Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 23

Suspicious Domains related to Japan Disaster

With every disaster that takes place, one of things that I do is start to watch the domain names being registered on the internet in relation to the event.

For instance, "earthquake", "Tsunami", Haiti, Chile, and now, Japan.

We mourn for all of those that lost loves ones in each of the disasters, and I feel very sorry for those that have lost everything.  Homes, cars, valuable pictures of your loved ones, family history, and the families themselves.  I am quite sure there are examples where entire families may have been lost to this most recent tragedy.

It's despicable that a malicious person would register a domain, and set up a webpage to receive donations, only to keep the money themselves, or fund $bad_thing.  Absolutely disgusting.

I was taking a look through my list for this morning (I get a list every day), and looking at some of the examples.  A lot of the names you wouldn't even think, just by looking it, that it would be bad.  Examples like "redcrossjapan.com" and .org.  One might think that was a legitimate site.  A few more interesting ones, I'll leave the extension off of these:

  • "earthquakeandtsunamis"

  • "tsunamidanger"

  • "tsunamireliefforjapan"

  • "savejapanesepeople"

  • "rebuildjapan"

  • "japanemergency"

  • "japanliferescue"

  • "earthquakeeastjapan"


Now, I'm not implying that any of the above are bad or linked to the evil-doers. I'm saying that you need to use caution when donating and visiting these sites.  Not all humans are decent, wholesome, and good.  In fact, there are a large amount of people that aren't.  I know, surprise, surprise.

How many domains have I see like this?  Hundreds.  Several.  Hundred.

Donate


I don't want to dissuade you from donating funds to the people of Japan.  They need your help.  They need it bad.  I've donated, and will donate more.  But ensure, when you are donating, you are donating to a reputible organization.  People flocked to help Haiti, I'm asking that we flock to help Japan too.  Just because they are not a 3rd world country, doesn't make them any less important.  Japan came to our rescue when Hurricane Katrina hit, donating millions and millions of man hours and dollars towards the tragedy.  Let's do the same for them.

http://www.redcross.org/

Tuesday, November 30

Sorry for the lack of posts, I've been particularly busy.

Been pretty busy lately with my two full-time day jobs at Sourcefire.  The good news is, if you are a Snort user, that I am working on a lot of things that will not only make our community better, but improve how Sourcefire interacts with that community and allow us to move forward in a more progressive manner.

Aside from Sourcefire/Snort stuff, the shop that is restoring my Mustang is almost done (should get it back this week, and when I do, I'll post pics), I'm working on the shops website too (as the old one needed some TLC).  I got with the owner and we decided to redo the whole thing, so I am doing that in my spare time as well.

Thank you Squarespace!

Also working on another website that I tighten up a bit (aside from tightening up Snort.org a bit as well) for another company (Car alarm company) that I do a bit of consulting/marketing for.  So, it feels like I am buried in html lately.

On top of all of that, my son is doing well, my daughter is awesome and my wife's Grandmother died this past week, so we are all dealing with that as well.

Busy Busy Busy.  Stay tuned.  I've got a few posts lined up for the pipeline for not only this blog but for another blog I am starting, so when that all comes together, stay tuned!

Monday, October 18

Ray Ozzie leaving post as Microsoft's chief software architect

Ray Ozzie is the gentleman that took Bill Gates's place after he retired from his day to day duties at Microsoft, and unfortunately, this kinda makes me feel more confident in the opinion I had when that event took place.

Microsoft is losing their spirit.

Let's face it, it's quite obvious now that Bill Gates was the driver behind the Microsoft brand and direction.  This is the third notable post that is being vacated since Bill Gates left (the first being the designer behind the Zune interface Robbie Bach, second being CFO Chris Liddell), and yet, somehow Ballmer stays in charge.

Don't get me wrong, Ballmer knows how to make money.  Which is why he's a good CEO, but in my opinion, it doesn't feel like he is ushering in a strong "direction" for the company.  But maybe I'm being a little critical, trying not to compare him to Steve Jobs, but hate him or love him, Steve Jobs is a great CEO.

