| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdf:type | |
| rdfs:label | |
| rdfs:comment | - 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,
|
| Episode Title | |
| mp3 link | |
| Episode Date | |
| notes link | |
| dbkwik:buzzoutloud/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Producer | |
| Guests | - Darren Kitchen @hak5darren & Shannon Morse @Snubs
|
| Episode Number | |
| Hosts | - Tom Merritt, Jason Howell
Co-hosts: Rafe Needleman
|
| abstract | - 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 Canada 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. Cheers, P.S. Been too long since I chimed in. :-) Tom needs to opine more often on patents.
|
