If the boot loader to your Windows Server 2008 machine gets corrupted or deleted for whatever reason, it really is a painstaking process to get it fixed.  The boot loader to my machine got deleted somehow while I was resizing partitions.  After scouring the web, I could not find anything on rebuilding the boot loader for Windows Server 2008.  All I could find were instructions to restore a Windows Vista boot loader, but luckily, the process for Server 2008 is similar.

If you are getting a “bootmgr is missing” error upon startup or something similar, repairing the boot loader will probably fix the problem.

Due to the lack of recovery tools on the Server 2008 installation CD, the boot loader must be rebuilt manually.

For this guide, I’m going to assume your installation has a drive letter of C:.

Insert the Server 2008 installation CD into your DVD-ROM.  Restart your computer and boot from the CD.

Choose to repair your computer, then open the command prompt.

At the command prompt, use the following commands:

c:
cd boot
bootsect /nt60 c: /force /mbr
bootrec /rebuildbcd

After using the “bootrec /rebuldbcd” command, you will be prompted to accept a Windows installation.  Accept the installation, then wait for the process to finish.  Once it’s done, reboot your comptuer and you should have a boot loader ready to go.

I recently came across an application provided by Intel for the purpose of benchmarking NAS devices (Define: Network Attached Storage).  I’ve been looking for a solution to benchmark the new RAID-5 array I created on my Windows Server 2008 server (I love the RAID’s redundancy, but the write speeds are quite low).  I wanted to get a better idea of its performance, as Windows will report 250 – 150 MB READS and 20 – 50 MB WRITES, which is considerably poor considering the 4 drives are individually benchmarked at ~100 MB READS and 60 MB WRITES (They are Western Digital Caviar Blues / RE3 / RE16).

The software can be found here or from Intel here.

System Specifications:

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 2008 Enterprise Edition, SP1
CPU Type: Pentium 4 630, 3000 MHz w/ Hyperthreading
Motherboard Name: Dell Dimension 8400
Motherboard Chipset: Intel Alderwood i925XE
Motherboard Frontside Bus Speed: 800 MHz
System Memory (RAM): 4 GB, Dual Channel
System Memory Speed / Timings: DDR2-533 (266 MHz) / 4-4-4-12
Hard Drive Controller Interface: SATA I (1.5 Gbits / s) = 150 MB/s (maximum)
Hard Drives: Western Digital

• Drive #1 – WDC WD5002ABYS-01B1B (465 GB)
• Drive #2 – WDC WD5002ABYS-01B1B (465 GB)
• Drive #3 – WDC WD5000AAKS-00A7B (465 GB)
• Drive #4 – WDC WD5000AAKS-00A7B (465 GB)
• Drive #5 – WDC WD800BB-00JHC0 (74 GB) – SYSTEM

Raid Configuration: Software 4 disk RAID-5 (4 x 500GB, 1.36 TB Effective Storage Space)

System Memory Benchmark: Copy – 4790 MB/s, Read – 6266 MB/s, Write – 3341 MB/s, Latency – 92.7 ns
System Processor Benchmark: CPU ZLib – 10592 KB/s, CPU AES  – 3055

Benchmarks completed using Everest Ultimate Edition v4.20.1257

All drives are SATA II (3.0 GB/s) but are running in backwards-capability mode.

The primary roles of the server is to serve files and store backups (File Server) and web and application development and website hosting (Web Server).  I do not stream media, play music from the server or write extremely large amounts of data that are time sensitive.  Therefore, my decision for RAID-5 was based on the space savings (n – 1) storage availability and the redundancy by means of the parity.  I am willing to give up performance (write and read) for storage space and redundancy, but I want to know how much I’m actually giving up.

Tests

• HD Video Playback, 2x HD Video Playback, 3x HD Video Playback, 4x HD Video Playback

These benchmarks examine the behavior of the NAS unit while (simultaneously) playing one or more HD video files at 720p using Windows Media Player. Intel gives a percentage rate for the sequential reading of data in these tests, which lies at 99.5% for the HD Video Playback Test. With 2x HD Video Playback, it lies at 18.1%. The result is 6.6% with 3x HD Video Playback and 9.6 % with 4x HD Video Playback.

