Blurry Screen, User Interaction

Sometimes you just have to start troubleshooting by asking the obvious.

Notice the user's response, "no. . yes" /facepalm

Chatting With Cisco Systems Inc, Presales

Just for humor, yes my user name "Thomas" is fake. Captain Kirk's Nipples!

Outlook 2007 Hangs, Locks or Freezes When Opening An Email?

Apparently it's an old problem and I have yet to confirm if SP2 fixes this issue. However, Outlook can lock up your current window after opening an email, as if there is something that should be clicked. You'll hear the "ding" or is it "dong"? sound when you try anything else. The only way to get out of it is to kill Outlook.

This happens after you create a new profile for a user or email account in a Windows XP Pro machine running Office 2007. For some reason it doesn't seem to complete setup. To fix this problem (and a sort of a work around) is to open Word (or Excel etc) and as with most fresh Office setups, the "enter your initials" box comes up. Hit OK. Close Word and open Outlook, the problem should be resolved. I'll update tomorrow after applying SP2 if it still occurs. I may just have been late in applying this SP :-\

Motorola Droid & CompanionLink

Quick update:

I evaluated CompanionLink for Google, and it seemed unstable after a couple of hours of use. I am not sure if it was just the system it was installed on but we noticed it was extremely slow (even after playing with the settings) mainly with "Reading Outlook File" and eventually would often crash after taking a long time. It would usually freeze up Outlook. Now I am not sure if the program is just buggy or our install is just bad, anyway, I uninstalled it and continued using the Google Calender Sync alone (which works fine) and currently manually updating contacts until further notice.

Motorola Droid, Outlook Sync & Brief Review

Friday I got the, "let's get our net admin an hour before he leaves" approach. Seriously, don't you ever notice that? Usually problems will be minimal and easy throughout most of the day until about 1 hour before you leave, and usually the issue takes a little more than just an hour? Maybe it's just me, but at this time I wasn't too bothered by it considering I had the chance to play with the new Motorola Droid.

I had time to configure it and set it up, but quickly realized it wasn't without its flaws. Let is first though cover a few of the things I really found attractive.

First of all, it looks good. You cannot tell from the pictures though, but it has a nice finish, a very smooth screen a decent keypad and it is thin. The first thing I noticed, compared to the iPhone, (oh yes we are going to compare them) is that the screen is a bit taller. This is probably due to the fact that Google/Motorola saw the complete uselessness of Apple's big fat round button that does just about as much as the Any Key. The width of the screens are pretty much the same width, which is good because it keeps it small and comparable to the iPhone. However, even though it does have a taller screen than the iPhone, it is still the same size on the outer dimensions.

So does this mean that the Droid has no "home key"? Absolutely not! It in fact has FOUR different buttons on the face screen, FOUR buttons. A "Return," "Menu," "Home" (for you Apple fanboys), and a "Search" key. Sure an iPhone user could argue, "these aren't real buttons they aren't depressible in case the phone freezes up!" Oh but of course, as has been already noted in another post, this wouldn't be needed if there was a detachable battery--none of the hold-down-for-5-seconds-crap here. It comes with a battery that can be removed, like any real manly phone should have. What is more, the back slide-out cover is metal! Yes, metal, not some crappy plastic like the MotoQ had on the back, but a solid, sturdy metal cover. Underneath the battery hidden, is the microSD chip, this one came with a 16GB one (pre-installed) and expandable up to 32GB--but technically, infinite, as many as these mini cards you can fill up. One thing I forgot to mention with the face "buttons" were that they each make the phone give off a short, sharp-burst vibration, almost like a "shock" which at first I wondered: "wtf was that?" Until a few minutes later I realized it was the phone doing it. While this may be more of an "experience" feature, it was nice and satisfying to know when I hit the button I got a response from it. It's cool, if you get your hands on one, try it, it can become addicting, BZZ!

On the outside edges of the phone exists a USB port (not some proprietary connection), Volume Control, Quick Camera, and the usual Power/Lock button. Also included is a standard audio jack, (normal sized 3.5mm) unlike the MotoQ which had a smaller port--very annoying.

The camera comes with a Dual-LED flash lamp (can alternatively be used as a flashlight, no App needed for that) and a 5MP lens with auto-focus and 4x Zoom. See that Apple? All built-in, all standard. Additionally it also comes with built-in photo editing software, (also built-in is the bar-code reader). There are a ton of specs that are listed here, but I will not cover them all, for specs are specs, I am here to cover most on what I actually liked from the phone or didn't.



Another thing I did enjoy was the fact that they got rid of the big bulky bump on the right hand side of the phone that made the previous Google phone look ugly and almost made the keyboard useless. They also made it much slimmer and flat, again unlike the previous version that was thick and also had an angle (wtf?).

The speakers are nice and loud as well, which I appreciated even from the previous version, you can hear anything on it, again unlike the iPhone which in my opinion was only really loud with stock ringtones--everything else was meh.

