actually, I've been wanting a touch screen to hang on my wall. It'll act as a digital picture frame some of the time. However, it'll be used to control music playing in the house, show videos, check weather, etc. Honestly though, I wish they'd try and get them in the 400-600 range.
I can tell you what I do. I have a Windows 2008 SBS that runs a domain. You should be able to join ubuntu, mac os x, and windows (assuming pro) to it. I also have a single internal file server. You can map directories off of it to mount as home directories using NFS and you can map the Windows 2008 SBS data stores to the file server as well. I'd also enable samba on the file server so you can simply mount the shares when needed. When you need to access them outside of your network, I'd set up the VPN capabilities of your external router. Then you can either VPN in to access or you can go through the SBS website to access. (Of course a static IP and domain help with this.)
First, I concur with pretyt much everyone else who indicated to try is to fail.
However, if you're still willing to subject yourself to it, look to corporate IT. they are the gold standard for maintaining stupid people's computers. Personally, I'd build a slip-steamed USB drive that you can plug in and have automatically rebuild a computer. Also, I'd consider looking to see if there are any tools you can use to dump a rediculiously restrictive policy on the computers. Finally, depending on the types of computers, you may want to consider looking at some of the desktop-type virtualization technologies. That way when they screw up their computer, you can just dump the VM back on.
I personally used an MSDN license to pull a copy of windows SBS and a few copies of windows pro. I joined everything to the domain and then centrally manage. Turn VPN on on their home router and you can simply VPN in, remote desktop to the server, and push the fix to the computers. (Personally, I don't know why MS doesn't offer a stripped down version of SBS for home use designed to allow a parent or such to manage all the computers in the house without going to each one individually...)
Stand alone GPS's will always exist for those who use them outside of cities, however the GPS companies will continue to see their profits dwindle if they can't innovate. My cell phone/GPS knows where I am, what direction I'm pointing and, with a camera, what I'm looking at. Why can't it show the directions superimposed on the road? Why can't they provide me any other speed or location based abilities?
The problem with GPSs is that they haven't done anything with them while google and cell phone developers are innovating at the speed of light. The GPS manufacturers could just as easily turn a profit by selling apps (tomtom already does), but again, they'd have to compete with someone who is actually innovating.
There was actually a really interesting talk at Defcon this year where they characterized how different countries approach cyber warfare or crime.
The speaker spent a good amount of time on China and it's history. What it boiled down to is China's cyberware abilities are kind of like militias. They're different local groups tied tightly to the government and to academia.
In contrast, the US seems to either be research associated with academia or action explicitly part of military groups, (like the cyber command thing). (The speaker indicated this was because the US had such strict laws against accessing other people's computers.) Russia seems to be heavily supported by organized crime and other countries have other motivations.
The point being that you really can't apply the US model to other countries. Thats why it's hard to nail down and say "China is doing evil" or "Russia is doing evil" or "the US is doing evil". Each country is multiple facets and different facets of each country are associated with cyberware.
I'd highly recommend you check out Classroom presenter from the University of Washington. It's what I and some friends have used previously with our tablets (currently a tc4200 but previously a tc1100) to give in-class presentations.
We have forced evacuations of the physical US. No-one complains that uncle sam is stealing trying to make them homeless. We have road closures all the time. No-one complains that the government is trying to cut us off from the world.
Why is it different with cyber-security? As someone who has to protect critical infrastructure, it's got to happen. Until there is some legal standing for offensive action in response to cyber attack, the US will just be sitting ducks. The government at least needs the ability to fight on the network as if it was any other battle field. We read all the time about china or north korea or russian crime attacking the US so the battle must be ongoing. The difference is that the US populace, (or at least the technical portion) complains if fighting back means doing so on US networks.
I'd like to personally thank nokia for screwing me. I bought an N97 expecting it to be THIS phone. It was supposed to have a fresh Symbian with a lot of power and a solid software base. Instead it's a feature packed piece of hardware with neglected software, an inappropriate processor, and absolutely no future.