It just feels to me that Microsoft is playing the catchup game.  Saying "me too" to everything that is coming out.  Windows Mobile Phone 7, (which was started a long time ago, but not until the iPhone came out was serious pressure put on this), the Xbox360 (which is probably Microsoft's best product), the Zune copied after the iPod, Windows's constant comparison to OSX, chasing after Google with Bing, and chasing after the iPad now with whatever-the-heck tablets (slate) they come out with.

Sad part is, Microsoft almost invented the tablet business.  They pretty much pioneered it.  However, they tried to shoe horn a Desktop OS into a tablet PC and wrote enough software to be able to use a pen.  Well, it doesn't appear to have caught on en-masse.  They didn't go back to the drawing board (like they did with Windows Mobile Phone 7) and design a new user interface, even if they copied the WMP7 interface from the Zune HD.  Their current tablet offering does not bode well for touch, and it's unclear where their future direction is going as far as touch is concerned, but it doesn't look good right now.  It still looks like they are trying to shoehorn Windows 7, the desktop operating system, into the tablet.  It's not going to work!  You tried that once, and it failed.  So I refer to the current class of computing devices (the iPad, and all the competitors that are trying to come out now as "slate" devices.)

Ray Ozzie, as it states in the below linked article, is best known for creating Lotus Notes.  Which really doesn't speak volumes to quality, but it does speak to success.  Even a totally awful program can make tons of money.  But Mr. Ozzie didn't seem to provide the direction that Gates did.  Face it, Gates was the genius behind the Microsoft brand.  Even if his tactic was to copy everything he saw, which I'm not saying he did, but even if his tactic was that, it was genius and it worked well.

I am not a Microsoft Shareholder, heck, I'm not even an Apple shareholder anymore,  but I'd wonder why Ballmer was still in power considering the stock price hasn't moved much in over 10 years.

Ray Ozzie leaving post as Microsofts chief software architect.

Tuesday, May 25

Mark Zuckerberg - From Facebook, answering privacy concerns with new settings

Mark Zuckerberg, in an article on WashingtonPost.com answers some of the privacy accusations that have been thrown in his direction about Facebook.  It reads like PR copy, so take it for what it's worth, but at least he came out and said something about it.

Kudos for him to at least acknowledging it.

Mark Zuckerberg - From Facebook, answering privacy concerns with new settings.

Monday, May 24

Top 10 Privacy Tweaks You Should Know About

Along the lines of my Facebook post that I put up on Saturday, I found this article (linked below) over on Lifehacker.

Top 10 Privacy Tweaks You Should Know About.

Tuesday, May 4

Internet Explorer web browser use drops below 60%




Now remember, that these aren't specifically browsers, these are representations of rendering engines.  IE's rendering engine is called Trident, Firefox's is called Gecko, etc.  So it's interesting that IE is falling, yes it's still built into every Windows Machine, but the alternative browsers are gaining market in there as well.  Look at Firefox, it's up a bit, but the one that is the biggest uptick is Webkit.  Webkit is the rendering engine behind Safari (Mac's browser), Chrome (Google's browser), Android's browser, the iPhone browser, and the iPad browser.

Now, I don't know if they counted mobile browsers in this mix (iPhone, iPod, and iPad) but it's an interesting graph none-the-less.

AppleInsider | Internet Explorer web browser use drops below 60%.

Tuesday, March 30

Seton Hill University to give all students an iPad

And so it begins... Seton Hill University to give all students an iPad.

This article from The Unofficial Apple Weblog, buried in my News Reader today, points out that the Seton Hill University up in Pennsylvania, starting Fall 2010 is going to be issuing an iPad to every man, woman, and child who enrolls into school.

So for those of you that read my blog and want to enroll in college at a "Catholic Liberal Arts University", here's your chance to get a free iPad.

Tuesday, March 23

Indian military to weaponize world's hottest chili

My Way News - Indian military to weaponize world's hottest chili.

Read the above article.  This is a great use for food as a weapon.  Hurt?  Yes.  Lethal?  Probably not.  Immobilizing?  Heck yes.