There are plenty of things I really liked about the phone that could take me the rest of the day to cover but let me now discuss some of the things I found annoying.

The Droid's keyboard is a nicer feature now since it is even more slimmer, it can hide or slide out when you need it. However the buttons look a bit small and close together that it almost felt as if I had to be more careful on the keyboard than on the touch screen, imagine that. It also did not look as sturdy as the rest of the phone, it looked more plastic than plastic, but it worked fine.

I also didn't like the location of the microSD card, where on one hand it is nicely protected under the battery, swapping cards will take an extra couple of steps instead of just popping out the old and putting in the new. Small annoyance.

The screen wasn't as smudge proof as other phones I've used, it is very smudge prone--but maybe it was just my fingers? Either way, it is nothing a nice screen protection cover can't remedy, which also provide anti smudge protection.

However I think the biggest problem I had with Droid was the fact that it does not support (or come with any software to do so) Syncing with Outlook! Seriously? Why the heck not? Most PDAs and Smart phones have this as a standard. Granted, the Droid is new and has its own unique OS, so it cannot use ActiveSync but a solution should have been made available just for this. There are many Outlook users that don't use a Gmail account. The only way to sync your Outlook data is by having an Exchange server, 2003+. If you don't have Exchange your only option is to import all your contacts into Gmail and import all your calender events the same way. Interestingly there is an application that will sync your Outlook calender to Gmail Calender by Google, but not one for your contacts. It is free and it is here.

I came up with a theory though to why this is so at this time, Google wants all your base, I'm going with that. They probably want to encourage consumers to use Gmail if they aren't already, which will then encourage them to use Google Docs, calender, contacts etc nearly making a standard Microsoft Office install useless--cloud computing anyone? However this has a neat trick up its sleeve. Theoretically, Droid doesn't need to "sync."  Sure even Google calls it "syncing" and so do a bunch of other people, but if you look at it in practice, it isn't syncing in the sense that most people are used to with their Windows Mobile, Palms and iPhone solutions. What I mean is, Droid doesn't need to connect to your computer physically nor through a network to "sync." Let us say all  your data (contacts, events, email etc) is in Gmail, Droid simply pulls that data in real time (or damn near) and updates your phone seamlessly without ever having to hit "sync" or connect it to any computer. So in that sense, completely using Gmail for your basic Outlook needs is actually a much cooler solution; it's completely wireless, real time and accessible from any device that has access to the Internet! Alas though, people do use Outlook and my user here needs to use it--therefore having to manually update both Outlook and Gmail of contact changes is pretty freakin' stupid. Even if you're using the Google Calender sync which I mentioned earlier, it still leaves out the Contacts and other Notes that you may want synced. So if  you don't want to make around 40$ for a third party application, you are currently stuck import/exporting contacts between Outlook and Gmail if you need to update them. Fortunately, 40$ isn't a lot of money in my opinion and I am currently evaluating a solution for this problem, if it works out I'll purchase it for this particular user.

Basically all the program does (and by extension Droid too) is the data is "synced" between Outlook and Gmail through the Internet, but all that Droid is doing is actively pulling data from the Gmail account that is setup and configured on the phone already. On the surface it looks like magic, but underneath it is doing nothing more than pulling data. Simple yes, but I don't know anyone else doing this. If you really want it broken down, all the Droid is doing is in theory, accessing the Google website and viewing the data through your phone. That's why it's "real time" and "wireless" but it is all routed to the appropriate applications: contacts, gmail, docs, calender.

Here is the application for syncing both Contacts and Calender: Outlook to Gmail to Droid. CompanionLink

So far that is the only real downside to the Droid, anything else was implemented well, of course this is only a few days into its usage and I will definitely post any further annoyances regarding Google's new Droid.

UPDATE: I eventually configured it to work with out new Exchange Server. That works great. Management features are a little on the low side though.

Behind Every Good Admin, Should Be a Good Woman

Because we'd probably starve otherwise--well I would.

Spicey Lemon Chicken, con White Rice con Green Beans, and it's freakin' good. Yeah it's almost two and I am barely eating my "lunch," go figure. Thanks for my tasty dish dear, when I get home I'm going to Scout you though.

The Mickey Mouse by Apple!

Warning: This is probably a rant.

I hardly ever keep up with new things Apple spits out because I don't care. My network consists of all PC machines and servers, as do most companies. But when I do come across stuff that Apple puts out, I sometimes feel inclined to say something about it. Not so much because the technology sucks totally, but because I just don't like the Apple user attitude and I enjoy chopping them down to size. These mostly consist of people that still think there aren't any viruses for Mac OS X. Those that don't think any of their cats can't get mange or the rabies, sorry snow leopard, you can get AIDs.

What's the next Apple product to discuss? It is the "Magic Mouse." I've come to term it the Mickey Mouse, since the name "Magic Mouse" makes me think of Disneyland and Mickey. I so bet Mickey was a "Mac" and the mop was a "PC", you can tell because he's doing all the work and Mickey is prancing around acting like a moron, also he's on the Right.