So now I'll have to sell it and pick up an N900 when (and if given the n97 took half a year from it's announchement) taking a massive loss on the N97. Again, thank you nokia for keeping me from making an informed decision.
If you're a masochist, you can always try and follow the DoD Architecture Framework which defines multiple views of architectures (including networks). Once finished, there shouldn't be any question of what your network is, what it does, and how it does it, but you'd probably need an army of peons to put it together.
So basically, I'd like the exact same thing except a diagram of my network generated from my sensors/networking equipment. I want IDS events to pop up on it, firewall hits to be graphically represented, network changes to show up. Hell, hook in the Configuration Management system to show me where the changes will occur before they do and where changes occur that had no CM equivalent.
I'm very much an advocate for touch screen management of sitautions. I'd love to have the Computer Security equivalent to their screen infront of me or my Network Security Operators with a projection onto the wall infront of us.
Look at where the target came from and where the interceptor came from. The Interceptor actually has to fly perpendicular to the direction of the target. I'd say that's pretty good proof that the system doesn't just defend some narrow area.
Then again I'm sure you're a aerospace engineer who knows the velocities and steering characteristics of the interceptor missiles. You've run simulations for incoming missiles from all probably north korean launch points towards all important US targets. You've figured out what the defended area is and the probability of intercept is given the launch point and the impact area.
Or maybe you're some bored, semi-technical kid with a bad handle talking about things you don't know.
Because we all know that north korean missiles are so amazingly advanced... Or was it that theirs blew up 20 seconds into flight?
I cannot believe that the US launches 2 ICBMs, runs them into each other in space, and people complain that it'll never defend against a country who's last flight test barely left their airspace.
If you take the view that quantum cryptography secures your data, then you're right, there are other problems. However there is big business in securing point-to-point links. Just ask NSA. The problem is you pretty regularly have to completely change out your equipment as new encryption algorithms are weakened or as computers increase in speed. With quantum cryptography, you could theoretically have the same encryption equipment for decades saving large amounts of money on replacing equipment.
HD-DVD and Blueray were always a solution but the problem they were meant to address, providing High Definition comment, wasn't really a problem. When DVDs came out, video was video. People hadn't started to think of/treat video as simply data. When Blueray and HD-DVD came out, video was data, nothing more, nothing less.
The problem sony THOUGHT it was solving with blueray was how to distribute high def video. However, because of the delays in getting the technology out, the problem they were really addressing turned into how to distribute large amounts of data. Guess what, we already have that. I have massive USB disks in both solid state and hard drive formats. I have a network connection capable of moving massive amounts of data. Blueray is simply ANOTHER way, not THE ONLY way.
The real problem now is the data FORMAT. The transmission media is irrelevant, but the data format needs to be able to inable scaling of data quality and media independence. I assume thats what we are seeing with the new Ghostbusters usb stick, is an attempt to start thinking about the real problem and get past the transmission bump.
Why do we not see many wireless locks such as a bluetooth lock? Why can't I pair my device with my door and send a code to open it? Thats what I'd like to see.
I am in the exact same position as tachyon13. I work on a weapon system which probably has higher Information Assurance considerations than any other fielded system. I can say the the driving factors in security from highest to lowest are: Contractor's willingness to implement, Development schedule and configuration management (revisions scheduled in terms of years), Cost, technical, security impact. In other words, security happens according to 1000 other whims. Any Cyber Security command will have develop unique processes and procedures (more akin to NSA) to operate. If the have to wait 6 months for an IA tool to be approved, another 3 months to buy, 3 to approve for installation on the computer, and 1 to install, they are not going to win the IA battle.
I've always been surprised that no-one has implemented a bluetooth door lock. While RFID is notoriously insecure, a simple, encrypted bluetooth session should be easy to set up. Charging of the lock could be done either through a battery or through an induction system. You could have a manual key lock operation but in most cases either open the lock by syncing with your cell phone or pass some data over the link.