Thursday, March 18

Cybersecurity Bill Trims Presidents Power

Cybersecurity Bill Trims Presidents Power -- Cybersecurity -- InformationWeek.

"The Senate Wednesday re-introduced a cybersecurity bill it considered last year, minus a provision that would have allowed the president to shut down the Internet in the event of a major cyber attack.

The Cybersecurity Act, S. 773, co-sponsored by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), is aimed at protecting critical U.S. network infrastructure against cybersecurity threats by fostering collaboration between the federal government and the private sectors that maintain that infrastructure."


Check this out, interesting.



Wednesday, February 17

Tuning Snort with Host Attribute Tables - CSO Online - Security and Risk

Tuning Snort with Host Attribute Tables - CSO Online - Security and Risk.

Here is an article I wrote for CSO magazine, thought the readers of my blog might like to check it out as well.

I was asked to write a fairly technical article for CSO magazine about Snort, the problem is, which part of Snort do you write the article for?  An article about Snort can be very technical or not so technical.  One of the advantages of having Open-Source software.

In any case, enjoy.

Sunday, January 31

Flash, time for you to die

I've been reading a lot of hubbub about the new Apple iPad not having the capability of displaying Flash.  Of course!  It stands to reason that it can't, it has the same OS as the iPhone, which, also can't display Flash.  Which leads me to think, why do we need flash?

Answer is, we don't.  Not anymore.  90% of Flash usage is for audio or video on the Internet and HTML5 can handle <audio> and <video> tags.  It can do Canvas. (Oh and a TON more, I'm just illustrating a point.)  Some of the major browsers have adapted most of these technologies.  Webkit (Invented by Apple, powers Safari, Webkit, and Google Chrome [amongst others], and Presto (The rendering engine that powers Opera) have supported more than the other two majors (Gecko -- The engine that powers Firefox and all of it's kin), and Trident (The engine that powers Internet Explorer).  The last being the worst adopter.  Surprisingly.

I read somewhere (I can't find it now), about most browser crashes come from plugins.  Flash, Java, etc.  Why can't we eliminate these plugins and go with the native protocols?  That's what HTML5 is attempting to do for the most part, and I, for one, am glad for it.

Apple has always been about killing off technologies and moving onto what is on the horizon (killing off serial, going for USB, killing of Diskettes, going to CD, Killing off CD's (Macbook Air), moving more wireless (Airport), Killing off displayport, hdmi, dvi, vga, going with Mini Displayport).  They have never been afraid to just "move on" to the new thing.

I believe they said to Flash, die, HTML5 is here.  Then they turned to web developers and said "fix your stuff".  How did they do that?  Rolled out the iPhone, which has become the largest mobile browsing platform on the planet now.  Slowly and surely, what's happening?  Websites are changing away from Flash.

Unless, you know, of course, you are a band or a restaurant.  (Seriously?  What is with bands and restaurants and your use of Flash?)

I don't even need to get into the security issues of Adobe's Flash.  Look, there is one small part of Adobe working on Flash.  The entire internet is working on HTML5.

Flash (and Silverlight) is dead.  Get over it.

--

100% of the statistics in this post are made up.  ;)

Sunday, August 16

Apple and the Google Voice app, surprise in store?

Awhile back Apple decided it was going to reject the native (as in "non-web-app") app for Google Voice from Google, citing that it "duplicated functionality the iPhone already had". Which, by the way, is against the developers terms of service for developing iPhone apps. Now, I have heard a bunch of blowback against Apple about this, and I'd like to throw my conspiracy theory into it. I'm also writing this in hopes, that basically Leo Laporte from TWiT and MacBreak Weekly see it, and Kevin and Alex from Diggnation see it. As these podcasts have just been going at it saying how Apple is an evil empire. My point is, maybe everything isn't as it seems. (as well as all the other podcasts that have been lambasting Apple since the rejection).