I won't go into what the mouse is here because their website explains it all. However I will go into what it looks like for comic relief. It looks like a Maxi pad, or maybe an Always pad, I am not sure yet, it depends how much protection this mouse offers, but I doubt it doesn't offer much overnight protection.

Let us compare:

In the above images I was able to have the official Apple hand model demonstrate what the Maxi Pad would look like, of course we had to find an appropriate hand model to hold that big pad to make it look smaller to the public. Can you tell the difference? I couldn't either, not without labeling it, so I labeled it so you don't get confused either. I mean really, I'm married, what if I get sent to buy some pads (again ._. ) and I come back with a Magic Mouse and my wife gets mad at me? It will be all Apple's fault. That's enough of the non ergonomic design flaws I've pointed out, let's talk about the basic "intuitive" flaws now.

Apple states: "Now we’ve reached another milestone by bringing gestures to the desktop [...] that’s unlike anything ever before."

Lies! Let us introduce Apple to touch pads. What's really so different from touch pads? They too use "gestures" (a fancy way of saying, moving around your finger) and some even let you scroll left and right too. You can click by tapping or click by using the convenient buttons, look:

There's even detachable ones that you can still move around. Not to mention the Tablets that have nice pressure sensitive features and mice to use as well that require no batteries or power at all. All Apple is doing is reinventing the wheel, the touchscreen on the iPhone existed prior, the touch anything existed prior to Apple's latest trends. Even the color white existed before Apple.

Fail.

Macware for Mac Security!

It is interesting that more and more recently--well hold that thought, maybe now I am caring more about what is going on with Macs than before? Anyway, more "security" focus is being given to Macs, why? We know why, experts have been saying why for a long time.

"Macware for Mac Security"

"We hope Mac users across the globe enjoy the variety and value being offered in this bundle."

The Mac Security Bundle contains the following programs:
* Macware WebGhost5
* Intego VirusBarrier X5
* Micromat TechTool Pro 5
* Absolute Software Computrace LoJack5
* Intego ContentBarrier X5
* Intego NetBarrier X5
* Smith Micro Spring Cleaning
* JoeSoft Klix
* Intego Personal Antispam X5
* Intego FileGuard X5
* Intego Personal Backup X5
* MOApp MyWallet

I guess Justin Long on Mac vs PC commercials just gained a little more weight with "Bloatware." I just find it annoying how Apple just won't come out and state the obvious, "we're sorry people, our commercials and mass marketing campaign were very misleading."

On Computer Security Concepts & Practices

[Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert on IS or IA. All information provided are for informational purposes and as a foundation to an opinion rather than any form of academic reference. Please use the references that are provided to make further use of the information contained therein. However experiences in the field of networking and computer security in my specific environments have prompted me to document the information in this post.]

Security. It's on people's minds when surfing the web, using a network or concerned about privacy. It permeates our communication, transmissions, and even some daily routines. On the computer spectrum, since in most cases the end-user is running a Windows Operating System it is reasonable to conclude, that it at least crosses every computer user's mind at one time or another, "am I safe?"

I think there are common misconceptions thrown around on forums, social networks and among PC/Mac flame wars. Often the terms security, exploits, vulnerabilities etc. are thrown around often with loose meanings. I've often seen, 'if the PC users would switch to Mac, there would be a lot less problems with [insert exploit here]." Now this is not to say these comments are coming from security experts and those that should know better, at least I hope not. But judging by the comments I've witnessed, they seem to be misinformed people speaking to a misinformed audience.

First of all, why are there so many vulnerabilities constantly being found on a Windows OS? Well instead of simply looking at the way Windows operates, let's examine why a vulnerability exists in the first place. But if we're going to talk about vulnerabilities we will definitely need to talk about exploits right? And if we're going to talk about exploits, there would be reason to speak about payloads! We know vulnerabilities exist. We know exploits take advantage of those vulnerabilities. We know that the payloads determine how severe the vulnerability eventually becomes. So instead of talking about Windows containing "buggy or flawed" code or that it has a large market share or whatever other reason is often given, let us talk about more of the principles of security than the results of vulnerabilities, and perhaps it would give us a better understanding of why they exist anyway.

From my personal research and observance, there are three main divisions that in one form or another involve security; Computer Security, Information Security, and  IA (Information Assurance). Of course we as computer users are primarily concerned about computer security, though it is not unwise to also gain a little bit of knowledge on the other two. For two reasons: the first, computer security is actually a branch of IS, and second, the other two existed before or at the birth of computer security. So even though they are not the same thing, some fundamental things are shared among them either slightly modified or for a different purpose.