• HD Video Record

This test writes an HD Video file in 720p format to the NAS unit. This test is made of up of mostly sequentially transferred data.

• HD Video Playback & Recording

HD Video Play & Record examines the behavior of the NAS unit when simultaneously reading and writing an HD Video file in the 720p format. The sequentially-transferred data in this test is approximately 18% of the test.

• HD 2x Playback 2x Record

This benchmark is similar to the one above, but the proportion of sequential file operations is 3%.

• HD Playback With Office

This metric measures the data transfer rates when an HD Video file is read from the NAS unit while working with the Office applications. This test is made up of 608 files. The proportion of sequential file operations is 53.2%.

• HD Playback With Backup

Like the previous test, but this time an HD Video file is played while simultaneously carrying out a backup on the NAS unit.

• Content Creation

This benchmark is made up of 95% write operations to the NAS unit. This simulates the creation of files on the NAS unit such as is the case when, for example, using video editing programs.

• File Copy To NAS / File Copy From NAS

These tests determine the data transfer rate when copying files to or from the NAS unit. In both of these test processes, a 4 GB file is copied. Unlike with Backup / Restore, 64 KB is read and written.

• Directory Copy From NAS / Directory Copy To NAS

Similar to the previous test, files are copied to and from the NAS unit. A total of 126 files with a total size of approximately 188 MB are written and read across the network.

• Photo Album

This test determines how the NAS unit handles the supply of a multitude of small files—for example, viewing digital photographs stored on the NAS unit. It simulates the viewing of a total of 169 photographs with an overall size of approximately 1.2 GB.

Considerations and Assumptions

These tests were conducted on the Server, not over the network, which will probably result in very high throughput.  I did this to get a feel for the actual performance, not that felt over the wire, and because I’m currently running 100 Mbps (Cat 5e) on my LAN, not gigabit.  Thus, I did not want the network to be the bottleneck in these tests, as it would be saturated and skew the results.

I ran the tests 6 times, in each, manipulating the environment to establish a real world benchmark.  Since this benchmark is done via an application, it will compete with other processes for resources.  Additionally, it will compete with the actual Operating System who is responsible for transfering the data to the disk and calculating the parity for the raid (which is quite memory and CPU intensive).  For test 6 I ran the system in Safe Mode, utilizing only necessary processes and services to run the operating system (Safe Mode without Networking).  Thus, the numbers are quite high.  In the others, I ran Outlook, SQL, browsed the internet and downloading files via torrents (to the actual RAID, so this will mess with the numbers as well) – not all at the same time, of course, except for test 4.

Results

Discussion

I attribute the absurd file copy speeds to caching and buffering at both the OS, RAID and the Drive level, as well as the writes for the video recording.  All in all, I’m pleased with the benchmarks and am satisfied with the set up.  One thing to note is that the tests were done from the SYSTEM drive to the RAID, and thus, the SYSTEM drive introduced an additional bottleneck as the transfers from it to the RAID were going to be quite slow (the drive is benchmarked at ~56MB READ and ~30 WRITE).

