For whatever value of "Mobile" is applicable in context, yes.
A lot of what I see is students in the library with their laptops or
large tablets_keyboards with paper and books beside. Perhaps if
students had the multi--screen displays like the one in the movie
"Swordfish" AND there were more books on-line at low cost and
multi-access (which isn't how many libraries work, sadly) then the
marketers dream of students with ebooks rather than a knapsack of books
would happen. As it is, with only one viewer, books and papers are
I'm seeing or being told the same by office workers, that a single
screen, even the big screens, is not adequate. Really work & study
requires parallel access even if the work-flow isn't massively parallel.
My own work, such as it is, gets by because my desktop, although only
one physical screen, has 6 logical screens. Even so I have a stack of
papers and many books to hand, as well as my phone and tablet to hand.
unless we get some sort of virtual projected-into-the-air display, we
are going to need a form of HUD glasses that lets us do the MIT
Put-That-There screen so that it doesn't interfere with others, but
still lets us look though into the real world at out books and papers.
believe me, the books and papers aren't going to go away in the
foreseeable future whatever the improvements in display technology.
I have my doubts about many things and the arguments here and in the
comments section loom large.
Yes, I can see that business sees no need for an 'arms race' escalation
of desktops once the basics are there. A few people, gamers,
developers, might want personal workstations that they can load up with
memory and high performance graphics engines, but for the rest of us,
its ho-hum. That Intel and AMD are producing chips with more cores,
more cache, integrated graphics and more, well Mores Law applies to
transistor density, doesn't it, and they have to do something to soak up
all those extra transistors on the chips.
As for smaller packaging, what do these people think smart phones and
tablets and watches are?
Gimme a brake!
My phone has more computing power than was used by the Manhattan project
to develop the first nuclear bomb.
These are interesting, but the real application of chip density is going
to have to be doing other things serving the desktop. its going to be
And for #1 & #3 Windows will become if not an impediment, then irrelevant.
Its possible a very stripped down Linux can serve for #1 & #3, but
somewhere along the line I suspect people might wake up and adopt a
proper RTOS such as QNX much in the same way that Linux has come to
dominate #2. It is, however, possible, the Microsoft will, not that
gates and Balmer are out of the scene, adopt something Linux like or
work with Linux so as to stay relevant in new markets. The Windows
tablet isn't the success they hoped for and the buyout of Nokia seemed
more to take Nokia out of the market than become an asset for Microsoft
to enter the phone market and compete with Apple and Samsung. many big
forms that do have lots of Windows workstations are turning to running
SAMBA on Big Iron because (a) its cheaper than a huge array of Windows
Servers that present reliability and administrative overhead, and (b)
its scalable. Linux isn't the 'rough beast' that Balmer made out and
Microsoft's 'center cannot hold' the way it has in the past.
It is bad luck to be superstitious.
-- Andrew W. Mathis
I wonder what they consider to be a hack? The wording in the in the article is loose enough to mean that if someone pinged one of their servers it would be considered a hack. Perhaps they even they count Google spider indexing as a probe into their network. It makes me wonder how many 'real' hack attempts are made and how many succeed. All in it, it sounds like a funding bid!
Marcus Ranum once commented about firewall logging that an umbrella that notified you about every raindrop it repulsed would soon get annoying.I suspect the same thing is going on here. Are these 'repulsed' probes really 'need to know'? Are they worth the rotating rust it takes to store that they happened?
Oh, right, Big Data.
Oh, right, "precursor probes".
Can we live without this?
Douglas Berdeaux has written an excellent book, excellent from quite a number of points of view, some of which I will address. Packt Publishing have done a great service making this and other available at their web site. It is one of many technical books there that have extensive source code and are good 'instructors'.
It is one of over 2000 instructional books and videos available at the Packt web site.
I read a lot on my tablet but most of the ebooks I read are "linear text" (think: 'novels', 'news'). A book like this is heavily annotated by differentiating fonts and type and layout. How well your ebook reader renders that might vary. None of the ones I used were as satisfactory as the PDF. For all its failings, if you want a page that looks "just so" whatever it is read on, then PDF still wins out. For many, this won't matter since the source code can be downloaded in a separate ZIP file.
Of course you may be like me and prefer to learn by entering the code by hand so as to develop the learned physical habit which you can then carry forward. You may also prefer to have a hard copy version of the book rather than use a 'split screen' mode.
This is not a book about learning to code in Perl, or earning about the basics of TCP/IP. Berdeaux himself says in the introduction:
This book is written for people who are already familiar with
basic Perl programming and who have the desire to advance this
knowledge by applying it to information security and penetration
testing. With each chapter, I encourage you to branch off into
tangents, expanding upon the lessons and modifying the code to
pursue your own creative ideas.
I found this to be an excellent 'source book' for ideas and worked though many variations of the example code. This book is a beginning, not a end point.
In my very first job we were told, repeatedly told, to document everything and keep our personal journals up to date. Not just with what we did but the reasoning behind those decisions. This was so that if anything happened to use kn knowledge about the work, the project, what had been tried and thought about was lost, if, perhaps, we were 'hit by a bus on the way to work'.
At that point whoever was saying this looked toward a certain office or certain place in the parking lot. One of the Project managers drove a VW bus and was most definitely not a good driver!
So the phrase 'document everything in case you're hit by a bus' entered into the work culture, even after that individual had left.
And for the rest of us it entered into our person culture and practices.