Let us first look at Information Security. Information security has existed for as long as any sense of "privacy" in humans has existed. Whenever it was that the first human breached trust, violated someone's privacy and exploited the information, you can bet that people began to worry about security. This really became apparent when the mechanism of writing became a common tool to use in  communication. Then when a mechanism for transmitting these messages were used (smoke signals, runners, coaches, letters, electronics etc.,) the need for security was obvious. It was much more evident throughout history of its importance when wars began. Intercepting information, breaching physical locations, and interrogation only magnified the need for security measures.In order to avoid some obscure history lesson, the point is, "security" has existed a long time and from the beginning there has also existed "vulnerabilities" and "exploits" for such measures. People that implemented their forms of communication, information sharing and security did not take sides in flame wars, "my smoke signal pattern is more secure than yours!" Rather as computer security enthusiasts should be, they focused on the truth, all security is penetrable.

An example, would be the well known Caesar cipher. I say well known because I think at one time or another, as children we've all seen "decoder" items or toys in cereal boxes or a box of Cracker Jacks, those were based on that particular cipher. However given its simplicity, this way of protecting information in that environment was possibly very effective. The reason I say "environment" is because of the type of people he was trying to keep out of his information. Did they know the cipher? Probably not. Was it a highly common thing among those he was protecting information from? Not really. Some scrambled letters could have easily looked as a different language and have been unusable to his enemies.

Even though it is a primitive form of "encryption" an equally primitive form of Brute Force attacks were its exploit to the vulnerability even back in 50 B.C.! Technically speaking, if you came across such an encrypted message in our day, you'd understand it was encrypted. You wouldn't know immediately though what encryption nor what algorithm was implemented, but you could guess. In this modern age, we have a wide range of access to free information, it would take a relatively short time to figure out what sort of encryption is used on a message. Really then, the principle has not changed. It is not a matter of how but when. Given enough time, anything can be cracked, but fortunately for most modern encryption, time is something humans do not have. So is the vulnerability gone? No it is not, but instead it has been made very difficult. So do any other vulnerabilities exist with modern encryption? Yes. One need to look no further than the software that makes use of the encryption, or better yet, the users. It has been proven often that social engineering is a formidable foe and it will continue to be so until humans are no longer prone to make mistakes, ever.

[For further insight on the discussed subjects see the following links: Encryption, Introduction to IS, and Software Security Engineering by Microsoft ]

There of course is much more to the workings of IS (e.g. hardware, physical, software) but is well beyond the scope of the point in this post.

Note: Information Security is modeled on three main components, which are discussed under the next heading because of their close relationship.

Now let's look at Information Assurance. With IS, we were a lot closer to the security of information, but with IA we are actually a bit higher and further from operation. This is because IA takes in a broader sense of risks that not only involve security, but availability, privacy, integrity and authenticity. There are actually a few more areas in which IA's scope manages but for this article, we do not really need to touch on them. Since it is closely related to IS, I will use the CIA model of IS (not the government agency) to display a common core of components.

The "CIA" model consists of Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. These are the main principles adopted by IS but also instituted within the IA model of principles, as I said, we are further back from the picture looking at a broader sense of information.

The basic functions of IA is to assess the object that is being protected. Remember, not only protected in a security format, but also from disaster, manipulation and availability. (Privacy, Integrity, Availability.)

Once it is decided which assets are to be protected, it is next determined what possible risks exist, ultimately worst case scenario.

When such an evaluation is done, the IA personnel will provide not a solution simply to "proof" the information from any of the above already existing vulnerabilities, but to manage how to best protect the information with the least TCO. Not only financially, but legally (broad sense) and effectively keeping availability.

If you notice however, why isn't an effort to "100% proof" a system performed? Because quite frankly it would be unreasonable to do such a thing. Not only would it be unreasonable, but consider the resources it would take at the expense of TCO; and yet the system would still prove to be penetrable. Furthermore, have you observed a system that is vulnerability proof? It then seems logical to conclude that based on these two core principles, our argument should not be on who has the most "vulnerabilities" or "exploits" but rather on providing and making use of the security and other resources immediately available!

For further reading, the following links may be of interest: Department of Defense IA Implementation, DoD Intructions, Bella-La Padula model, more on Computer Security models. Here is a paper on general security models, including the previously mentioned at crazylinux.net

And then there was Windows. After these two brief non-exhaustive presentations, it would be foolish to sit on a particular Operating System because you think it is "more secure." You are lying to yourself. Rather you should be sitting on an Operating System because of your observance of how closely the above principles are applied, but first of all with yourself. Whether at the developer level, or at the end-user level, security measures can be implemented to a respectable degree that would make even the would-be hacker nod their head in respect. Even though still penetrable, respect for security as a whole would protect you in most cases. After all, it was respect for security that moved the above principles to be developed and implemented.

Though, back on the subject of the Windows Operating Systems, again, why do they have vulnerabilities? Is it simply because the code is "bad" or because another OS does a much better job? Or could it possibly be because it is well known? Is it because it is a target? Is it because the weakest links are easier to predict than are the encryption schemes? I believe these questions should provoke objective thinking on the subject on an individual basis rather than uninformed generalizations.

