Ace on Tech

Weekend: Apple yanked ZFS from Snow Leopard, enemy of TV industry, SSD goes mainstream & more

Aug 31

AceTech Articles Apple, HDD, Microsoft, snow leopard, ssd, twitter View Comments

Tech news roundup up for August 29 through August 30, 2009. As weekends are less news-laden than weekdays, the following stories are mostly in-depth editorials about a certain subject. During the weekend it’s time to sit down with a good long article and engross. This weekend’s highlights:

• Solid-State Drives Go Mainstream #
• Woofer: This Twitter look-alike requires 1,400 characters #
• Using ‘Free’ to Turn a Profit #
• Hey, PC, Who Taught You to Fight Back? #
• Is Apple the Enemy of the TV Industry? Microsoft Thinks So #
• Apple kicks ZFS in the butt #

Solid-State Drives Go Mainstream

While prices for SSDs are still significantly high when compared to conventional spinning hard drives, mainstream consumers are starting to see the benefit of this new technology. As more and more manufacturers and models are available on the market, computer vendors are starting to incorporate them into lower-end computers as well. Because SSDs are currently still limited in storage space (up to 256GB, .5TB & 1TB are available but are prohibitively expensive), more and more people are turning to them as complimentary storage. SSDs can easily contain the operating system and applications, while other data can be stored on normal HDDs. Because SSDs are inherently faster, this workflow would evidently speed up your computer. ComputerWorld elaborates.

This Twitter look-alike requires 1,400 characters

I generally ignore Twitter “news” because it is cumbersome and totally useless – in my mind, but this one’s too funny. Woofer, an astoundingly accurate Twitter-lookalike actually requires you to update your status with at least 1,400 characters, as opposed to Twitter’s maximum of 140 characters. Woofer advises its users to be eloquent, to use adverbs and never to abbreviate. Via CNET News.

Using ‘Free’ to Turn a Profit

This editorial article from NYTimes gets together with Evernote and discusses its – and many other web businesses’ – revenue model. True to the web’s nature, Evernote is free for everyone to use. But how does the company make money? NYTimes finds out.

Hey, PC, Who Taught You to Fight Back?

Again from the NYTimes, this article describes Microsoft and Apple’s ad-fighting history in light of both companies’ latest television commercials. While Apple has always been big on advertising, it seems Microsoft has been making renewed commitments with its latest efforts – and is getting some results from it, too. From NYTimes.

Is Apple the Enemy of the TV Industry? Microsoft Thinks So

Microsoft’s Director of Consumer and Online in the UK has expressed his concerns with the Television Industry’s future if it doesn’t take initiatives to move its repertoire to the web and keep its content out of the hands of a single online entity – read: Apple. According to the said Director, the industry should be wary of what he called an “iTunes moment”, referring to the music industry and Apple’s hold on it with iTunes. The same could become true with TV, Microsoft warns. Via Mashable.

Apple kicks ZFS in the butt

In other Apple news, it turns out Apple completely yanked the promised ZFS functionality from its latest OS, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. ZFS is Sun’s open source, highly reliable and modern file system that would make its entree into the consumer operating system market for the first time with Snow Leopard – as announced two years ago by Apple itself. With every developer release of OS X 10.6 traces of ZFS became vaguer and the final release completely erases any trace of it – silently. Microsoft was harshly called out for yanking WinFS from Windows Vista, but is anyone paying any attention when Apple pulls the same stunt? ZDNet blog post.

URL Shorteners Should be Banished

Aug 21

AceTech Articles bit.ly, laconica, twitter, XSS View Comments

In response to social networking sites like Twitter, URL shortening services have been springing up on the web like unsavory fungus on a cheese sandwich, without the prospect of slowing down any time soon. Services like Bit.ly were inspired by the need for compact links when sharing websites in character-limited status updates on Twitter and its Laconica-like counterparts.

While short URLs are extremely useful in these specific contexts, they also pose a serious security threat and are a bad omen of exploits to come. As Twitter-like social networks become more mainstream, regular folk will become (and presumably already are) conditioned to click on any link they come across, with the risk of landing on malicious websites that take advantage of web-based exploits like XSS (Cross-site Scripting).

In my opinion, links should be treated more like e-mail attachments. They are only to be opened when from a trusted domain. While everyone knows random link-clicking is bad web-behavior, it is being encouraged by the uprising of short-form social networks.

Unarguably, something has to change, as the bad guys have already taken the opportunity to start exploiting this phenomenon. Of course, who am I to suggest that services like Bit.ly and compatriots should be yanked from the interwebs if 140-character status updates gain traction on the net.

So, we can’t banish them. But there are things we can do to make URL shortening safer.

Site Specific Shortening URLs

Bit.ly in particular has proven its immense usefulness because of its way-advanced statistical capabilities. So it is in our own interest to keep such services alive. But..

A safer way to go about URL shortening would be to create a federated system. A possible architecture for this could be accomplished by means of a small web application (possibly coming from a third party like TinyURL or Bit.ly) installed onto the sites to which the short URLs will be linking, which in turn would do the redirecting.

For example:

If the shortening app on the given site would only allow short URLs within its own domain, individual networks of short URLs would be created and doing so would allow the user to exactly know where he’s being led to, thus eliminating the risk of contracting WTDs entirely (Web Transmittable Disease ).

Increasingly, I’ve been seeing site which have started doing something similar, but I don’t think they’re actively limiting their URLs to their own domains only. Also, I’m of the opinion that there is a need for a standard in this space. Such a standard could consolidate the matter entirely, making it safer and more uniform in the process.

The technical side of this shouldn’t be too hard, either. It’s just a matter of realizing the danger of having hyperlinks to arbitrary sites and getting some shortening providers assembled to work together to create a standard process for issuing short URLs.

Current third-party URL shorteners could integrate with the federated system to provide a higher user-friendliness. One could still use a service like Bit.ly, but it would go out and check with the domain’s URL-shortener first and return that to the requesting user, first. If not supported or available it could go ahead and generate it anyway.

Click confirmation

Another thought would be to enforce confirmation upon the clicking of a shortened URL. The hyperlink would be intercepted by a page showing information about the domain buried below. It could surface the name, the full URL and other important identifying information. Maybe a database of certified domains could even be established.

Additionally, blacklists like those behind Phishing filters could be employed to heed visitors of suspicious sites. Naturally, these databases would need some kind of governing. Perhaps a web authority like VeriSign could take this responsibility on and possibly wire it to its current SSL-verification process/database…

It’s hard to imagine for me that we’ll all just keep on clicking on links left and right without considering the significant hazard it implies. The web browser is becoming the primary vector for exploits against Internet users. No longer does the the stress lie on the avoidance of e-mail attachments. The threat actually lies within the chrome around each web page you visit.

Security-conscious users [like me] would undoubtedly like to be more cautious with short URLs, but for the lacking of a secure alternative there is nothing else to do but go with the flow for now.

Help. Someone?