I always have to wonder what the target market is with these.. If I am a college student or such it's out of my range. If I am a business person I am using it on planes or in airports or in a hotel. My biggest concern though is being able to use the equipment I need, (CDs, USB disks, getting online, and in my case, SD cards). So when a system sacrifices internal drives for size, it is useless. The one exception is for tablet systems which someone may be carrying with them to meetings and such. Then weight is a signfiicant factor. Still, though I have a tablet without an integrated DVD drive and it is annoying to mess with the cables if I want to watch a dvd or copy a CD someone has brought to a meeting.
What I would honestly like to see from Apple is a tablet laptop with an integrated DVD drive. I would snatch one of those up in a heartbeat. Alternately I heard a rumor about a micro portable system with 2 screens, 1 being normal and one being like an ipod touch which would act as the keyboard and mouse. The idea was it was pocket size though larger than a cell phone. I could go for one of those too to do most of my computing on during my day.
Apple is going to find it's self behind though if it doesn't use it's multi-touch technology to come out with some tablet PCs or turn the ipod touch into a full computing environment. Most universities have tablets which people graduating will come to expect in their laptops. And the low end small end will be taken over by the nokia tablet, the Asus Eee. And true laptops will be expected to have all the media interfaces so that a businessmen sitting in his hotel can feel like he's at his desk. Not a lotta room left for apple.
I would think about buying this except that my mac mini can't even handle the OS it has right now. It runs terribly slow (bearly usable) just running a web browser, iTunes, and an IM client. I can't image how slow my computer would run with these new features.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have a Blackberry enterprise server, the email goes through RIM in Canada but is encrypted all the way from the blackberry to the enterprise server. If there is an issue I would assume it is because France isn't properly encrypting their streams or is too cheap to buy the enterprise server.
I have to agree. I have used iTunes TV downloads and paying $2 for a TV episode is rediculious. For those not doing the math, at 24 episodes/season thats roughly $50 per season. At that price you can go buy the DVD which you can then rip to whatever format you wish.
The website methods, on the other hand work well. My GF who is not a computer person but will use them LOVES watching ABC shows on her laptop. She'll sit and watch Grey's Anatomy on her own though she rarely will work the media center PC or iTunes on the TV.
iTunes needs to stick to Movies. Sooner or later the networks will provide all their shows online and on demand with ad support.
I'll assume parent is a joke. What if Telnet is running on a network contained in a single room where only people with system administrator privileges have access to the space? What if there is no routing from that network to outside networks and outside networks are only accessable through dual homed computers with application layer translators which have been locked down to the outside? Is telnet still a risk? You have to consider the setting the vulnerability is in. Otherwise the assessment is simply how many boxes can you check and has no corrilation to risk or information security.
So the agencies were all graded on their self-reporting of their own security... I think I'm seeing the problem here. My guess is the DoD and other high-profile agencies got poorer marks because they grade themselves harder. I have seen many times where a group gets a bunch of security requirements and responds back, "yeah, we meet those."
And even legitimate reporting of FISMA requirements is damn near pointless. Q: "Do you have a firewall?" A: "yes! It's default allow with no rules but the requirement sais firewall." Q "Do you have an IDS?" A: "Yes! It has the default rule set, no one monitoring it, and we don't even know if you can access the logs but it's there." I have seen that answer, literally, on a system that people would simple assume had someone personally approving every packet.
In the end, it's damn near impossible to tell who's secure and who isn't without having a single team do unannounced pen tests on everything and reporting how they compare. And there are so many problems with that approach I don't know where to start. But you will always have teams that lock a system down so tight water doesn't get in yet fail requirements. You have people who meet the letter of requirements yet add no measurable security. And you will have the people who simply lie because they can't be bothered to hire someone competant to do the reporting.
You recall incorrectly. In the first Gulf War Patriot Missiles were found to have not worked and that the incomming missiles had simply broken up. In the second gulf war, PAC3's hit something like 8 of 9 incomming. Also, the most recent PAC3 test was a quad salvo against twin targets; a shoot twice concept. Both of the first interceptors hit and the second 2 interceptors were destructed.
