out to C programs and Tracing the value of a variable through early I mean it took overnight before I was able to see this relatively modest set of transformations that were applied to a particular variable within the beam virtual machine I Got I told you guys a little bit about what got me interested in this Again, like lots of people on IRC will tell you that it's useless and and they don't usually have very good reasons for why it's useless I don't have a background in in sat solvers or symbolic execution or or anything like that I I come from the world of finding vulnerabilities memory corruption bugs and you know corresponding exploits in those bugs What is this new symbolic execution thing? How can it benefit me? I did a ton of work to try to build myself up to the point where I Could you know have a firm grasp of what is entailed in symbolic execution? I actually wrote my own sat solver. I watched on video lectures. I even wrote my own like What you might call a lifter, which is like a basic highly idealized description of the behavior of x86 instructions, which is Really really quite quite challenging like there are hundreds of x86 instructions and once you think you know like how Complex x86 is like you don't yet know how complex like no matter how complex you've said it to be it is yet more complex than that and Once you you think you're at the limit, then you haven't yet considered like rap or shift left or all these other instructions that are just Bizarrely extremely complex And so by watching this talk you can all avoid the hassle of doing this and you won't ever need to write a Description of the transformations that particular x86 instructions entail So that when you write your p-trace based What a description of the state changing of the state of a register you can just say no, that's that's useless I Thought I had another slide here never mind So the very first vulnerability I found with this method and I think I'm gonna go a little bit into how I I found this But just as a description of what it is I said that here it's this is a CM yk color space bug But this is actually was a bug in the decoding of the Huffman tables. This was in the plan 9 JPEG library and Plan 9 I don't know if you guys have heard of it. It's a research operating system produced by Bell Labs a lot of people Who worked on it later became really well known? Rob Pike is Intimately tied with going and Kim Thompson who you know Unix all that kind of stuff so what I mean to say when I when I bring up all of these rather famous people is that it's a generally a very high quality code base and Despite a few nebulous conditions I think if you were to manually review plan 9 it would not be easy and furthermore If you wanted to write a fuzzer I Mean you can't really use AFL You're working in a system where you either need to use a port of the plan 9 utilities to a POSIX system or you Report AFL to some 90s research operating system So what I did was just as I as I described before I did this did this manually and that means breaking out an SMT solver and Hunkering over the Intel manual and you basically try to write something that describes What is the behavior of each x86 instruction and you don't need to do every instruction, of course There's been huge huge swaths of the set of x86 instructions that are Not going to be used and furthermore, you know the plan 9 x86 compiler doesn't even recognize and so it could never emit as the as the consequence of generating object code You do need to do everything that's within you know the program and That's still again hundreds of instructions and so This is actually I mean It's kind of ambiguous when I'm describing it to you here now but what you're ultimately doing here is Starting with the state of a computer program the state meaning not even necessarily the memory but what are the registers at this particular point and Given some highly idealized description of memory, which you can do in an SMT solver Give me the Give me the set of things the set of inputs that will cause this particular register To yield this particular output after these transformations have been applied to it And so if you're doing a loop or something like that, you know You just apply every one of those transformations and this big big list of transformations to every one of the registers And that's a very very narrow case of what symbolic execution can do That's that's like, you know, I that basically required me to have some high-level insight about Jesus about the Nature of what a computer vulnerability is and how computer vulnerability can be exploited so then I'm kind of you know Just doing the mechanics of how do I get from what I Suspect is a vulnerability to what is certainly exploitable using you know a SAT solver and That I would not recommend doing it but I do mention it because it is possible to do and If you have any friends that run plan 9 you can go check this function out I have on my github an image that generates That that's a proof of concept for this and you can You can pop their box if you if you were running into any corporate plan 9 networks So After I dealt with plan 9 I I don't want to turn this into a biography, but I do want to mention that Reasonable amount of time separated the the creation of this vulnerability in plan or the creation is exploit for plan 9 and the research that I was doing in the Erlang virtual machine and Does everyone here know what Erlang is or have you heard of Erlang? Okay, it's computer programming language I think that's suffice to say Interpret it as I mentioned before Very