<djahandarie> we ain’t here to do e-c-e
<djahandarie> we’re here to do c-s-e on the w-e-b
<djahandarie> listen to me spit these rhymes
<djahandarie> while i program lines
<djahandarie> and commit web accessibility crimes
<djahandarie> word, son
<http402> You talk like your big on these I-Net kicks,
<http402> But your shit flows slower than a two-eighty-six.
<http402> I’m tracking down hosts and nmap scans,
<http402> While Code Igniter’s got you wringing your hands.
<http402> Cut the crap rap,
<http402> Or I’ll run ettercap,
<http402> Grab your AIM chat,
<http402> N’ send a PC bitch-slap!
<http402> peace
<djahandarie> you’re talkin bout down hosts and nmap scans
<djahandarie> while i got other plans
<djahandarie> you’re at your new job, but you can’t even do it right
<djahandarie> you just create a plight with your http rewrites
<djahandarie> i’ve been on the web since the age of three
<djahandarie> you just got on directly off the bus from mississippi
<djahandarie> respect yo’ elders, bitch
<http402> You’ve been webbin’ since three, but still ain’t grown up,
<http402> Gotta update your config and send the brain a SIGHUP.
<http402> You say you’re that old? No wonder you’re slow!
<http402> You’re knocking at the door while I run this show!
<http402> Elders my ass, you’re shit’s still in school,
<http402> Hunt and pecking at the keyboard like a spaghetti-damned fool,
<http402> Rim-riffing your hard drive like a tool,
<http402> Face it. I rule.
<djahandarie> i erase my harddrives with magnets (bitch)
<djahandarie> all you can do is troll on the fagnets
<djahandarie> and son, my brain’s wrapped in a nohup
<djahandarie> it wont be hurt by the words you throwup
<djahandarie> dont mind me while i emerge my ownage
<djahandarie> while you’re still over there apt-getting your porridge
<djahandarie> you say i’m still in school
<djahandarie> but the fact is that i know the rule
<djahandarie> cuz you need to go back to grade three
<djahandarie> and you better plea, that they take sucky graduates from c-s-e
<http402> Time to bend over and apply a patch,
<http402> Your brain’s throwing static like a CD with a scratch.
<http402> Your connection got nuked and you’ve met your match.
<http402> You run a single process like a VAX with a batch.
<http402> I’d pass the torch to a real winner
<http402> But it’d just scorch a while-loop spinner
<http402> Caught in a loop that you cant escape,
<http402> I run clock cycles around your words and flows,
<http402> Cuz your rhyme is like a PS fan: it’ blows,
<http402> Your water-cooled lyrics leak and it shows,
<http402> Take your ass back to alt.paid.for.windows.
<djahandarie> Good god, I can’t even respond to that.
<djahandarie> You win haha
* http402 takes a bow

Iraq boots out the Americans

Nov 20th 2008 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition

WHEN General David Petraeus, now America’s most celebrated military commander, arrived in Iraq in 2003 at the head of an airborne division, he asked a journalist: “Tell me how this ends?” For years nobody had a good answer. But now, thanks to a military pact between America and Iraq, a conclusion is in sight: America’s war in Iraq will end in three years’ time, with American troops being shown the door and Iraqi politicians competing to claim credit for getting rid of the foreigners.

A “withdrawal agreement” approved by the Iraqi cabinet on November 16th requires American troops to pull out of Iraqi towns and cities by the end of June next year, and to leave Iraq altogether by December 31st 2011. Those deadlines, said Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, in a televised address, would not be extended. The deal was not perfect, but marked “a solid start for Iraq to regain its full sovereignty in three years.”

There were no secret articles, he said, and there would be no permanent American bases. Iraq could not be used to attack others (ie, Syria or Iran). There would be, he promised, “no detainees any more, no detention centres any more, no searches or raids of buildings or houses, until there is an Iraqi judicial warrant and it is fully co-ordinated with the Iraqi government.”

This is a big moment for America and Iraq, yet the Iraqi government was more regretful than jubilant, calling the deal the best it could achieve after more than a year of negotiations. The Bush administration, now in its last weeks in power, made several concessions. It had long opposed any notion of a fixed timetable for withdrawal, saying any troop pull-out had to be based on security conditions on the ground. The White House said the new deadlines were “aspirational”, but the text leaves less wiggle-room; clauses allowing for a review of the deadline, and the possibility that some American troops would stay on to train and support Iraqi forces, have been deleted. Security has improved markedly. But the political context has also shifted against the Bush administration—and the Iraqis have got their timetable.

In America, Ike Skelton, chairman of the House armed services committee, a Democrat, said he was worried by provisions that could result in American troops facing prosecution in Iraqi courts. But the text suggests that this is a remote possibility. Iraq has legal jurisdiction over American troops only in cases of “major and intentional crimes”, and even then only when they are outside their bases and off-duty.

The agreement should make life easier for Barack Obama, although there is some dispute as to whether it will have to be ratified by the American Congress. The deal supports the president-elect’s principle of a firm timetable for leaving Iraq, but allows him to draw out the process beyond the 16-month withdrawal he promised in his campaign. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said America had so much equipment that it would take two or three years to withdraw completely—security conditions permitting.

