IIRC, to get this kind of functionality from ESX or vSphere you have to pay licenses numbering in the thousands of dollars for each VM host as well as a separate license fee for their centralized Virtual Center management system. I'm glad to see that this is finally making it into the Xen mainline.
The following picture was taken when the unit was sitting about 5 feet from my laptop. I'm using it as my uplink as I just moved into a new development with no neighbors to steal wifi from. Literally only 2 other (WPA2) networks are in range. Consequentially, this can't be blamed on interference:
Also funny, I had to reconnect twice while uploading that photo to twitpic earlier since the unit dropped my connection. The problem is intermittent and hurts all three devices connected to it, not just my crappy laptop.
tl;dr... it's okay, but not near worth the money. Instead, buy a 3G card and a router that you can slot it into.
FWIW, their connection isn't any more encrypted than a standard VPN.
The only part of the connection that is "more secure" is the authentication phase, since they had to use two factors to log in (their token code and their password).
Tim Couch, wants to ban anonymous posting on the internet in order to 'cut down on online bullying', which he says has been 'a particular problem in eastern Kentucky.'
Evidently, both computer owners in Eastern Kentucky are upset at each other.
Giving someone a shell and putting them in a chroot crafted to look and function like a full system is one thing.
Giving someone an SFTP session and chrooting them into a subdirectory is another thing.
The feature added in this commit was arguably intended for the latter purpose given the additional changes to the SFTP subsystem that were included. There are countless tutorials and patches and scripts that are available to achieve chrooted SFTP-only access, but now it's been implemented in the core of OpenSSH. In my eyes, this solution is not only a "cleaner" solution to the problem, but it's probably more secure too.
I guess this could be nice in the "small device" application that they mention, but other bigger devices come to mind:
- Ever ruin a laptop by spilling soda on it? It might still be sticky, but you wouldn't fry the motherboard. - Ever tried waterproofing an outdoor AP or camera? You have to be very aggressive -- this could make things easier.
It would be great if this stuff came to market like a Rustoleum-type spray.
Sometimes people make fun of Perl because the code looks like 'line noise.' As a Perl programmer, I resent that. Any code released to the public with my name on it is pristine, well commented, easy to read, and nearly bug free.
Now, the stuff that isn't released to the public? That's 180dB noisy code. I can relate with what's being said here to a degree.
That said, I don't think sloppy code it the real reason source stays closed. Big business just thinks it'll make them more money in the long run.
Detailed specs from Raytheon's patent filing show that the gun essentially plays Britney Spears' new single at an extremely high volume in a concentrated "cone of pain."
By and large, music fans think that music is too expensive, and that much of what is available isn't very good.
You're damn right. I wouldn't even waste my bandwidth on the vast majority of shit that the record companies are pumping out. But, what am I saying? I'm sure Linday Lohan's next album would sell millions of copies if it weren't for piracy.
With a little bit of technical ability, this seems like it would be trivial to defeat.
If the kid was already hopping over three computers (maybe using Tor), he probably had the technical ability to: 1. Put his machine on a private NAT'd network so that 'ipconfig' would show an unroutable address. 2. Use a firewall that alerted him when software was trying to make an outbound connection. Better, drop it using that gateway he's sitting behind.
Granted, if he had just been using something besides Windows (which I presume he was using), the FBI's software would not have likely worked anyways.
In other words, don't let their new toy scare you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and at a great price point. *rolleyes*
IIRC, to get this kind of functionality from ESX or vSphere you have to pay licenses numbering in the thousands of dollars for each VM host as well as a separate license fee for their centralized Virtual Center management system. I'm glad to see that this is finally making it into the Xen mainline.
The following picture was taken when the unit was sitting about 5 feet from my laptop. I'm using it as my uplink as I just moved into a new development with no neighbors to steal wifi from. Literally only 2 other (WPA2) networks are in range. Consequentially, this can't be blamed on interference:
http://twitpic.com/6jafg
Also funny, I had to reconnect twice while uploading that photo to twitpic earlier since the unit dropped my connection. The problem is intermittent and hurts all three devices connected to it, not just my crappy laptop.
tl;dr ... it's okay, but not near worth the money. Instead, buy a 3G card and a router that you can slot it into.
So, where do I sign up for grid time?
Time to work on a Javascript MD5 bruteforce implementation. SHA, too.
FWIW, their connection isn't any more encrypted than a standard VPN.
The only part of the connection that is "more secure" is the authentication phase, since they had to use two factors to log in (their token code and their password).
See Two-factor Authentication
TFA is a little scant on "security secrets."
What is covered is some general security policy and philosophy.
And here I was, waiting to read all about GIDS and GFirewall. Thanks, ITNews, for instead educating be about archiving security logs for later review!
MSI just threw this together so that their lead engineer could finish his bitchin' Steampunk case mod.
Giving someone a shell and putting them in a chroot crafted to look and function like a full system is one thing.
Giving someone an SFTP session and chrooting them into a subdirectory is another thing.
The feature added in this commit was arguably intended for the latter purpose given the additional changes to the SFTP subsystem that were included. There are countless tutorials and patches and scripts that are available to achieve chrooted SFTP-only access, but now it's been implemented in the core of OpenSSH. In my eyes, this solution is not only a "cleaner" solution to the problem, but it's probably more secure too.
This is godsend for artists like Britney Spears who still have incredibly popular songs like her "Baby One More Time" and "Oops, I did it again"
Think about how often you hear those songs on the radio! In 2093, Britney will need the income from this song to survive! Honestly, she's entitled.
I guess this could be nice in the "small device" application that they mention, but other bigger devices come to mind:
- Ever ruin a laptop by spilling soda on it? It might still be sticky, but you wouldn't fry the motherboard.
- Ever tried waterproofing an outdoor AP or camera? You have to be very aggressive -- this could make things easier.
It would be great if this stuff came to market like a Rustoleum-type spray.
I do find it somewhat humorous that two of your links are to the blog of Robert Scoble, self-proclaimed "Microsoft Geek Blogger"
Now, the stuff that isn't released to the public? That's 180dB noisy code. I can relate with what's being said here to a degree.
That said, I don't think sloppy code it the real reason source stays closed. Big business just thinks it'll make them more money in the long run.
...oh the pain.
If it means my computer gets to look like that thing from TFA, then I'm SO in!
By and large, music fans think that music is too expensive, and that much of what is available isn't very good.
You're damn right. I wouldn't even waste my bandwidth on the vast majority of shit that the record companies are pumping out. But, what am I saying? I'm sure Linday Lohan's next album would sell millions of copies if it weren't for piracy.
I feel safer, already.
Thank God we're finally catching these damned terrorists. I hope he hangs.
With a little bit of technical ability, this seems like it would be trivial to defeat.
If the kid was already hopping over three computers (maybe using Tor), he probably had the technical ability to:
1. Put his machine on a private NAT'd network so that 'ipconfig' would show an unroutable address.
2. Use a firewall that alerted him when software was trying to make an outbound connection. Better, drop it using that gateway he's sitting behind.
Granted, if he had just been using something besides Windows (which I presume he was using), the FBI's software would not have likely worked anyways.
In other words, don't let their new toy scare you.