alex1 (u/alex1) - Readit News

alex1 commented on Webcams used to attack Reddit and Twitter recalled bbc.com/news/technology-3... · Posted by u/rietta

alex1 · 9 years ago

There should be recalls from more manufacturers. Someone I know purchased a surveillance camera with a major brand name (Samsung) from Costco [0] just a few weeks ago that gave me a root shell by simply telneting in as root with no password and no way to reliably set a root password or disable telnet. It was returned the following day. Last I checked, Costco is still selling it. This problem isn't confined to cheap Chinese cameras you can buy online. Vulnerable devices are being sold at major American retailers and they are still on the shelves.

[0] http://www.costco.com/Samsung-SmartCam-HD-Plus-1080p-Wi-Fi-I...

alex1 commented on Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP? torrentfreak.com/pirates-... · Posted by u/dbcooper

e12e · 9 years ago

To add to this - a typical cinema release is a pretty big file - frame-by-frame encoded as jpg2000 in 4k. Often shipped on hard drives, or downloaded via dedicated fiber lines. They key material is distributed separately, and allows for fine-grained control of play back (eg time of day - to the point that if a screening is sufficiently delayed, it may sometimes have to be cancelled if a new key can't be acquired in time...).

This all works due to proprietary hardware - the modifications to the 4k cinema projectors that enable decryption almost at the lens/imaging chip can cost as much as the projector itself, doubling the price of the projector (last I heard from around 15k to 30k USD).

With a more sane key distribution (no master keys in equipment, like with dvds) - I don't believe DCP is likely to be cracked in the same sense CSS was: probably the more likely scenario is that some insider leak some of the distributors private keys which would allow certain releases to be cracked - but would likely also trigger key roll over.

Also worth nothing that the DCP format is pretty nice, has optional encryption - and you can make your own. With the right contacts you can view your own footage on on a cinema screen :-)

See eg:

http://www.knuterikevensen.com/?p=2559

alex1 · 9 years ago

> probably the more likely scenario is that some insider leak some of the distributors private keys which would allow certain releases to be cracked - but would likely also trigger key roll over.

It could also be the case that someone leaked the plaintext symmetric key(s) for this specific movie's DCP. If someone gained access to private/secret keys on a compromised DCP player somewhere, it'd be smarter to leak symmetric keys for individual movies to avoid detection.

alex1 commented on Docker 1.11: The first OCI-compliant runtime, built on containerd blog.docker.com/2016/04/d... · Posted by u/ah3rz

wmf · 10 years ago

This "standardization" is pretty kludgey if you have to docker pull then docker export.

alex1 · 10 years ago

I think that's because OCI currently only has a specification for the runtime, not the distributable image. But it seems like as of a few weeks ago, work is underway to standardize the distributable image as well: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec

alex1 commented on El Capitan and Homebrew github.com/Homebrew/homeb... · Posted by u/juanfatas

eloisant · 10 years ago

That's a common Unix practice to put system-wide stuff manually managed (as opposed to managed by the OS/distribution) in /usr/local.

alex1 · 10 years ago

Yep, I agree and that's where I install stuff on everything other than OS X. One distinction though, I think, is that most of the stuff I install on OS X I don't want to be available system-wide. I'm (typically) not using Homebrew to install daemons that run all the time or things that serve critical system/network functions, so I've never seen a reason to make them available to the entire system. I agree that goes against the Unix way but I started preferring this way of using Homebrew after I had similar problems upgrading and even updating OS X.

Also, what if for some reason a single machine is shared by two people and they need different versions of some programs installed with Homebrew? Installing everything in /usr/local isn't going to look like a good idea then.

alex1 commented on El Capitan and Homebrew github.com/Homebrew/homeb... · Posted by u/juanfatas

Tehnix · 10 years ago

Because it has never caused any trouble having it in /usr/local, and as another user said /usr/local/bin is part of the standard path.

Other than this one-liner, which is done once, there really isn't any extra hassle with using the default.

I'd be more interested in why you didn't want to install it there?

alex1 · 10 years ago

Mostly because of my (perhaps irrational) OCD in not wanting to touch global system paths or files, even though under FHS /usr/local is where you're supposed to install manually-managed libraries and binaries. I believe Homebrew likes to have its path owned by you instead of root, so I think it makes more sense to have stuff that's going to be owned by me to be in my home folder rather than /usr/local.

alex1 commented on El Capitan and Homebrew github.com/Homebrew/homeb... · Posted by u/juanfatas

alex1 · 10 years ago

I'm curious to know if there's a reason everyone installs Homebrew in /usr/local (other than it being the default installation path). I've always chosen to install it in ~/.homebrew and haven't had any problems. Everything I install with Homebrew seems to handle an alternative prefix without issue.