Additionally, Aegis SM3's, (which a parent was speaking about when refering to the Navy's interceptors), have a stellar test record, only missing one.
The ground based missiles are the only ones that seem to have a sketchy record, though really only in 2 or 3 back-to-back tests. They have had multiple successful tests since then.
As far as decoys go, decoys are normally for missiles outside the atmosphere, not ones falling through the air.
Hitting a bullet with a bullet so to speak has a fairly good track record assuming all missiles launch.
Slashdot Mirror
actually, I've been wanting a touch screen to hang on my wall. It'll act as a digital picture frame some of the time. However, it'll be used to control music playing in the house, show videos, check weather, etc. Honestly though, I wish they'd try and get them in the 400-600 range.
I can tell you what I do. I have a Windows 2008 SBS that runs a domain. You should be able to join ubuntu, mac os x, and windows (assuming pro) to it. I also have a single internal file server. You can map directories off of it to mount as home directories using NFS and you can map the Windows 2008 SBS data stores to the file server as well. I'd also enable samba on the file server so you can simply mount the shares when needed. When you need to access them outside of your network, I'd set up the VPN capabilities of your external router. Then you can either VPN in to access or you can go through the SBS website to access. (Of course a static IP and domain help with this.)
However, if you're still willing to subject yourself to it, look to corporate IT. they are the gold standard for maintaining stupid people's computers. Personally, I'd build a slip-steamed USB drive that you can plug in and have automatically rebuild a computer. Also, I'd consider looking to see if there are any tools you can use to dump a rediculiously restrictive policy on the computers. Finally, depending on the types of computers, you may want to consider looking at some of the desktop-type virtualization technologies. That way when they screw up their computer, you can just dump the VM back on.
I personally used an MSDN license to pull a copy of windows SBS and a few copies of windows pro. I joined everything to the domain and then centrally manage. Turn VPN on on their home router and you can simply VPN in, remote desktop to the server, and push the fix to the computers. (Personally, I don't know why MS doesn't offer a stripped down version of SBS for home use designed to allow a parent or such to manage all the computers in the house without going to each one individually...)
The problem with GPSs is that they haven't done anything with them while google and cell phone developers are innovating at the speed of light. The GPS manufacturers could just as easily turn a profit by selling apps (tomtom already does), but again, they'd have to compete with someone who is actually innovating.
The speaker spent a good amount of time on China and it's history. What it boiled down to is China's cyberware abilities are kind of like militias. They're different local groups tied tightly to the government and to academia.
In contrast, the US seems to either be research associated with academia or action explicitly part of military groups, (like the cyber command thing). (The speaker indicated this was because the US had such strict laws against accessing other people's computers.) Russia seems to be heavily supported by organized crime and other countries have other motivations.
The point being that you really can't apply the US model to other countries. Thats why it's hard to nail down and say "China is doing evil" or "Russia is doing evil" or "the US is doing evil". Each country is multiple facets and different facets of each country are associated with cyberware.
I'd highly recommend you check out Classroom presenter from the University of Washington. It's what I and some friends have used previously with our tablets (currently a tc4200 but previously a tc1100) to give in-class presentations.
We have forced evacuations of the physical US. No-one complains that uncle sam is stealing trying to make them homeless. We have road closures all the time. No-one complains that the government is trying to cut us off from the world.
Why is it different with cyber-security? As someone who has to protect critical infrastructure, it's got to happen. Until there is some legal standing for offensive action in response to cyber attack, the US will just be sitting ducks. The government at least needs the ability to fight on the network as if it was any other battle field. We read all the time about china or north korea or russian crime attacking the US so the battle must be ongoing. The difference is that the US populace, (or at least the technical portion) complains if fighting back means doing so on US networks.
So now I'll have to sell it and pick up an N900 when (and if given the n97 took half a year from it's announchement) taking a massive loss on the N97. Again, thank you nokia for keeping me from making an informed decision.