First, if you haven't heard of Google Voice, Google Voice allows you to have one phone number that you give to people and that phone number can be assigned "Back-end" phone numbers that the Google Voice (GV from now on) phone number calls. So, for example, if you call my GV number, it will, depending on who you are, call my home phone, my cell phone, and Gizmo (VOIP Program) all at the same time and I can pick up any one of the three. Furthermore, if you leave a voicemail on my GV number, your voicemail goes through voice to text transcription and gets SMSed and Emailed to me. I use GV for several reasons.

One, I can give it to ANYONE and I can assign what phone number you ring when you call me.
Second, I can give the number to anyone, and I can change my backend phone numbers as well. One phone number for the rest of my life basically. I give you my GV number, and you don't have to worry about what my current cell number is. It's on ME to change it on the backend of GV.
Third, People don't know my actual cell phone number. But there really is no advantage to that.

GV works like this, (well at least on mine), if I get a phone call to my GV number, it rings through to the backend phones. Using minutes. It's not like Skype or Gizmo or anything like that. It's an actual phone call. It's using AT&T's minutes.

When someone sends an SMS to my Google Voice number, it gets sent to my cell phone. Just as if you were sending a text message directly to my cell phone. It costs the same.

There are a lot of conspiracy theorists out there on the internet that think that you can make calls for free, therefore AT&T is preventing the app from getting on the app store. The only reason that I could see AT&T bitching about this is that it would be easier for people to give out the Google Voice number, so at some point users who would switch off of AT&T, since changing the GV number on the backend is trivial, they'd be able to just switch numbers and not take their cell phone number with them. But this argument doesn't even make any sense. Actually it's hard for me to articulate what I am trying to explain as it doesn't make any sense. Since taking your phone number with you to a different carrier is a trivial exercise.

Now, all that being said, I think I've said what everyone on blogs that I read and podcasts that I listen to are saying, so here's my take:

Apple turned the GV app down because it "duplicated iPhone functionality". Which, as I said earlier, is against iPhone Dev agreement. What people aren't remembering is that awhile ago Apple did the same exact thing. Remember?

It was a podcast application. Podcaster. Podcaster was also rejected because it duplicated functionality on the iPhone. (or in iTunes depending upon which article you read). What happened to that application? Well, it disappeared into the sunset, because later, if you remember, Apple gave you the ability to download and play podcasts directly from the iTunes store on the iPhone itself. Yes, AFTER. So Apple has pulled this trick before. Most likely because the functionality to download podcasts via the native iTunes store on the iPhone itself was already in development at the time of the rejection of the app.

So, here's my thought.

If Apple did the same thing to Podcaster that it's doing to Google Voice, then that tells me that in a future release of the iPhone software, the Google Voice functionality will be native. NATIVE. Like, built into the iPhone.

For this to happen, Google and Apple would have to partner up. Much like they did for Google Maps. The team that would develop the iPhone app and the the team on the Google Voice side, quite possibly be on different teams, aside from that, the people involved with working with Apple on the "native" Google Voice functionality would probably be under a very strict NDA. Which is why the developers of the "current" GV wouldn't know that it was being worked on for native functionality inclusion. Apple is famous for it's secrecy. This isn't a stretch of the imagination by any sense of the word.

I have no insider knowledge of the iPhone division of Apple, so I can't verify this.

Imagine this, go to Preferences on the iPhone you log into Google Voice through a Preference, and then, you have a slider. Left for Native iPhone phone number, Right for Google Voice Number. The Google Voice number, of course, acts a little differently as the call has to be sent up to GV for GV to initiate the call and call both parties back. (There are apps that did this in the past, GVMobile is one, which I was smart enough to get a hold of before Apple pulled it from the store.) But what if the iPhone could work it so that you never knew about the "call back" from GV. What if it just looked like a native phone call, it just took a bit longer to connect, and the iPhone just background-auto-accepted the call. You'd never know it. It would act and look like a phone call from the native iPhone number.

SMS would be routed through GV's special SMS connectors so that they would appear to come from you GV number. All the while, you are still being charged "standard text messaging rates" and cell phone minutes from your calls. The only difference in the user experience is, people are seeing your GV number on their caller ID's and that's it.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this one. Please leave comments below.



Apple and the Google Voice app, surprise in store?