The agreement was strongly endorsed by the Iraqi cabinet but its passage through the Iraqi parliament, which could vote on it as early as November 24th, is less assured. There were brawls among the lawmakers when it was discussed on November 19th.

In a country with a history of intense opposition to military pacts with an invading power, the deal could polarise opinion. Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia cleric who heads a powerful (though now dormant) private army, oppose the treaty and demand an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most senior Shia cleric, says any agreement had to restore Iraqi sovereignty and win “national consensus”. But he did not oppose it, which supporters take as tacit assent.

Some Sunnis want the agreement to be put to a referendum. Another contentious issue is the status of some 17,000 (mostly Sunni) prisoners in American hands. The Iraqi government is due to take responsibility for them, but some Sunni leaders want them all released.

Iran is equivocal. The speaker of its parliament, Ali Larijani, said America was seeking to turn Iraq into a vassal. But the leader of Iran’s judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi Shahrudi, said the Iraqi government “has done very well”. Some interpret this as Iranian endorsement. But like so much else in Iran, it is hard to pick out a genuine signal from the political noise.

By Alexis Madrigal October 06, 2008 | 11:00:00 PM

FREMONT, California — Solar cells have been converting sunlight into electricity for years, but scientists have been much less successful at turning that technology into money.

Now, in a staid Bay Area office park, a converted hard-drive factory with a shiny new façade has begun churning out unconventional solar tubes that could change the economics of solar power.

The highly-automated factory belongs to Solyndra, a three-year-old company that has received $600 million in venture capital and $1.2 billion in orders for its new modules, which look like curtain rods. Those big investors are betting the company’s unique product will soon blanket commercial buildings across the world.

Instead of the standard panels mounted on racks that have dominated solar for the last 20 years, Solyndra’s cylindrical solar modules collect sunlight more efficiently across a broader range of angles and catch light reflected off the roof itself. The solar cells also contain no silicon, which has been a costly component of most solar systems.

Targeted at a highly specific market — office and big-box rooftops — and with signed contracts in hand, the company, along with a small cadre of other well-funded solar startups, are racing to turn their scientific and engineering marvels into profitable businesses.

The scramble, the money, and the size of the prize — a big slice of the trillions of dollars made in energy — remind the company’s founder, Chris Gronet, of his earlier experience in the industry that became the basis for the information revolution.

“We think the solar industry or market look very similar to the way semiconductor manufacturing was 20 years ago,” Gronet, Solyndra’s CEO, told Wired.com. “We say, ‘Wow this is familiar. We’ve been through this before.’”

All types of solar power have experienced growth in the wake of increasing awareness of the risks of climate change and the rising costs of fossil fuels. A report released last week by Lux Research, a solar-focused analysis firm, predicts that the total solar market will grow from $33.4 billion in 2008 to $100.4 billion in 2013. While traditional silicon-based solar cells continue to underpin most solar systems, there is a broad expectation among industry analysts and insiders that these new thin-film solar cells, such as Solyndra is making, will experience rapid growth. While thin-film cells aren’t as efficient at using the sun’s energy as their silicon competitors, they cost less to produce.

Instead of using wafers of material, a la computer chips or traditional solar PV, thin-film solar cells use tiny amounts of material deposited in ultra thin layers along the surface of glass or metal. In Solyndra’s case, vice president of business development Kelly Truman said that their process uses just a bit more than a micron of copper indium gallium diselenide, or CIGS. Using less of the expensive photovoltaic material drives the cost of their production down.

For years, CIGS technology had appeared the most promising for cheap solar power. The National Solar Technology Roadmap, created by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, states that steady efficiency improvement “could ultimately allow CIGS to achieve the lowest module costs and levelized cost of energy among all PV technologies.”

The total solar market can be broken into three main pieces: solar for utilities, residential installations and commercial buildings. Solyndra is focusing exclusively on the commercial side. What Gronet envisions is solar panels installed on your average Home Depot or Ikea, generating a substantial percentage of the company’s power needs right on site.