very large Source code. I mean it's been built up over years It's a real computer program and I think that it's not crazy to imagine that it is within an order of magnitude of some other computer programs that you might want to Evaluate like Whatever open office or Adobe or Word or a web browser So the technique that I took with this one was to You know try a bunch of different concocted execution engines symbolic execution engines Dynamic trained taint analysis to try to figure out where in Erlang might be the greatest source of vulnerabilities and In the end I to find this bug I used a tool called CLEE, which I'm going to get into a little bit later It's a tool produced by University of Stanford. I believe and a Critical aspect of symbolic execution that I didn't get into in in the the previous description of plan 9 because it was such a Narrow view into the behavior of the JPEG parser within plan 9 You need to if you are evaluating a C program for example You need to prune out everything that is not conceivably exploitable or that you don't believe could be reasonably exploited by Some intelligent human I I don't and the intuition for this is totally a result of writing software and Breaking other people's software and I don't know if there's anything that I could give you that could tell you like Here's what you need to look for beyond the basics of like, you know, if they're not doing any sized allocations and it's just Arithmetic that doesn't control the behavior of any later allocations, then you can forget that just as an example You need to hone in on what you think is really Harry code extract that code out into some place where you can run a simple a Simple test input against that bug just like you were if you were doing a fuzzer Right like you would want to create a test harness for some set of code that you were interested in And it's the same with symbolic execution except maybe a little bit more refined in what you want to be extracted So I took out a piece of the regular expression matching code The bug is actually in yeah compiled regular expressions within Erlang and I did just this I took out a huge swath of it used a piece of software called niffy which a native native function in Erlang is called niff and You you replace all of the elements of it that are You have immediate control over as a user and replace here means very simply let's see here Sorry, I don't have it included in here, but Klee makes symbolic. That's a function name Klee makes symbolic is A tool that indicates to Klee. I'm going to want you to treat this as if You had control over its its value and that may not be true And you can subject Klee to various assumptions about what kinds of values you can provide if that's if that's something that you need to do But in the end I think as I as I told you I Found a actually I think I found the very first remotely exploitable vulnerability in Erlang I don't know if that's true or not. I The first CVE for it. I didn't register the CVE and so I I have I have not taken a serious look into it And I also found some vulnerabilities in PCRE that were totally unrelated as well as Found some vulnerabilities that had already been fixed in PCRE that were were fixed upstream PCRE by the way is pearl compatible regular expressions It's a widely used regular expressions library Okay, so how do you How do you do this like where if you want to get your feet wet? Where do you get start? There's three tools that I would recommend to you and once you start taking a look at these I think you will immediately branch out into all of the wide world of other things that that Abstract analysis of computer programs is concerned with CNBC Klee manticore. I haven't used manticore nearly as much. It's something new by trail of bits or something like that I I I can't I don't include any information about it, but I have heard really great things about it CNBC and Klee I have used extensively though, and so I'm gonna try to show you guys what exploiting a basic like You know aleph one smash in the stack for fun and profit style vulnerability looks like inside of these two tools This is a CBMC tool from Oxford as part of the Seaf Prover set of tools Primarily interested in program correctness and Verification, but it does indeed have a lot of facilities for the conditions that I described earlier, which Basically are writing outside of a region that you should be able to write outside of So if you if you create a new C file with this simple, you know overflow oops Obviously, you know 16 by buffer overflow, you know unchecked string copy If you run CNBC on this alone, which is just you know dot slash CNBC Provided trace unwinded pointer check if you call this with even without a any kind of special indication that it should check This it'll let you know hey this is something that's could be very bad and this can be a little bit tricky in bigger programs because it looks at The translation unit of a C program when it is making these judgments about Where the checking on variables is and sometimes that's not the case So sometimes there's actually you know just like we're calling overflow here like overflow is safe If we check the length of the string prior to passing in The string argument, I'll you mean safe in quotes. It's theoretically, okay However the check for the safety of that property can occur anywhere in a computer program but CNBC isn't necessarily going to be aware of that because it doesn't have high-level heuristics about that kind of thing But The vast majority of vulnerabilities don't fit into that category So