|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Jerry AvinsJerry Avins Date: Jul 11, 2006 09:53
Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>> That's still not an answer that means much to me. It's like a doctor
>> telling someone that he can't sleep that he has insomnia. In what way
>> does someone over forty unable to distinguish what a whippersnapper can?
>> You ruled out loss of highs as the deficiency; what else have I lost?
>
> Everything. Actually, it's all linked together, and the only thing that
> really changes is the minimal amount of energy needed to trigger a sense
> neuron in the ear. Unfortunately, the tiny hairs in the inner ear that
> connect the neurons to the liquid wear out. So the accumulated stress on
> them makes you hear less and less over age - faster if you stess your ears
> more (by e.g. using an iPod too often), slower if you have it quiet.
I did my ears in as a teenager, making explosives (and explosions). I
could still hear 10 KHz in my 20s, though. Now, over 70, it's like a
brick-wall filter just below 4KHz. Lately, the top two notes on a piano
are just mechanical thunks, but the note just below is clear.
> For the 16bit/44.1k audio industry, typical customer taste makes this format
> sufficient: The old people hear classic music, but can't hear the noise on
> the quiet parts, and the young people hear...
|
| Show full article (4.25Kb) |
|
| | 9 Comments |
|
|
Author: Mr. Uh ClemMr. Uh Clem Date: Aug 3, 2006 12:48
Michelle Steiner wrote:
[snip copyright violation down to fair use size...]
> The MacBook used in the demonstration was not using the wireless gear
> that shipped with the computer. Instead, they used a third-party
> wireless card that they declined to name.
>
"Attendees at the auto show were impressed when the hackers
replaced the BMW's security system with a third party unit
and then demonstrated that BMW's were vulnerable to theft."
** sheesh ** Who's going to use a third party card on a
system which already has its own built in!!! And given they
did not use the built in wireless hardware(/drivers?), one must
presume they don't have an exploit for that. (Which is not
to say that one does not exist - we must not get smug...)
The article doesn't say whose drivers allowed the compromise.
--
Clem
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
- Fudd's first law of opposition
|
| |
|
| | 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Kevin McMurtrieKevin McMurtrie Date: Aug 4, 2006 23:04
Why would you suspect that OS X is bulletproof? Apple's software is
notoriously bad at multi-threading and has a long legacy of using fixed
length fields in data structures. In addition, device drivers are often
outsourced to cheap developers that may write fragile code. There's
going to be non-Apple code in the system.
All of those early demos showing how bullet-proof MacOS X was were
bogus. OS X runs most processes at the user level. This means that
it's difficult to corrupt the OS but it also means that a malicious
user-level process has more targets at its own level that it may
manipulate. The second weakness is that OS X loads extensions into
kernel space. Besides causing lots of panics (stupid Apple USB
driver!), it means that the entire OS can be hijacked by attacking
common 3rd party software.
Making a secure system is HARD. Don't bet on it being done right.
|
| |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: Ray LaughtonRay Laughton Date: Aug 5, 2006 10:17
Barry Margolin alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <040820061228287314%%%%%%%%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> So there is absolutely nothing beyond their word that this exploit
>> exists.
>
> And there's nothing beyond NASA's word that we actually put men on the
> moon.
>
> Why are so many people's first instinct to assume they're lying?
Doesnt matter. We've been warned, so until Apple comes up with a fix we
either switch off Airport or simply switch off the computer when its not
needed.. -or is sleep mode enough?
ray
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tom StillerTom Stiller Date: Aug 5, 2006 10:50
In article <1hjlrgg.119t9fx1acvlwbN%%%%%%%%rlaughton@ invalid.com>,
rlaughton@ invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> Barry Margolin alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> In article <040820061228287314%%%%%%%%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>
>>> So there is absolutely nothing beyond their word that this exploit
>>> exists.
>>
>> And there's nothing beyond NASA's word that we actually put men on the
>> moon.
>>
>> Why are so many people's first instinct to assume they're lying?
>
> Doesnt matter. We've been warned, so until Apple comes up with a fix we
> either switch off Airport or simply switch off the computer when its not
> needed.. -or is sleep mode enough?
Or make sure that it's paired with a known, good network.
|
| Show full article (0.92Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Matthew RussottoMatthew Russotto Date: Aug 5, 2006 16:47
In article sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie dslextreme.com> wrote:>Why would you suspect that OS X is bulletproof? Apple's software is
>notoriously bad at multi-threading and has a long legacy of using fixed
>length fields in data structures.
ROTFL. Now there's a major indictment, fixed length fields in data
structures.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Dave BalderstoneDave Balderstone Date: Aug 5, 2006 17:20
In article <6eWdnUVK8e23s0jZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@ speakeasy.net>, Matthew
Russotto grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> In article sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Kevin McMurtrie dslextreme.com> wrote:>>Why would you suspect that OS X is bulletproof? Apple's software is
>>notoriously bad at multi-threading and has a long legacy of using fixed
>>length fields in data structures.
>
> ROTFL. Now there's a major indictment, fixed length fields in data
> structures.
Those BASTARDS!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Kevin McMurtrieKevin McMurtrie Date: Aug 5, 2006 23:12
> In article sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Kevin McMurtrie dslextreme.com> wrote:>>Why would you suspect that OS X is bulletproof? Apple's software is
>>notoriously bad at multi-threading and has a long legacy of using fixed
>>length fields in data structures.
>
> ROTFL. Now there's a major indictment, fixed length fields in data
> structures.
That was great in the 80s but now it's a hassle. Moving untrusted data
to variable-length or self-managing objects makes the code more secure
and easier to maintain.
This issue bit Apple just a little while ago. Their upgrade to Apple
File Protocol caused Adobe products to crash from a buffer overrun.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Neill MasselloNeill Massello Date: Aug 5, 2006 14:07
Tom Stiller comcast.net> wrote:
> Or make sure that it's paired with a known, good network.
Not good enough, if Ellch's and Maynor's claims are true. Your Mac can
supposedly be hacked any time the AirPort card is on, whether or not
it's connected to any network.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dave BalderstoneDave Balderstone Date: Aug 5, 2006 17:20
In article <6eWdnUVK8e23s0jZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@ speakeasy.net>, Matthew
Russotto grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> In article sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Kevin McMurtrie dslextreme.com> wrote:>>Why would you suspect that OS X is bulletproof? Apple's software is
>>notoriously bad at multi-threading and has a long legacy of using fixed
>>length fields in data structures.
>
> ROTFL. Now there's a major indictment, fixed length fields in data
> structures.
Those BASTARDS!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