On the roof of the Solyndra office buildings, they’ve installed the first Solyndra array. What’s striking about the system is how simple it appears: The solar tubes look like reverse fluorescent light bulbs that generate electricity rather than using it. The mounting system is also light and small, as you can see in the image. They don’t have to be bolted to roofs because the spacing between the cylinders makes them less susceptible to wind damage than traditional flat solar panels.

But despite the industry’s high hopes, CIGS solar cells have proven very difficult to manufacture at industrial scales. Greentech Media analyst Michael Kanellos said that the risks for CIGS thin-film players have “increased dramatically” over the last few months with the worsening financial system and increased competition.

“Some CIGS will survive, but a lot of these companies might only leave a wet spot on the pavement,” Kanellos wrote in an e-mail to Wired.com.

Kanellos noted that Solyndra’s cylindrical design was advantageous, but also the most difficult to manufacture.

“Everyone else is having trouble making efficient flat CIGS panels. Curving adds another layer of complexity,” Kanellos wrote. “It is part of the reason that their contracts call for the delivery of their solar panels from now to 2012.”

Only two other CIGS-based thin-film manufacturers have managed to start cranking out actual saleable product. Nanosolar and Global Solar started selling cells last year. Solyndra, after hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, generated its first revenue in the third quarter of this year.

If Gronet and his team can work out the manufacturing challenges and navigate the difficult financial waters, their unique design and tightly focused business model could lead them to profitability, even after government subsidies in Europe phase out.

“In any unsubsidized world, which is a few years down the road, you need a cost structure that allows you to compete,” Gronet said. “Our panel, because it’s CIGS and thin film, will beat the costs of any silicon system.”

WiSci 2.0: Alexis Madrigal’s Twitter , Google Reader feed, and webpage; Wired Science on Facebook.

Jonathan Fahey, 07.31.08, 2:30 PM ET

MIT professor Daniel G. Nocera has long been jealous of plants. He desperately wanted to do what they do–split water into hydrogen and oxygen and use the products to do work. That, he figures, is the only way we humans can solve our energy problems; enough energy pours down from the sun in one hour to power the planet’s energy needs for a year.

In January, only a month after reevaluating his methodology in the face of a frustratingly slow process, he finally found a way. “For six months now I’ve been looking at the leaves and saying ‘I own you guys!’”

Nocera’s discovery–a cheap and easy way to store energy that he thinks will be used to change solar power into a mainstream energy source–will be published in the journal Science on Friday. “This is the nirvana of what we’ve been talking about for years,” said Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT. “Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited–and soon.”

Plants catch light and turn it into an electric current, then use that energy to excite catalysts that split water into hydrogen and oxygen during what is called photosynthesis’ light cycle. The energy is then used during the dark cycle to allow the plant to build sugars used for growth and energy storage.

Nocera and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera’s lab, focused on the water-splitting part of photosynthesis. They found cheap and simple catalysts that did a remarkably good job. They dissolved cobalt and phosphate in water and then zapped it with electricity through an electrode. The cobalt and phosphate form a thin-film catalyst around the electrode that then use electrons from the electrode to split the oxygen from water. The oxygen bubbles to the surface, leaving a proton behind.

A few inches away, another catalyst, platinum, helps that bare proton become hydrogen. (This second reaction is a well-known one, and not part of Nocera and Kanan’s study.)

The hydrogen and oxygen, separated and on-hand, can be used to power a fuel cell whenever energy is needed.

“Once you put a photovoltaic on it,” he says, “you’ve got an inorganic leaf.”

James Barber, a biochemistry professor at Imperial College London who studies artificial photosynthesis but was not involved in this research, called the discovery by Nocera and Kanan a “giant leap” toward generating clean, carbon-free energy on a massive scale.

“This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind,” he said. “The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated.”

Nocera’s discovery arose from frustration. Disappointed with the pace of his lab’s progress, Nocera and his team decided in December to question some of the basic assumptions they had made in setting up earlier experiments.

Chemists, it turns out, are always worrying about the stability of their catalysts and end up doing backflips to try to synthesize materials that won’t corrode. Photosynthesis, though, is so violently reactive that the catalysts involved break down every 30 minutes. The leaf has to constantly rebuild them. Maybe, thought Nocera, instead of fighting corrosion, he should work with it. “It’s a bias a lot of scientists have. We want something to be structurally stable. But all it has to be is functionally stable.”