you're gonna be great if you look at something that you suspect is some Harry C code It will quickly let you know with a whole lot less false positives than something like rats or ITS for I don't know what the current state of the art for like static analysis is or Sigital I have never used it, but I assume some people here have And It's very similar with clean here's here's clean make symbolic with clean makes it with clean you're gonna want to indicate Hey, I'm passing in a symbolic value, which is string to overflow and Not only is this symbolic in the terms of the content it's symbolic in terms of the length up to this value and You can do that in two ways you can indicate with With just like a loop like you can create a statically sized string and say for every value of this You can just loop over and say clean makes symbolic of this particular value or Clean makes symbolic actually provides a facility for Passing an additional argument with Var Args for hey, this is a Unsized buffer. Let me let me know what what you think of it And Klee if you run it Klee works a little bit differently.  Well, if you provide string equals char of blah blah blah blah blah up to some ridiculously huge number you're gonna have a problem and indeed that would cause a segmentation fault and You can also use Klee to test for heap overflows as well, but There is within Klee a simple a Simple model of an allocator that I don't to be frank understand adequately to be able to describe to you what it's To what granularity it's it's capable of understanding the behavior of Blocks like you know you allocate a block you allocate an adjacent block you overwrite that adjacent blocks heap chunk metadata I don't think it has an enough understanding to know what is gonna go on unless you provide the source code to an allocator Which if allocator your your program has been compiled with but that's gonna make it a lot slower as well So what you're gonna do with heap overflows is very similar to what you're doing with stack overflows, which is that you just look for a Pointer into an area with that you do not you should not control and what can give me that kind of of a value for a pointer and This is great. I mean this This works because Klee and CNBC and tools like this detect buffer overflows And I suppose that a a heap and a stack overflow are both part of this broader category of buffer overflows But if you're doing something against an allocator that relies on the behavior of The allocator to trigger the vulnerability like in this piece of code here where realloc doesn't actually Doesn't actually perform a check for the size of the newly allocated block So it will take an existing block Just have a free list that indicates oh, I've just changed the size of this update the associated heap trunk metadata You allocate another block will that block if it's within the same arena that is to say it's of the approximately the same size It will allocate it right next to it and so now you have a memory leak of what was previously in there You have the heap trunk metadata for what was previously in there You can change the heap trunk metadata for what is previously in there and then in the original block You can whatever call free or something on I forget the exact details of whether you need to coalesce blocks or whether you need to free or what the what the There's always a million different ways to exploit allocators and there you can get quite sophisticated, but in any case it doesn't matter because Symbolic analysis wouldn't be able to tell you that this is the path you need to take So you know not to say that a fuzzer could either but if you're hoping for some really high-level Understanding of computers and you know the organization of a C program. You're not gonna get it. You're getting a pretty low level By the books Understanding of if this allocation occurs outside of the region. It should then Excuse me if this right occurs outside of a region. It should then that's bad and if not, it's okay All right, yeah, as I as I mentioned before I couldn't figure out a way to to make this work with a but symbolic analysis And as I said, you you often need this frying fine grain model and symbolic analysis just cannot provide that But symbolic analysis will and if you get into all of these tools, you know, you have a crash for example Just like I'm sure many of you have heard of the bit blaze project Clee has a very similar facility just inside of The the data that's generated by Clee you sign K test last or Clee last you can run K test on that and determine What happened to this variable prior to some crash? And I don't know if this is I didn't I didn't hit my little timer here So I don't know how much time I have left, but I am open to questions Nobody all right, that's that's it. Oh, what's up? You said Moe flow. I know I haven't I haven't I see I see no I Moe flow I have not what what's the story? I mean I see I see Oh Yeah I mean it always took me a little bit tricky to do binary analysis Symbolically, I mean it's outside of the most clear cases like segmentation faults It seems like a much trickier problem than we'd be just being supplied see code and Evidently there's people that are working on it though and you know BAP and and of course many other many other projects You're trying to do like binary analysis. I think that's actually what BAP stands for But no, I haven't that's great mofo. I'll take a look Anyone else right?


That's what I'm talking about. Good job, Rob. I ripped another pair, man. I got another one. Thank you. I better go put these on.