The fact and theme of this post remains the same, from the ancient days of security, though it has evolved over time into different forms, the reason it has had to change has never changed itself, vulnerabilities exist in all of them and unless people cease to look for them, they will always exist. The more services are accessible, the more risks open up for breaching. The more exposure, the more chance there is. The more we think we are "safe" the more insecure we become.So again, it is not a matter of if or how, but a matter of when.

Charlie Miller on Mac's Security

Here is a couple of more sources to further show my point's validity. Don't be fooled by their marketing, Mac OS is setting itself to get owned further as their share increases.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941 Charlie Miller explains exploits in Mac OS

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hack-windows-security-snow-leopard,8704.html Charlie Miller convinced

Interesting how this supports what I said in the previous post:

"they are indeed setting up to crash and burn when they jump into the lake with the Big Fish who have been swimming with sharks for over two decades."

The question we should ask is, why were these exploits so easy to use? It's a good question, because the answer reveals Apple's pretense and attitude toward security flawed in principle.

Project Natal & Xbox 360 Security

Microsoft recently, well not so recently anymore, June 1, 2009 @ E3 2009, announced their new project, "Project Natal" and their new "controller-free gaming experience." Even though it was announced a few months ago I just now found out about it whilst looking at Wii motion enhancing add-ons.

If you have not yet heard about it or seen the demo then check out the multiple demos on Youtube here:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qlHoxPioM (demonstrates general beta usage, a bit cheesy)
  
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPIbGnBQcJY (demonstrates insane AI + awareness + recognition)
• http://gizmodo.com/5277954/testing-project-natal-we-touched-the-intangible (3rd party tries it out)

Anyway, in all the articles discussing Project Natal and the videos showing the capabilities of this device Microsoft is working on, they are all discussing how "immersive" it is. It is true, as proof look at how well Wii has done for itself in sales because of its relative immersion quality and plain fun factor--the kids love it!

I mean when you have a "game" that "recognizes" you by either your face or your voice as soon as you walk by, and can greet you by name and "interact" with you. Furthermore, when it can also detect your tone (according to the Lionhead demo,) and even make 'eye contact' one has to wonder about security. However from what I have seen, no one is worried, yet. I've searched for articles thinking that perhaps someone may be a little concerned about security with this technology in your living room and surprisingly found none. Granted it was only recently unveiled so perhaps it's still too new or no one wants to jump the gun just yet until more details are released from Microsoft. But I am such a person willing to speculate and perhaps even predict a few security risks that may present themselves through this new toy.

First of all let us look at what this device consists of:

• Microphone (multi-array, to detect multiple voices/persons with noise canceling)
• RGB camera
• Depth sensor (obviously to get a better "image" of you 3 dimensionally)
  
• IR + CMOS sensor (for those dynamic lighting conditions, even in the dark)
• Feature extraction (with 48 skeletal human body points)
• And network ready (presumably from the demo of conference chats through Xbox Live)

 I don't want to drag this post too long (we've heard that before) but I apologize now if I do, I tend to write with train of thought, but these things need to be considered even if you don't care. Having this in your living room is no different than having a webcam installed on your computer, either built-in or not. The potential privacy risk involves the obvious, someone hijacking your webcam to snap pictures of you and perhaps using the common built-in microphone to eavesdrop as well. Report 1, Report 2

Even though those two reports are basically over someone taking video or pictures of you without permission, imagine how much more a device like the Project Natal device could do. We're not just talking about some fuzzy out of focused pictures here. We're talking about being able to detect who is who by sound or video and facial recognition--even in the dark! Other than the potential risk of invasion of privacy to eavesdrop visually or audibly, what other security risk could exist? That is up for speculation, we already know it could possibly be done on a regular Xbox camera if it could be done on a PC--after all, the Xbox is essentially a PC. It has software (the weak link here after users), hardware, GUI, Kernal and other critical "components."

 As further reason to not take these ideas so lightly right away, take a look at the first Xbox, and how bad it did in the security realm. Not only did they use a Windows Kernal and a similar bootup process, but the circuit board's actual bus from the famous "south bridge" was hacked to sniff the code being passed over. This was and is a hardware exploit. There was also the software exploits, where the saved games were not checked, nor was the data on the dashboard checked--which would result in possible buffer exploits. These are just two of the many exploits. Xbox 360 corrected many of the easier exploits but some remained, for example the DMA attacks due to it not being encrypted and the infamous Hypervisor exploit.

It must be acknowledged however that Microsoft has taken good measures to keep these gaming console/PCs secure from remote hacking, in fact most of these "exploits" are in forms of piracy and home brews and OS changes, not virus/trojan/code types. As regards their security measures, for example, the network it communicates with online is encrypted, with what? I don't know, maybe some custom SSL? I really don't know. Also, the network is obviously private. Another thing, the Xbox 360 basically has to authenticate itself before it's let onto this network, if it fails, you most likely will be banned due to modding etc.