This thinking led Nocera to try his cobalt-phosphate mixture. He knew it wouldn’t hold together, but he thought it might still work. Sure enough, Nocera’s catalyst breaks down whenever the electricity is cut, but it assembles itself again when electricity is reapplied.

Nocera’s discovery is still a science experiment. It needs plenty of engineering before it can be a useful device. The cobalt and phosphate at the center of Nocera’s work is cheap and plentiful, but the hydrogen reaction uses platinum, which is rare and expensive. The electrode needs to be improved so the oxygen-making process can speed up. And the system needs to be integrated into some kind of electricity-producing device, ideally powered by solar or wind on one end and a fuel cell on the other.

But splitting the oxygen away from the water was the hard part, and Nocera has done it. “Now we can start thinking about a totally distributed solar [photovoltaic] system,” he said. “We couldn’t have a solar economy unless it could produce energy 24/7. Now we can.”

His hope is that because unlike traditional electrolysis devices, which are expensive and require toxic alkaline solutions, his system is so cheap, simple and benign that scientists and engineers around the world will be able to improve it quickly.

For his part, Nocera says he will work to understand and improve both sides of his new discovery. His lab will try to learn every detail about just how his catalyst is making the oxygen. And he is going to work with his engineering colleagues at MIT to try to integrate his storage device into systems that he hopes one day will power homes and cars all day and all night.

By ROBERT McMILLAN, IDG News Service\San Francisco Bureau, IDG

Published: July 24, 2008

Hackers have released software that exploits a recently disclosed flaw in the Domain Name System (DNS) software used to route messages between computers on the Internet.

The attack code was released Wednesday by developers of the Metasploit hacking toolkit.

Internet security experts warn that this code may give criminals a way to launch virtually undetectable phishing attacks against Internet users whose service providers have not installed the latest DNS server patches.

Attackers could also use the code to silently redirect users to fake software update servers in order to install malicious software on their computers, said Zulfikar Ramizan, a technical director with security vendor Symantec. “What makes this whole thing really scary is that from an end-user perspective they may not notice anything,” he said.

The bug was first disclosed by IOActive researcher Dan Kaminsky earlier this month, but technical details of the flaw were leaked onto the Internet earlier this week, making the Metasploit code possible. Kaminsky had worked for several months with major providers of DNS software such as Microsoft, Cisco and the Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) to develop a fix for the problem. The corporate users and Internet service providers who are the major users of DNS servers have had since July 8 to patch the flaw, but many have not yet installed the fix on all DNS servers.

The attack is a variation on what’s known as a cache poisoning attack. It has to do with the way DNS clients and servers obtain information from other DNS servers on the Internet. When the DNS software does not know the numerical IP (Internet Protocol) address of a computer, it asks another DNS server for this information. With cache poisoning, the attacker tricks the DNS software into believing that legitimate domains, such as idg.com, map to malicious IP addresses.

In Kaminsky’s attack a cache poisoning attempt also includes what is known as “Additional Resource Record” data. By adding this data, the attack becomes much more powerful, security experts say.

An attacker could launch such an attack against an ISP’s (Internet Service Provider) domain name servers and then redirect them to malicious servers. By poisoning the domain name record for www.citibank.com, for example, the attackers could redirect the ISP’s users to a malicious phishing server every time they tried to visit the banking site with their Web browser.

On Monday, security company Matasano accidentally posted details of the flaw on its Web site. Matasano quickly removed the post and apologized for its mistake, but it was too late. Details of the flaw soon spread around the Internet.

Although a software fix is now available for most users of DNS software, it can take time for these updates to work their way through the testing process and actually get installed on the network.

“Most people have not patched yet,” said ISC President Paul Vixie in an e-mail interview earlier this week. “That’s a gigantic problem for the world.”

Metasploit’s code looks “very real,” and uses techniques that were not previously documented said Amit Klein, chief technology officer with Trusteer.

It will probably be used in attacks, he predicted. “Now that the exploit is out there, combined with the fact that not all DNS servers were upgraded… attackers should be able to poison the cache of some ISPs,” he wrote in an e-mail interview. “The thing is we may never know about such attacks, if the attackers… work carefully and cover their tracks properly.”