Awhile back Apple decided it was going to reject the native (as in "non-web-app") app for Google Voice from Google, citing that it "duplicated functionality the iPhone already had". Which, by the way, is against the developers terms of service for developing iPhone apps. Now, I have heard a bunch of blowback against Apple about this, and I'd like to throw my conspiracy theory into it. I'm also writing this in hopes, that basically Leo Laporte from TWiT and MacBreak Weekly see it, and Kevin and Alex from Diggnation see it. As these podcasts have just been going at it saying how Apple is an evil empire. My point is, maybe everything isn't as it seems. (as well as all the other podcasts that have been lambasting Apple since the rejection).

First, if you haven't heard of Google Voice, Google Voice allows you to have one phone number that you give to people and that phone number can be assigned "Back-end" phone numbers that the Google Voice (GV from now on) phone number calls. So, for example, if you call my GV number, it will, depending on who you are, call my home phone, my cell phone, and Gizmo (VOIP Program) all at the same time and I can pick up any one of the three. Furthermore, if you leave a voicemail on my GV number, your voicemail goes through voice to text transcription and gets SMSed and Emailed to me. I use GV for several reasons.

One, I can give it to ANYONE and I can assign what phone number you ring when you call me.
Second, I can give the number to anyone, and I can change my backend phone numbers as well. One phone number for the rest of my life basically. I give you my GV number, and you don't have to worry about what my current cell number is. It's on ME to change it on the backend of GV.
Third, People don't know my actual cell phone number. But there really is no advantage to that.

GV works like this, (well at least on mine), if I get a phone call to my GV number, it rings through to the backend phones. Using minutes. It's not like Skype or Gizmo or anything like that. It's an actual phone call. It's using AT&T's minutes.

When someone sends an SMS to my Google Voice number, it gets sent to my cell phone. Just as if you were sending a text message directly to my cell phone. It costs the same.

There are a lot of conspiracy theorists out there on the internet that think that you can make calls for free, therefore AT&T is preventing the app from getting on the app store. The only reason that I could see AT&T bitching about this is that it would be easier for people to give out the Google Voice number, so at some point users who would switch off of AT&T, since changing the GV number on the backend is trivial, they'd be able to just switch numbers and not take their cell phone number with them. But this argument doesn't even make any sense. Actually it's hard for me to articulate what I am trying to explain as it doesn't make any sense. Since taking your phone number with you to a different carrier is a trivial exercise.

Now, all that being said, I think I've said what everyone on blogs that I read and podcasts that I listen to are saying, so here's my take:

Apple turned the GV app down because it "duplicated iPhone functionality". Which, as I said earlier, is against iPhone Dev agreement. What people aren't remembering is that awhile ago Apple did the same exact thing. Remember?

It was a podcast application. Podcaster. Podcaster was also rejected because it duplicated functionality on the iPhone. (or in iTunes depending upon which article you read). What happened to that application? Well, it disappeared into the sunset, because later, if you remember, Apple gave you the ability to download and play podcasts directly from the iTunes store on the iPhone itself. Yes, AFTER. So Apple has pulled this trick before. Most likely because the functionality to download podcasts via the native iTunes store on the iPhone itself was already in development at the time of the rejection of the app.

So, here's my thought.

If Apple did the same thing to Podcaster that it's doing to Google Voice, then that tells me that in a future release of the iPhone software, the Google Voice functionality will be native. NATIVE. Like, built into the iPhone.

For this to happen, Google and Apple would have to partner up. Much like they did for Google Maps. The team that would develop the iPhone app and the the team on the Google Voice side, quite possibly be on different teams, aside from that, the people involved with working with Apple on the "native" Google Voice functionality would probably be under a very strict NDA. Which is why the developers of the "current" GV wouldn't know that it was being worked on for native functionality inclusion. Apple is famous for it's secrecy. This isn't a stretch of the imagination by any sense of the word.

I have no insider knowledge of the iPhone division of Apple, so I can't verify this.