Really, on a technical level, the only real ways to do any remote hacking like we do on computers is by first either finding a way into their network--which I believe would be damn near improbable; or find a way to impersonate and be authenticated as a 360 on their network; or formulate some sort of MITM attack allowing the real 360 authenticate you; or modify the 360 to let you use it for your hacking needs but then you also have to pass the mod checks; or somehow make use of the 'PC to Xbox 360' network capabilities. Then comes the problem of software to execute. Unless physically hacked, 360s will not execute software that is not approved, especially software that is not approved by Microsoft's Xbox Live market place.

Pointing out those few security measures that do protect your consoles may make us feel warm and fuzzy. However, we can start crapping bricks when they make a web browser available to the Xbox 360. It is not unreasonable to conclude that security itself is a reason the 360 does not have a browser. Once it does, it will become very vulnerable to malicious 3rd party applications, enumerations and hacks. Maybe then it will be time for a new sub-market? Norton Anti-Virus 2009, Xbox 360 edition?

In conclusion, while Project Natal may not go all Skynet on us all because of the security measures and more fundamental--the improbability of it, I believe it is shrewd not to dismiss such possibilities. When your Natal device is snapping Infra-Red-48 jointed-3D Rendered images whilst taking vocal samples and retina scans of you detecting your emotions through facial recognition, don't come crying to me I didn't tell you. ;-)

Apple's Security Pretense

Sure I may be on a roll here about Apple, I swear I don't hate their products, I hate their misdirection. Their products are "fun" as I recently described them to a fellow admin. But would I use them because Apple says they are more secure, immune to viruses, etc.? No.

Simply because there are far less cases on a Mac does not make it more secure. No more than me being a minority make me any less vulnerable to H1N1. When there is less of something, you are going to observe less things occur with that something. When there is more of something, well . . . you get the opposite. It's common sense, or so you would hope.

Quick example, there was a point in time in the last century when people very rarely ever heard of crimes as regularly as we do today. In most cases they had to observe it first-hand. Now, we observe it daily on the news and other media formats. However did it mean these crimes that were rarely heard of didn't occur? Of course not because they did occur. Granted, crime has gone up on a world-wide scale in general and the types of crimes have also increased into the technology realm, a "market" that did not exist a few hundred years ago on a binary level.

But this is the pretense that Apple is playing and has been playing for quite some time now. "We are immune to the viruses that PCs become infected with," or "OSX is far more secure than Windows--it's UNIX based!" and so forth. How long will Apple be able to use that as a crutch though? And is it true? Again, yes and no. Yes they are less affected by the common security problems plaguing Windows and perhaps Linux operating systems, but is it because they are less secure? Well according to the following report, it doesn't seem that is the case. Marketshare.hitslink.com shows the shares each OS has for the past two years, since November 2007. Statowl.com shows another pie chart with similar results. I think it is a bit easy to understand why Macs may seem "more secure" don't you agree? They don't have much market!

Why is this small point of any use to us though? I'll tell you. The question begs to be asked, how many average Mac users have spyware software installed, updated and running? How many perform the checks on a regular basis? How many actually have any anti-virus software installed, updated and running regularly? It would be a tough call to guess on these questions. But if I had to place my money on a bet to see which user has either of these things installed meeting the above conditions, either a Mac or PC user--you bet your lucky stars I'd put my money on the PC user. See here lies the future problem of Mac. As they continue to gather a following of "Hi I'm a Mac!" consumers, they are possibly also setting them up for a future of failure due to being unprepared. After all, why do Mac users need to be fearful of being on the internet when they are "immune" to all the problems a PC has? After all, wasn't it Apple that says, "so you can do anything — without worrying about losing everything"?

So while Apple's Macs begin to no doubt gain market share increases and a bunch of loyal customers, they are indeed setting up to crash and burn when they jump into the lake with the Big Fish who have been swimming with sharks for over two decades. Mac users in general are still green when it comes to having to worry about security, hackers, spyware and viruses.


Proof of this is here in this article at SecurityFocus: http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/864 All of a sudden Apple "encourages" their users to look into using virus software, and you know why. The interesting thing is how they removed the article as mentioned elsewhere at SecurityFocus as well: http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/866

Of course there are plenty of people that will dismiss the "Market share theory" and call it a myth or speculative ideas. One forum on Apple's website had a poster say, 'this myth cannot be proven until Macs have 96% of the market share to compare to Windows.' It may sound reasonable, but it still does not negate the equally reasonable suggestion that Mac is in knee deep prospects of plenty of security problems of their own in the future. Consider the latest article as further evidence of these things being the case and the exact reason security experts and PC users have been saying what they have been saying:

http://news.techworld.com/security/3202856/russian-hackers-target-macs/

It seems all that is needed is some incentive, and Macs finds itself in the same boat as Windows, except with a lot less experience and awareness among their users. In the distant future, to me it seems the "security" pretense that Apple currently uses as a crutch will soon catch up to them. If you are a Mac user, take the expert's advice, do not ignore security just because Apple makes you feel warm & fuzzy for now. Good luck.

Apple's Mac FAQ & Marketing

"Macs don't have problems like PCs do."