Copyright 2008 IDG News Service. All Rights Reserved.

Poop Power

July 24, 2008 — Researchers have identified a climate-energy win-win, but it may put them in deep doo-doo.

That’s what happens when you study poop for a living. Michael Webber and Amanda Cuéllar of the University of Texas at Austin estimate that digesting all of the nation’s livestock manure to produce methane to burn for energy could supply more than 2 percent of the country’s electricity needs.

Meanwhile, the process would avoid the greenhouse gas emissions created by burning the equivalent amount of coal, and it would prevent the release of the super-potent greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide released by normal manure degradation, allowing for a double-whammy of greenhouse gas reduction.

The combined savings could reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from electricity by about 4 percent.

“We wanted to look at what would happen if we took all the manure in the nation, which is currently an environmental liability, and turned it into a commodity as a source of energy,” Webber said. The pair’s work is published today in Environmental Research Letters.

Livestock in the United States unload more than a billion tons of manure each year, most of which ends up in lagoons or other outdoor locations where it decomposes, emitting methane and nitrous oxide, greenhouse gases 21 and 310 times more potent at warming than CO2, respectively.

The proposed approach would send the manure to anaerobic digesters where microorganisms would produce biogas rich in methane that could be captured and burned for energy, releasing the less-potent greenhouse gas CO2. The remaining solids could be used for fertilizer.

This approach would reduce other problems associated with manure ponds, including odor, air pollution, and water pollution from runoff or groundwater contamination, Webber said.

Digesters exist in the United States, and many more are used in Europe. But this is the first time anyone has studied the total potential of biogas production in the United States, he added. “The numbers are big enough that they’re worth paying attention to.”

“This isn’t new technology. It’s not hard to implement,” he added. “It’s decades-old technology that’s ready to go right now. We just haven’t done it. We don’t have incentives.”

But now, the rising cost of energy and increasing drive to reduce greenhouse gases and generate renewable energy make this a better time than ever to consider this approach, Webber said.

“There are a lot of biofeedstocks that are receiving a lot of criticism,” Webber told Discovery News. “This one seems controversy-free. It’s a waste stream right now. It doesn’t fall into the trap of competing with food.”

“They paint a very rosy picture of biogas potential by considering all the animals in the country,” said Christopher Weber of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pa., who has studied greenhouse gas emissions from livestock.

Webber agrees that not all animals are kept in conditions where it would be easy to collect the manure. Large feedlots would be the best starting point. But his analysis provides an upper limit for what might be possible, he said.

Meat, especially red meat, has received recent attention as a less “green” diet choice than vegetables or fish because of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with its production, including from manure. Reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from manure improves the calculation, but it does not even the playing field, Weber said.

“It would do nothing about the carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in the production of the grain to feed the animals, which is another large chunk of the greenhouse gases associated with red meat production,” he said. Cows would continue to burp methane as part of their digestion, which is the largest source of methane in beef production.

“All in all, for grain-fed beef, I would think manure is responsible for a total of 20 percent of the life cycle emissions or so; a good start but certainly not enough to make beef on par with vegetables or fish in greenhouse gas production.”

Now, there are plenty of places to find resources on this issue, because it’s quite common to have to do so.  My issue, was a little different, in that there were multiple layers of security (authentication and authorization) for me to access the files that were needed.  Here’s what the setup looked like:

Web Server -> WorkGroup -> Firewall -> Domain -> File Server -> Network Share -> SAN

As you can see, there are several issues are hand.  Not only do the accounts have to exist to allow for this communication (and an Administrator account is the only way to go), all sorts of permissions have to be valid for this to function (ie. Local Permissions within each OS on each Server, NTFS (file permissions) on each local server, Access permissions through the Firewall, Access permissions of Domain Resources, Local process level permissions, etc).  It was a nightmare, but I believe I figured it out.