yki cyej toda d fishing yi il d basic constraints syな perta The developing seems some of their victims were RE-LEASED Djaling Ebis니 bar d the families of victims usually choose to conceal the dillings between edimม d a key na peract So did not know if rope must be for the release  characterize the hopes of all checking서멀 2018-ellen柄   し   June 1 0 m m m m m


Hi there and welcome. Thank you so much for joining us and tuning in today. We're coming to you live for the first time since the pandemic has us all quarantined and kind of shut in. But here we are with with masks and proper social distancing because we felt it was important for you to share in this moment with us. It's a very significant moment for us. And in order for me to share exactly how significant this moment is, I really need to set the stage. DAP is entering its centennial year in September. We're remarking that 100 years the same way we do every day, which is by providing services, voluntary services, employment services, medical benefit services to disabled veterans, veterans and their families as we do every day. But we're also going to be looking back and reflecting on the last 100 years of the events, the people, the veterans who have really built this organization into what it is today and who have propelled our mission from its humble beginnings back in 1920 to where we are today. And as part of that commemoration, as part of that looking back, we're actually going to be casting and creating a large bell. It's going to be a ceremonial bell that will live at national headquarters, very large, very heavy bell, as you can imagine. And it will have artwork and script on it that tells the story of those first 100 years. So that sets the stage where we are now. Now, the part of that bell is going to be, of course, all of the bronze that goes into creating it. But some of the metal in that bell is going to be cast from sacred pieces from our history. Those include a World War One helmet like this replica here. There will be metals from various eras. There will also be a piece of shrapnel from the Marine Corps barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983. And living with that, cast together with that, will be a piece of this sacred metal right here, the sacred steel. And I'm joined here today by Aaron Clark, who is a Marine Corps veteran, a DAV life member. And he's here on behalf of FDNY Fire Family Transport, which is a charity that reminds me a little bit of DAV's transportation network in some ways, and they provide for the transportation needs of injured FDNY members and their families and military members. And he has driven all the way down here from New York to Cold Spring today to deliver this this sacred artifact. Thank you so much for joining us. Yeah, and can you tell me about this this piece? Yeah, so this piece was given to me by the FDNY Fire Family Transport. I believe it was cut on on Memorial Day.  He wanted to make sure that you that the DAV received a piece of steel to put into your commemorative belt. So you contacted me today, let's try to make this happen. And you know, due to COVID, the airlines weren't able to manage it, so I said it was driving us down here so much. So you drove it down? Yeah. And you know, I should mention with Danny, because he's a friend of DAV's, a supporter of ours, and of course the supporter of yours, a longtime firefighter. Danny is a Coast Guard veteran as well as a Navy veteran, but anytime you can work for Coast Guard in there, you cannot forget our coasties. Yeah, they'd get on us if we don't forget them. So it's important that we mentioned that. And so as I mentioned, this artifact, this sacred piece of steel is going to live, be cast into this belt, it's going to be part of our history, it's going to be there forever as part of the centennial. And it's going to be with those other items, you know, all the way back to World War I. And of course we're honored by that.  Well, as a fireman, I was telling you earlier, my house lost 15 members, the city itself lost 343 members. The amount that the military has given to our fire department, our city, for that day, you know, it's so significant. And to have a piece of this honored by the DAV, it just kind of comes together. You know, as a Marine, I think that, you know, to serve my country and to serve my city, it's a great thing that you guys are doing. We can't thank you enough. Number one, for this donation, and again to to FDNY, Fire Family Transport, but also special thanks to you for, again, taking the time, come down here with your family, with your dog, and driving all the way down here from New York to Cold Spring and delivering this. As part of, if you want me to mention that this is part of DAV's 100 Acts of Honor, which is a way that anyone around the country can do a volunteer, a good deed for a veteran, and share that on social media, on Facebook, on Instagram, just using that hashtag, hashtag 100 Acts of Honor. One more question I wanted to ask you about, you know, when I think about, I look back to 9-11, and I had just started working at DAV right after that, and I was surprised to learn about all the different missions of this organization. And one of the things that really surprised me was that we had claims benefits experts, our DAV NSOs, down providing disaster relief to the firefighters who were down down there who were affected. They were down at the Port Authority providing that disaster relief. What, how does that make you feel as a firefighter and a DAV member? It's extremely proud. It's also, for the DAV, it's just something that DAV would have done anyway. And the DAV, it's a great organization. I can never, I speak highly of it on a daily basis to all the veterans that are in my firehouse, everyone that I know.  Well, Aaron, thank you so much for joining us. I'm going to let you take us out with a shout out to your latter company, your voice background that you both mentioned. Yeah, I'm with my latter company four in Manhattan, engine 54, latter four in Battalion 9. And, you know, like I said, it's always an honor to be representative of the Fire Department, the Fire, FDMI, Fire Family Transport, and to help veterans that are always in need and to be a part of this. So thank you very much. Thank you, Aaron.