Now most of us know how such a statement is based on uninformative Mac commercials and large scale marketing tactics on the part of Apple. Literally brain washing the average consumer that Macs a) "don't get viruses" b) "More secure" "Immune to Spyware" c) "It just effin works."

Most computer savvy folks though will understand these commercials for what they really are, just commercials, marketing tactics--not commercials being informative of their product. So you would guess Apple's website would at least have good  information to not mislead the consumer. Well let's look at a few of the "FAQs" at the Apple website.


"Is Mac safe from PC viruses?"

One does not need much thinking power to realize this question has been legally and strategically devised to include the specific form of viruses, "PC viruses." But Apple takes it further, under the question it says:

"Yes, a Mac is 100 percent safe from viruses designed to attack PCs."

Can anyone say "DUH"? It's like saying, "Is a PC safe from Mac viruses?" And then replying with, "Yes, a PC is 100% safe from viruses designed to attack Macs." One can only correctly assume the nice play of words done here, by using legally protecting sentence structures and the positive sounding "100 percent" catches the consumer off guard and buys into the whole BS that Apple is trying to sell you. Yes I am talking to you. It's okay, it happens. Under the same question Apple goes on and haphazardly "explains" (it's really legally protecting themselves) how all computers on the internet are not immune to viruses or spyware, but that it is based on a "UNIX foundation with security in mind." So if it is UNIX that is at its foundation, why is that relevant to the gist of their point? If anything, saying it is based on UNIX foundation, it makes it all the more so plain to see how vulnerable it can be to many of the same exploits and viruses. After all, in theory, hacking Mac is hacking (an already often exploited UNIX) right? It gets worse, Apple goes on to further add to this apparent disclaimer saying how it has built-in software that "alerts" you when you are downloading applications and how Apple makes "free security updates" for their users. Wow, how revolutionary, don't all Operating Systems do that? My Windows does, and I'm sure that guy's Linux distro over there does too.

The FAQ goes on.


"Will my PC devices (cameras, printers, hard drives) work with a Mac?"

 Mac says an emphatic Yes! But wait, that is not all:

"Mac is smart enough to know what to do when you plug in your digital camera. . ."

What does it do that makes it so smart you might ask? Apple provides the answer, "it opens iPhoto to import your pictures." Can I get a face palm anyone?


"Is Mac Reliable?"

 Apples doesn't really answer the question on that one, rather it makes use of the ad hominem argument in a form of a genetic fallacy (as in most cases). It starts off with, "When you buy a PC. . ." and explains how the hardware may be manufactured from a different company than the software and Mac isn't this way, (this is also a half-truth). It ends the side-stepping with:

"Occasionally an application might quit, but it won’t affect the rest of your system. And Mac OS X resists most viruses, so you can do anything — without worrying about losing everything."

Of course let us call it "quit" and not "crash" or "freeze" as you have just described the process a PC would do with an unresponsive application. However, most Windows PCs do not completely crash your Operating System because of one failed application. In fact, it does the same exact thing Apple is claiming Mac does, it will quit the faulty application and not affect the rest of your system. The last sentence is laughable, no counter argument needed.


"Why should I spend more money on a Mac?"

Good question! In my personal opinion, the only reason you should have to pay more is because it is pretty. I admit, most products from Apple, come out their orifice looking like a gem. But that's just the outside casing only, seriously, if you've seen one hard drive, you've seen them all. I think the word we are looking for here is, aesthetics. But I don't believe you are paying more for the reasons that Apple claims in their FAQ:

"When you compare the cost of a PC and factor in the additional software, memory, and other extras you have to buy to go along with it, the difference in price between a Mac and PC isn’t as great."

False. It is a huge damn difference in price even after I choose supposed "extras" on a new PC. But then again, we are comparing Apple & oranges, (I'm not sure if I intended pun.) Here is what I mean, the hardware is not comparable to begin with! I took some time to investigate their claim and surfed around their website and looked at what products they have available. The only one that didn't look like a flattened toaster (sorry Macmini) and provided scalability and somewhat of a workstation looking case was the Mac Pro. The specs on these beasts are amazing to say the least! We're talking about Quad Xeon cores, tons of memory (6GB+), tons of storage and so on. Well no wonder it is so damn expensive! It has nothing to do with what Apple claims at all. You are getting Workstation-Class power in these machines, power power power. However Apple is not telling the consumer that they don't need all this power. Seriously, a guy at home that checks his email, surfs the internet on Safari, downloads pictures, porn, burns CD/DVDs, watches movies, listens to music and uses Microsoft Office for Mac all on the same computer and even at the same time does not need all the hardware the Mac Pro sells you, period.

Back to the claim that Apple made though about the price difference not being that great after you supposedly add much of the features the Mac has already. I put this claim to the test. I opened up a Dell Workstation page (which I think was a somewhat comparable computer to the Mac Pro) and I opened up the Mac Pro configuration page as well. I based the Dell workstation off the default Mac Pro "8 Core" configuration. By the time I was finished, I saved almost $1,000.00 with the Dell workstation for the same specifications if not better. The Dell workstation has a bigger hard drive, it has a better nVidia video card, 64-bit OS. Additionally, if I wanted to match the Mac Pro price, I could easily include Microsoft Office 2007 Professional, a RAID controller, a second HDD and possibly a second LCD monitor and still be at the same price range as the default configuration of the Mac Pro.