Imagine this, go to Preferences on the iPhone you log into Google Voice through a Preference, and then, you have a slider. Left for Native iPhone phone number, Right for Google Voice Number. The Google Voice number, of course, acts a little differently as the call has to be sent up to GV for GV to initiate the call and call both parties back. (There are apps that did this in the past, GVMobile is one, which I was smart enough to get a hold of before Apple pulled it from the store.) But what if the iPhone could work it so that you never knew about the "call back" from GV. What if it just looked like a native phone call, it just took a bit longer to connect, and the iPhone just background-auto-accepted the call. You'd never know it. It would act and look like a phone call from the native iPhone number.

SMS would be routed through GV's special SMS connectors so that they would appear to come from you GV number. All the while, you are still being charged "standard text messaging rates" and cell phone minutes from your calls. The only difference in the user experience is, people are seeing your GV number on their caller ID's and that's it.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this one. Please leave comments below.



Thursday, October 23

ISC Podcast Episode Eleven Posted

Hey everyone, sorry it has taken so long to get around to recording another podcast episode. Travel schedules have been very crazy between us lately. Anyway, enough excuses, here is episode eleven. Thanks for all the emails asking me where it is! :) It helps to remind me....

All the podcasts
Just this podcast
Podcast through iTunes

Subscribe in a reader

ISC Podcast Episode Eleven Posted

Hey everyone, sorry it has taken so long to get around to recording another podcast episode. Travel schedules have been very crazy between us lately. Anyway, enough excuses, here is episode eleven. Thanks for all the emails asking me where it is! :) It helps to remind me....

All the podcasts
Just this podcast
Podcast through iTunes

Subscribe in a reader

Saturday, July 5

New Blog Part Deux

Right, so I started this new blog.  Things were going great.  Then, out of nowhere...  I get put on Gizmodo.  Which, I'm not going to complain about, don't get me wrong.  But I went from 5 hits to 6000 hits in less than 24 hours.  

I wanted people to write in with suggestions.  So what do I get?  100's of emails.  

Of course I had the site over on .mac's servers, and my monthly download stats went from about 60 Mb/s a month (on .mac's servers) to well over 3 Gig's in less than 24 hours.  So I had to do something quick.

I moved the whole blog over to blogspot, where I don't have to pay for bandwidth --thank you Google-- and now everything is fine.  Oh wait, I have to get everyone over here from .mac's servers.  

So I had to play url redirection and dns games for the past hour until I got it right.

Anyway -- http://blog.dearcupertino.com is where it's at.

 Subscribe in a reader

New Blog Part Deux

Right, so I started this new blog.  Things were going great.  Then, out of nowhere...  I get put on Gizmodo.  Which, I'm not going to complain about, don't get me wrong.  But I went from 5 hits to 6000 hits in less than 24 hours.  

I wanted people to write in with suggestions.  So what do I get?  100's of emails.  

Of course I had the site over on .mac's servers, and my monthly download stats went from about 60 Mb/s a month (on .mac's servers) to well over 3 Gig's in less than 24 hours.  So I had to do something quick.

I moved the whole blog over to blogspot, where I don't have to pay for bandwidth --thank you Google-- and now everything is fine.  Oh wait, I have to get everyone over here from .mac's servers.  

So I had to play url redirection and dns games for the past hour until I got it right.

Anyway -- http://blog.dearcupertino.com is where it's at.

 Subscribe in a reader

Tuesday, July 1

AT&T iPhone 3G rate plans

For those of you that haven't seen them yet..  Here they are.  

I'd like to know one thing AT&T, so if anyone from AT&T is reading this, or someone who is reading this knows someone that can give me a really good damn answer.  Can I give my old iPhone to my wife, and we can be on the family talk unlimited plan for 129 a month?  That's a good deal!

 Subscribe in a reader

AT&T iPhone 3G rate plans

For those of you that haven't seen them yet..  Here they are.  

I'd like to know one thing AT&T, so if anyone from AT&T is reading this, or someone who is reading this knows someone that can give me a really good damn answer.  Can I give my old iPhone to my wife, and we can be on the family talk unlimited plan for 129 a month?  That's a good deal!

 Subscribe in a reader