If you're a masochist, you can always try and follow the DoD Architecture Framework which defines multiple views of architectures (including networks). Once finished, there shouldn't be any question of what your network is, what it does, and how it does it, but you'd probably need an army of peons to put it together.
I'm very much an advocate for touch screen management of sitautions. I'd love to have the Computer Security equivalent to their screen infront of me or my Network Security Operators with a projection onto the wall infront of us.
This is 1 warhead away from a cruise missile. We've had air vehicles who could fly themselves by GPS for years.
Look at where the target came from and where the interceptor came from. The Interceptor actually has to fly perpendicular to the direction of the target. I'd say that's pretty good proof that the system doesn't just defend some narrow area.
Then again I'm sure you're a aerospace engineer who knows the velocities and steering characteristics of the interceptor missiles. You've run simulations for incoming missiles from all probably north korean launch points towards all important US targets. You've figured out what the defended area is and the probability of intercept is given the launch point and the impact area.
Or maybe you're some bored, semi-technical kid with a bad handle talking about things you don't know.
Because we all know that north korean missiles are so amazingly advanced... Or was it that theirs blew up 20 seconds into flight?
I cannot believe that the US launches 2 ICBMs, runs them into each other in space, and people complain that it'll never defend against a country who's last flight test barely left their airspace.
If you take the view that quantum cryptography secures your data, then you're right, there are other problems. However there is big business in securing point-to-point links. Just ask NSA. The problem is you pretty regularly have to completely change out your equipment as new encryption algorithms are weakened or as computers increase in speed. With quantum cryptography, you could theoretically have the same encryption equipment for decades saving large amounts of money on replacing equipment.
HD-DVD and Blueray were always a solution but the problem they were meant to address, providing High Definition comment, wasn't really a problem. When DVDs came out, video was video. People hadn't started to think of/treat video as simply data. When Blueray and HD-DVD came out, video was data, nothing more, nothing less.
The problem sony THOUGHT it was solving with blueray was how to distribute high def video. However, because of the delays in getting the technology out, the problem they were really addressing turned into how to distribute large amounts of data. Guess what, we already have that. I have massive USB disks in both solid state and hard drive formats. I have a network connection capable of moving massive amounts of data. Blueray is simply ANOTHER way, not THE ONLY way. The real problem now is the data FORMAT. The transmission media is irrelevant, but the data format needs to be able to inable scaling of data quality and media independence. I assume thats what we are seeing with the new Ghostbusters usb stick, is an attempt to start thinking about the real problem and get past the transmission bump.
Why do we not see many wireless locks such as a bluetooth lock? Why can't I pair my device with my door and send a code to open it? Thats what I'd like to see.
I am in the exact same position as tachyon13. I work on a weapon system which probably has higher Information Assurance considerations than any other fielded system. I can say the the driving factors in security from highest to lowest are: Contractor's willingness to implement, Development schedule and configuration management (revisions scheduled in terms of years), Cost, technical, security impact. In other words, security happens according to 1000 other whims. Any Cyber Security command will have develop unique processes and procedures (more akin to NSA) to operate. If the have to wait 6 months for an IA tool to be approved, another 3 months to buy, 3 to approve for installation on the computer, and 1 to install, they are not going to win the IA battle.
I've always been surprised that no-one has implemented a bluetooth door lock. While RFID is notoriously insecure, a simple, encrypted bluetooth session should be easy to set up. Charging of the lock could be done either through a battery or through an induction system. You could have a manual key lock operation but in most cases either open the lock by syncing with your cell phone or pass some data over the link.
I always have to wonder what the target market is with these.. If I am a college student or such it's out of my range. If I am a business person I am using it on planes or in airports or in a hotel. My biggest concern though is being able to use the equipment I need, (CDs, USB disks, getting online, and in my case, SD cards). So when a system sacrifices internal drives for size, it is useless. The one exception is for tablet systems which someone may be carrying with them to meetings and such. Then weight is a signfiicant factor. Still, though I have a tablet without an integrated DVD drive and it is annoying to mess with the cables if I want to watch a dvd or copy a CD someone has brought to a meeting.
