Today, the last Friday of July is SysAdmin day and we appreciate them even more because they came through during the live show and got us back on line. We also talk about David Pogue's new movement to 'take back the beep.' And we need to watch out for Pandas. Listen and you'll find out why. Special Guests: The hosts of Hak5.
Apple to fix iPhone security flaw
The Truth About The iPhone Virus / Vulnerability Thing
Elinor: Researchers attack my iPhone via SMS
David Pogue Wants to Take Back the Beep
Bootkit bypasses Truecrypt full disk encryption
Hackers: We can bypass San Francisco e-parking meters
HP researchers reveal details of browser based darknet
Shock threat to shut Skype
CU prof’s iPhone app lets users snoop out surroundings
Cash for Clunkers cars get lethal injections
Fewer Than 10 ET Civilizations In Our Galaxy?
Police: Texting, talking NY trucker hits car, pool
Anonymous Premise Technician on Fiber to the premise
SysAdmin on a special holiday
Hi BUZZ Crew:
Just a quick note to say that on episode 1030 you discussed the new SSL vulnerability reported at Black Hat. You also went on to state how this issue could impact some web browsers more then others. You then noted that as it relates to this specific issue IE was more secure then FireFox.
A number of sources are now correcting the original report (including CNET [kudos for that]) to state that this issue will not impact FireFox 3.5 but only 3.0 and prior version of FireFox. I just thought that reporting this correction to BUZZ Town would be important.
Highly addicted to the show,
IT Security Consultant
St. John’s, Newfoundland
Hey guys, just wanted to opine on the news story from BOL-1029. Totally normal practice to file a patent application and keep it active for a few years and file continuations with new patent claims (which define the scope of their protection) that cover actual implementations of competitors. There must be support for those new claims in the originally filed specification, however, so if they drafted the original application broadly enough, then it is perfectly legit to file new claims covering podcasting methods.
Quickly reviewed claim 1 and it is interesting, though the channel depth term seems problematic possibly. Looks like the original application is still pending, so they have the opportunity to further amend. Looks to be directed at the user side of the equation, so anyone who develops/deploys a podcatching app (wow, been a while since I used that term) might be running afoul of this patent.
Bob “The Patent Lawyer”
P.S. Been too long since I chimed in. :-) Tom needs to opine more often on patents.