|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
That is, Microsoft said it, Sophos believed them....
Remind me to take anything Sophos says with a truckload of salt.....and to try
to sell them a famous bridge in Brooklyn...
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
I guess all of us not buying Linksys gear since yesterday did the trick. ;-)
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
I'd like to explain something slightly technical. There's an
article at <a
href="http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/none/299970-uninstall-
yahoo-mail-app-for-android-warns-lookout">securitywatch</a>
that claims that this "android threat" is now confirmed
again by the security researchers. What is their "evidence"?
...<br><br> IP addresses. Yep, they're claiming that IP
addresses, which clearly have never been spoofed ever in the
history of mankind (sarcasm), are identifying that because
it's a mobile source it must be from android.<br> I don't
think there is a facepalm for what an insult to basic
technology knowledge this is.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: davecb on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT |
PJ writes, about Facebook to Target Ads Based on App Usage
This may be a new way to
test IQs. If you are on Facebook after all this, how dumb are you?"
This
may be a screening test for low IQ, just like the totally implausible
emails from the finance minister of a small African country.
If you're
stupid enough to believe anything on facebook, you're probably stupid enough to
send an anonymous company your bank
password.
--dave
--- davecb@spamcop.net [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
What an amazing video. The amount of time and skill to make
it is even more amazing. I am an amateur watchmaker and can
really relate to making very small parts and how hard it is
to get everything right.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
I notice the same pattern here as I do with all "do gooder" projects.
Something only gets done as long as it creates a dependency on the ones
providing the "solution". Never does a solution involve making the
one being helped strong and independent. That is there is never enough help for
the one being helped to stand on his own two feet.
Why wasn't UEFI secure boot created in such a way that the end user holds the
keys? We certainly demand the keys when we buy a house or a car. Here we have
systems that we do our banking with, pay our bills, consult with doctors and we
do not own the keys for these systems. Why? What do we have to do to educate
the public about the bear trap they are about to put their foot into? Snap!
Ahhhhh! There goes my foot. Why didn't I see that?
I don't see the gov getting involved until the situation gets bad enough to
require "regulation" which is what the politicians want. Then they
can tame that "wild Internet" once and for all which gets back to the
first point. What's in it for them?
Do not expect solutions that are in you interest from the vendors, the
politicians, or the courts. If nothing is done from the grass-roots then we
will completely loose control of the Internet.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms | The
Linux Foundation
Booting Closed Operating
Systems
Obviously, a closed operating system could be booted identically
to an open one above and still retain all its secure features, since security is
guaranteed by control of the KEK which would remain in the hands of the
operating system vendor. However, Steven Sinofsky has suggested in his blog
posting “Protecting the pre-OS environment with
UEFI”:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-e
nvironment-with-uefi.aspx
that the average platform owner might wish to give
up control of the PK (and with it control of the signature database) to
Microsoft and the OEM suppliers of the platform.
This mode of operation runs
counter to the UEFI recommendation that the platform owner be
the PK controller
and would ensure that the Windows operating system would then become the only
bootable operating system on the platform, but we must agree that it is a
legitimate choice for an informed user to make voluntarily. It is enabled in our
blueprint above by allowing the Microsoft OEM ignition system to install the OEM
PK instead of generating a new PK specific to
the installation. This can be
achieved simply and securely because only the public half of the PK needs to be
carried by the ignition system to effect this lockdown of the platform. Such a
scheme is fully consonant with the current draft version of the Windows 8 UEFI
logo requirements.
The ability of the platform owner to regain control
should they desire it is guaranteed by the ability to securely reset the
platform back to setup mode.
PK is the Platform Key, intended to
be controlled by the Platform Owner as described on page 2. OEM stands for
Original Equipment Manufacturer. The PK is needed to introduce new KEKs (Key
Exchange Keys) allowing the platform owner to specify certification for booting
software. The The UEFI specification (version 2.3.1) covering Secure Boot is
2,139 pages although section 27 on security is only 74 pages should anyone be
interested.
Note the blog software induced space in the msdn.com supplied long
hand URL between the 'e' and 'n' in "environment" or see the original blog.
Accessing UEFI Specifications
requires registration and agreement to simple terms, preventing you from
redistribution or running test cases without license.
From the Conclusion of
the Linux Foundation document:
The UEFI secure boot facility is
designed to be readily usable by both proprietary and open operating systems to
improve the security of the bootstrap process. Some observers have expressed
concerns that secure boot could be used to exclude open systems from the market,
but, as we have shown above, there is no need for things to be that way. If
vendors ship their systems in the setup mode and provide a means to add new KEKs
to the firmware, those systems will fully support open operating systems while
maintaining compliance with the Windows 8 logo requirements. The establishment
of an independent certificate authority for the creation of
KEKs would make
interoperation easier, but is not necessary for these platforms to support open
systems.
So the real danger is in Microsoft pressuring the OEMs
into actually loading the Windows 8 operating system from it's presumed restore
partition before delivery and/or otherwise not allowing the user to reset the
platform to setup mode.
We can presume that Microsoft will do so for their
own Surface tablets should they actually come to market in emulation of Apple's
Walled Garden market binding of software and hardware closely
together.
Steven Sinofsky's blog post (the URL above, Protecting the pre-OS environment with UEFI) gives
the assurance "Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware
that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than
Windows", which is a bit of a fainthearted assurance, but goes
further:
Microsoft supports OEMs having the flexibility to decide
who manages security certificates and how to allow customers to import and
manage those certificates, and manage secure boot. We believe it is important to
support this flexibility to the OEMs and to allow our customers to decide how
they want to manage their systems.
So Microsoft isn't mandating
who manages security certificates (through control of the Platform Key). It
doesn't say they wouldn't offer better prices if the OEMs pre ceded control to
Microsoft, nor does it require OEMs provide platforms capable of being
controlled by the purchaser. 'Customers' could mean either end users or OEMs.
You could contemplate the presence or lack of enmity following Microsoft's
announcement of production of their own platforms and how their OEMs were
notified, as well as the prevalence of say Linux, Chrome or BSD as an
alternative to Windows in the marketplace. It isn't likely today that a PC
platform manufacturer would preclude other operating systems by intent barring
economic advantage.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 09:53 PM EDT |
Although I wish the courts would find DNA patents invalid, I somehow doubt they
will. In the alternative, I wish they would limit patents on "isolated
DNA" to exactly that and find no infringement when that DNA spread to other
crops without anyone actually isolating the DNA in question.
Of course, they'd probably just change the wording of the patents, but hopefully
the courts would be able to find other problems with such approaches.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 03:07 AM EDT |
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228896/Windows_8_falls_further_behind_Wi
ndows_7_in_pre_launch_stats
"Users remain significantly less enthused about Windows 8 than they were
three years ago about the then-unfinished Windows 7, according to data from an
analytics firm. The new numbers from California-based Net Applications hint at a
lukewarm reception for Windows 8.
Just 0.18% of all the computers that went online during June ran one of the
previews of Windows 8, statistics Net Applications showed last week. Of those
PCs running Windows, 0.2% -- or 20 out of 10,000 -- were powered by Windows 8.
As in April, when Computerworld last used Net Applications' data to analyze
Windows 8 uptake, the new OS' June numbers were dramatically lower than Windows
7's at the same point in its development."
So, is Windows 8 just a bucket full of lukewarm spit?
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: designerfx on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
Hrm, it's almost like we have precedence of Microsoft doing
this! We must act surprised!
So....a month? a year? It's not like this is well documented
or anything.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|