Aaron Adams’s Blowhard Blog

An alleged “security researcher”, whose real name and credentials are still unknown, was allowed by the owner of a Mac mini to create his own account in an LDAP directory and given shell access. The “security researcher” then exploited an unpublished vulnerability (that he somehow knew about, even though it’s unpublished) to gain root access to the machine, which he then used to deface a web page. The “security researcher” hasn’t divulged what vulnerability he took advantage of, and he hasn’t divulged what process he used to deface the web page. The owner of the machine hasn’t revealed what OS version and patch level the Mac mini was running, nor what other modifications were made to the machine, if any. Specifics are totally lacking.

From these lacking facts, ZDnet decides that OS X is inherently insecure and can be hacked in 30 minutes. For whatever unfathomable reason, they want the Mac to be as insecure as possible to support some childish notion that, ha ha!, Mac users are just as bad off as the rest of us. To borrow some phrasing, the drive-by media has already come to the conclusion that the Mac is security swiss cheese that nobody has noticed yet, and it’s about to be avalanched with viruses and hack attacks. The evidence says otherwise, but the evidence doesn’t forward the action line of their story - that the Mac is about to get blasted. Only news that supports their preconceived conclusion is worth publishing.

Before I’m accused of having my head in the sand, I’m obliged to say that no operating system is invulnerable. Mac users know that. We don’t claim invulnerability, we claim greater resistance than others.

Two “viruses” that require the user to purposely download and execute malicious code, and one alleged hacker attack for which no specifics are available do not a crisis make.

Thanks to Josh for getting me the cake, and thanks to my friend Paul Sahner of DV Graphics for designing the cartoon logo I’ve used so much over the past few years.

So you’ve enabled WebDAV on your OS X server with the intention to drag-and-drop files and folders to a web site. But there’s a problem. When you drag a folder from your local machine to the WebDAV share, OS X gives you this error:

“The operation cannot be completed because you do not have sufficient privileges for some of the items.”

WTF does that mean? What privileges and what items? (Some specifics would really be a great troubleshooting help here.) You can create new folders and copy files by the dozen, you just can’t drag-and-drop an existing folder. You know that ACL and/or POSIX permissions on the WebDAV server are set correctly. It’s frustrating. What the hell is going on?
Read the rest of this entry »

Back in the “olden” days, you bought a TV, plugged it in, moved the rabbit ears, turned a knob, and watched your shows through the air for free.

Now you have to choose between many different TV technologies when purchasing. You have to make sure the TV has the right kinds of plugs for your other AV components, or to just receive basic programming. You have to decide between different screen formats and resolutions. You have to know whether your TV includes a tunrer for the type of signal you intend it to receive. You may have to buy separate speakers for your TV. When you get your TV home, you usually have to plug in a number of components for full functionality. You usually need (or just want) pay service from a cable or satellite company. That company has to install hardware of some kind at your home and enable the service from their end. A wire (or wires) need to be run from the service provider’s hardware to your new TV (with the correct kind of plug). Sometimes the service provider doesn’t have the proper equipment available for you to receive the signal your TV was designed to use, so you’re placed on a waiting list. The TV and each component comes with a 400-button remote control, and no remote control performs all functions with all devices. If your TV is capable of receiving a certain kind of high quality signal, the broadcasters in your area may frequently forget to switch on that high quality signal during certain shows, or your service provider may not carry the high quality channel(s) you like, reducing the value and utility of your new equipment.

Is this progress?

Those who wish to make America into even more of a nanny state than it already is want to ban the use of cell phones while driving. It creates an unacceptable hazard to everyone on the road, they say, and should be illegal.

I’d like to point out this article about reaction times while using a cell phone, and quote the appropriate passages:

A report from the University of Utah says when motorists between 18 and 25 talk on cell phones, they drive like elderly people — moving and reacting more slowly and increasing their risk of accidents.

“If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver,” said David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study. “It’s like instant aging.”

Cell phone use reduces reaction time so much that it should be illegal in cars. So when are we taking dangerous elderly people off the road as well? After all, they’re just as deadly.

It doesn’t matter whether the phone is hand-held or hands-free, he said. Any activity requiring a driver to “actively be part of a conversation” likely will impair driving abilities, Strayer said.

If we ban cell phone use in a car, then we must logically make speaking to the driver illegal. Cars should be built with an isolation compartment for the driver so he cannot be distracted. It’s the only way to comply with the law.

I group the anti-cell phone people in with the anti-smoking people I’ve written about before inasmuch as they’re proponents of government interference into even more day-to-day activities of my life. It’s not bad enough that sex offenders are either released into a community when they’re still dangerous, or that they’re unable to ever pay the debt for their crime, even though they’ve been released from prison; it’s not enough that unconstitutional DUI checkpoints are permitted to operate; it’s not enough that you’re compelled to give evidence against yourself, under penalty of law, when you’re stopped for a DUI; it’s not enough that private property owners can’t choose to permit smoking on their private property in a growing number of cities; it’s not enough that many states require drivers to wear seat belts under penalty of law; now they want to prohibit the use of cell phones while driving.

Those of you worried about evil ol’ GWB “spying” on your phone conversations need to wake up and realize the real infringements against your civil rights that are happening at this moment and concentrate on doing something about them.