There are a few things that needed to be done in this situation.  First, the permissions on the SAN needed to allow Administrators full control.  Additionally, the local user on the file server needed to have administrative privileges, to both the system and the SAN, thus allowing the network share.   Next, the firewall rules needed to allow file traffic (I can’t remember the SMB ports right now – and Windows needs netBios and something else to let file transfers go through, as well as authentication).  Finally, the Web Server local user needs admin rights.

To get this to work, I needed everything involved to run with elevated privileges, from IIS, to each thread in the application.  Since there was going to be a large amount of file movement, as well as resource and memory manipulation, it’s required.

Therefore, the admin credentials were inputted into IIS to map the network share from the Web Server to the File Server.  Next, I had to impersonate the admin user in each thread within the application, a pain, but the guide can be found via Google (if I have time, I’ll track them down again). Next, the machine.config needed to be modified to allow the ASP.NET process to run with the elevated permissions.  The web.config needs to be altered to allow impersonation with the credentials as well.

Now here’s the kicker, and something that’s not quite known but buried within Microsoft’s documentation.  For this to work (Work Group computer to authenticate to another computer) is to mirror the accounts (same username and password) on both servers (these are local accounts, not domain accounts – since the share was local on the server, the domain can be bypassed. If it were a domain resource, we would have to authenticate via NTLM to an Active Directory server, which would have been a bit more complicated).  This allows the hash sent from one system to another to be identical, and thus, you will authenticate (if you know the username and password on one workgroup computer, and it’s the same on another, chances are you’re who you say you are).

This took me a week to figure out, which was not enjoyable.  I hope this saves you some time.

So I recently got bombarded with 2 infections of this pesky beast. Some variants are easy to remove (SpyBot can simply pull them out) but the variant I came across was resilient. It loaded a DLL into the Winlogon.exe (injection) executable file (the Windows process responsible for authentication to the Operating System – Windows cannot run without it) and ran from there. So you can’t kill the process, because the OS will reboot. You can’t delete the DLL file, because the OS has it locked. Basically, it’s like a tumor in the center of your brain… there’s really no winning.

There are a few solutions out there (very few) such as Bayles’ solution and this one from a poster on TechRepublic , but unfortunately, neither was any good for me. Bayles’ solution works for variants that inject into Explorer.exe, which is loaded once the OS is loaded and you log in. However, winlogon is loaded as one of the first steps in loading the registry, so it’s loaded even before you press control-alt-delete (it’s actually the process that shows you the login screen). The other solution could have worked had I had administrative privileges on my machine, but I did not (this is my work machine). Therefore, I had to find another solution to bypass the OS from reinfecting itself, but still have access to the underlying file system.

I could have removed the hard drive, but I did not have another laptop to install the HDD into. I couldn’t boot to the Recovery Console using an XP CD, because I did not know the Administrative password. So my solution? I booted the laptop using an Ubuntu Linux CD I had in my laptop bag. Here’s what I did.

1. Boot normally in Windows XP and get the names of the infected DLLs using Bayles’ method (again, pendmove won’t work because winlogon is placed in memory (with the infected DLL) before pendmove is loaded).
2. Reboot using Ubuntu CD – hit enter at the first screen (Run or Install Ubuntu)
3. Unmount the NTFS file system (on a typical installation, it will be the entire drive) – We do this because the standard driver file is a read-only NTFS driver.
4. Open a terminal and install the ntfs-3g packages
   1. sudo apt-get install ntfs-3g
5. Create mount point
   1. sudo mkdir /mnt/test
6. Mount the hard drive
   1. sudo mount -t ntfs-3g /dev/sda1 /mnt/test
      1. /dev/sda1 – is the partition we want to mount, yours may be different
      1. /mnt/test – is the directory in which to mount the partition
7. You can then browse to the windows/system32 directory and delete the infected DLLs (in my case the path was /mnt/test/windows/system32/sbbqikklll.dll)
8. Reboot and then you must run some scanners. I suggest running SpyBot to clean up the rest of the garbage, and then maybe an anti-virus scanner (I used Symantec Corporate). Finally, run the Windows Malware Removal Tool.
   1. This step is extremely important. This trojan downloads other infections to your systems (ads, other programs, etc). Who knows if these other files contain other viruses, trojans, keyloggers, etc.

I hope this helps. Contact me if you need any special assistance.