What I would honestly like to see from Apple is a tablet laptop with an integrated DVD drive. I would snatch one of those up in a heartbeat. Alternately I heard a rumor about a micro portable system with 2 screens, 1 being normal and one being like an ipod touch which would act as the keyboard and mouse. The idea was it was pocket size though larger than a cell phone. I could go for one of those too to do most of my computing on during my day.
Apple is going to find it's self behind though if it doesn't use it's multi-touch technology to come out with some tablet PCs or turn the ipod touch into a full computing environment. Most universities have tablets which people graduating will come to expect in their laptops. And the low end small end will be taken over by the nokia tablet, the Asus Eee. And true laptops will be expected to have all the media interfaces so that a businessmen sitting in his hotel can feel like he's at his desk. Not a lotta room left for apple.
I would think about buying this except that my mac mini can't even handle the OS it has right now. It runs terribly slow (bearly usable) just running a web browser, iTunes, and an IM client. I can't image how slow my computer would run with these new features.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have a Blackberry enterprise server, the email goes through RIM in Canada but is encrypted all the way from the blackberry to the enterprise server. If there is an issue I would assume it is because France isn't properly encrypting their streams or is too cheap to buy the enterprise server.
I have to agree. I have used iTunes TV downloads and paying $2 for a TV episode is rediculious. For those not doing the math, at 24 episodes/season thats roughly $50 per season. At that price you can go buy the DVD which you can then rip to whatever format you wish. The website methods, on the other hand work well. My GF who is not a computer person but will use them LOVES watching ABC shows on her laptop. She'll sit and watch Grey's Anatomy on her own though she rarely will work the media center PC or iTunes on the TV. iTunes needs to stick to Movies. Sooner or later the networks will provide all their shows online and on demand with ad support.
I'll assume parent is a joke. What if Telnet is running on a network contained in a single room where only people with system administrator privileges have access to the space? What if there is no routing from that network to outside networks and outside networks are only accessable through dual homed computers with application layer translators which have been locked down to the outside? Is telnet still a risk? You have to consider the setting the vulnerability is in. Otherwise the assessment is simply how many boxes can you check and has no corrilation to risk or information security.
So the agencies were all graded on their self-reporting of their own security... I think I'm seeing the problem here. My guess is the DoD and other high-profile agencies got poorer marks because they grade themselves harder. I have seen many times where a group gets a bunch of security requirements and responds back, "yeah, we meet those."
And even legitimate reporting of FISMA requirements is damn near pointless. Q: "Do you have a firewall?" A: "yes! It's default allow with no rules but the requirement sais firewall." Q "Do you have an IDS?" A: "Yes! It has the default rule set, no one monitoring it, and we don't even know if you can access the logs but it's there." I have seen that answer, literally, on a system that people would simple assume had someone personally approving every packet.
In the end, it's damn near impossible to tell who's secure and who isn't without having a single team do unannounced pen tests on everything and reporting how they compare. And there are so many problems with that approach I don't know where to start. But you will always have teams that lock a system down so tight water doesn't get in yet fail requirements. You have people who meet the letter of requirements yet add no measurable security. And you will have the people who simply lie because they can't be bothered to hire someone competant to do the reporting.
You recall incorrectly. In the first Gulf War Patriot Missiles were found to have not worked and that the incomming missiles had simply broken up. In the second gulf war, PAC3's hit something like 8 of 9 incomming. Also, the most recent PAC3 test was a quad salvo against twin targets; a shoot twice concept. Both of the first interceptors hit and the second 2 interceptors were destructed.
Additionally, Aegis SM3's, (which a parent was speaking about when refering to the Navy's interceptors), have a stellar test record, only missing one.
The ground based missiles are the only ones that seem to have a sketchy record, though really only in 2 or 3 back-to-back tests. They have had multiple successful tests since then.
As far as decoys go, decoys are normally for missiles outside the atmosphere, not ones falling through the air.
Hitting a bullet with a bullet so to speak has a fairly good track record assuming all missiles launch.