Oh, and the WHY is very important. How often have you looked at something that seems strange and worried about changing it in case there was some special reason for it being like that which you did no know of?
Unless things get documented .... Heck a well meaning 'kid' might 'clean it out' ignorant of the special reason it was like that!
So here we have what appear to be undocumented controls.
Perhaps they are just controls that were added and someone forgot to mention; perhaps the paperwork for these 'exceptions' is filed somewhere else or is referred to by the easily overlooked footnote or mentioned in the missing appendix.
It has been pointed out to me that having to document everything, including the reasons for taking one decision rather than another, "slows down work". Well that's been said of security, too, hasn't it? I've had this requirement referred to in various unsavoury terms and had those terms associated with me personally for insisting on them. I've had people 'caught out', doing one thing and saying another.
But I've also had the documentation saving mistakes and rework.
These days with electronic tools, smartphones, tablets, networking, and things like wikis as shared searchable resources, its a lot easier.
Sadly I still find places where key documents such as the Policy Manuals and more are really still "3-ring binder" state of the art, PDF files in some obscure location that don't have any mechanism for commenting or feedback or ways they can be updated.
Up to date and accurate documentation is always a good practice!
 And what surpises me is that when I've implemented those I get a 'deer in the headlight' reaction from staff an managers much younger than myself. Don't believe what you read about 'millennials' being better able to deal with e-tools than us Greybeards.
My digital camera uses exif to convey a vast amount of contextual information and imprint it on each photo: date, time, the camera, shutter, aperture, flash. I have GPS in the camera so it can tell the location, elevation. The exif protocol also allows for vendor specific information and is extensible and customizable.
Unless and until we have an 'exif' for IoT its going to be lame and useless.
What is plugged in to that socket? A fan, a PC, a refrigerator, a charger for your cell phone? What's the rating of the device? How is it used? What functions other than on/off can be controlled?
Lame lame lame lame.
At the very least, this will apply a 'many eyes' to some of the SSL code and so long as the ssh pruning isn't wholesale slash-and-burn that cutting it back may prove efficacious for two reasons.
Less code can be simpler code, with decreased likelihood of there being a bug due to complexity and interaction.
Getting rid of the special cases such as VMS and Windows also reduces the complexity.
POSIX I'm not sure about; in many ways POSIX has become a dinosaur. Quite a number of Linux authors have observed that if you stop being anal about POSIX you can gt code that works and a simple #ifdef can take care of portability. In the 90% case there isn't a lot of divergence between the flavours and in the 99% case the #ifdef can take care of that.
Whether SSH fits into the 90% or the 99% I don't know. The APIs for 'random' and 'crypto' are in the grey areas where implementations differ but also one where POSIX seems to be the most anal and 'lowest common denominator'. I suspect that this is one where the #ifdef route will allow more effective implementations.
We shall see what emerges, but on the whole the BSD team have a reputation for good security practices so I'm hopeful about the quality.
I'd be interested to see their testing approach.
He makes the case that once you put a computer in something it stops being that something and becomes a computer.
Camera + computer => computer
The latest intelligence on Al-Qaeda, a high profile Child Protection
report and plans for policing the London 2012 Olympics; three very
different documents with two things in common: firstly, they all
contained highly confidential information and secondly, they were all
left on a train.
Or maybe "Strangers on a Train"
Our latest research reveals that two thirds of Europe’s office commuters
have no qualms about peering across to see what the person sitting next
to them is working on; and more than one in ten (14 per cent) has
spotted confidential or highly sensitive information.
Perhaps that's cynical and pessimistic and a headline grabber, but then that's what makes news.
What I’m afraid of is that things like this set a low threshold of expectation, that people will thing they don't need to be better than the herd.
Based on the demonstrated persistence of their enemies, I have a lot of respect for what Israeli security achieves.
Back to Verb vs Noun.
His point about baggage claim is interesting. It strikes me that this is the kind of location serious terrorists, that is the ones who worked
in Europe through the last century, might attack: not just dramatic, but shows how ineffectual airport security really is. And what will the TSA do about such an attack? Inconvenience passengers further.
So what's the best file system to use for archiving and data storage rather than the normal usage?
Won't that depend on ...
a) the nature of the archive files
If this is simply to be a 'mirror' of the regular file system, a 1:1
file mapping then there is no need for some specific optimizations as there would be if, for example, each snapshot were to be a single large file, a TAR or CPIO image say. You then have to look at what you are archiving: small files, large files .... Archiving mail a mbox is going to be different from archiving as maildir. For example the later is going to consume a LOT of inodes and that affects how one would format a ext2, est3 r ext4 file system but not be relevant on a ReiserFS or BtrFS.
b) the demand for retrieval from the archive
This is actually a can of worms. You might not think so at first but I've seen businesses put out of service because their 'backup' indexing was inadequate when the time came to retrieve a specific archive file of a specific date, as oppose to restore the whole backup. You need to be driven by your business methods here and that in turn will determine your indexing and retrieval which will determine your storage format.
Its business drive, not technology driven. Why else would you be archiving?
Now while (b) is pretty much an 'absolute', (a) can end up being flexible. You HAVE to have a clear way of retrieval otherwise your
archive is just a 'junk room' into which your file system overflows.
That (a) can be flexible also means that the optimization curve is not clearly peaked. Why else would you be asking this question? What's the worst situation if you choose ReiserFS rather than extN? The size of the file system? The number of inodes?
But if your indexing broken or inadequate you've got a business problem.