I don't want to drag this particular point on, but we also need to talk about the software. Further under the same question Apple states that the price is also due to the already built-in software that lets you do so much. What applications? It doesn't say, but if it is implying the applications that are often advertised to lure people, those aren't free. They are in fact, add-ons, the very thing Apple attacked the PCs for. So really you aren't getting crap other than an overly powerful computer that you probably don't need as an average consumer.


This brings me to my last point on this portion of the FAQ. There is no variety of desktops or workstations to choose from at Apple. It does allow you to "customize" the configuration as do other PC manufacturers do, however based only off their one model (Mac Pro), where as with PC manufacturers you have a wide selection of PCs to choose from. I already hear Mac lovers saying, "Apple doesn't need to make a bunch of computers, because the Mac Pro can do it all!" Well that's a yes and no statement and equally a catch-22. Let me briefly explain.

You can have a computer that can "do it all" and be stuck with a huge price for something you will be utilizing about very little of. Or you can have a PC that can do what you need for a fraction of the price while you utilize most of its resources. If you later decide you need more power, you can upgrade. Need more memory? No problem, it's cheap nowadays. Need more storage? No problem, hard drives are cheap too, and so are external portable hard drives. Yes they are cheap, not expensive like Mac wants you to believe. The point is, it is an unnecessary waste to have such an extremely powerful computer--it's overkill for most consumers. And remember, CPUs and RAM perform dynamic volatile functions, they don't "fill up." They are used on how much work you are actually doing at any given time.

So why are you paying more? Because someone has to pay Justin Long to act witty and cool in their mass scale marketing. Someone has to pay the design department for their cool looking cases and colorful gadgets. Someone has to pay their adapter department to invent new proprietary connections and cables. Finally, someone is going to pay that much for a Mac. 

Stay tuned for my next post, it will be much shorter, I promise.

Work: Hard Drive Recovery

Today I have been working on recovering some data from this failed hard drive. I took the usual steps before ruling out basic software corruption, CHKDSK (within RC), attempted enumeration of DIR etc. The results continued to point to a hardware failure. In most cases that I have personally seen, if the OS or some driver is not allowing you to boot, Windows will still let you go into Safe Mode. In this case it wasn't. Another thing, if it's mere OS corruption, you can "see" the directories and files via RC. In this instance, I was not able to do either, and CHKDSK continued to report errors, in fact it was not even able to complete the diagnostic, it failed around 38%.

Fortunately (mostly for convenience) I purchased the VANTEC CB-ISATAU2 SATA/IDE to USB 2.0 Adapter. This useful adapter of course allowed you to connect SATA/IDE drives via USB. This usefulness of this inexpensive product is transparent to any admin that has had to diagnose, troubleshoot, format, recover data etc. from a "bad" hard drive. Hard drives that go bad isn't an uncommon thing, and it especially isn't an uncommon thing when you have more than a few computers in your network. You're bound to see one, the question is just when.

So I removed the HDD and hooked it up to the adapter and heard XP's dong-ding! Now this drive had two partitions, it was the first one that was inaccessible--the partition that had the data that was needed--of course.

Now since the past several failed drives I've had to recover data from, I've tried a few tools. I've tried "Recover My Files" which had a very nice interface and many options and configuration settings to play with. It also has a feature that will attempt to give you a preview of the file it has found (useful for those times when files lose their names!

However, even though I have used it, I have a fondness at the moment for D.A.R.T. XP by DTI Data. I've used it a few times now and have been successful and not only recovering the data (from bad HDDs) but also doing it in a quick manner. Now I have not tried many other programs you may use, but I have tried DART XP, and so far I like it.

One of the reasons I prefer it to Recover My Files, is it is a small, low-overhead semi-self contained program. Unlike RMF, it doesn't need to be installed. You simply run it. Also unlike RMF, there is no need to screw around with a ton of configuration settings (which at times can be cumbersome.) You simply tell it which Logical or Physical drive you wish to scan and hit NEXT. Once it is done (relatively short while, depends on size, speed etc.,) you choose which files you wish to recover. Now of course it has its cons. It doesn't have most of the nice features programs like Recover My Files have, such as previewing the file you wish to recover and the filter isn't as strong either if you wish to scan for more specific files. Another thing which I actually find annoying is there doesn't seem to be no apparent way to move the program window around! It pops up in the middle of your screen (not "always on top" mode though) and cannot be minimized or expanded. If you found out how let me know, this is freaking annoying, then again, it's not that big of a deal.


Once you have selected the directories or files you wish to recover you select Next and it will allow you to choose a directory to place the recovered files. After that it will keep you posted on its progress in MB, time, folders and files. Ultimately I find this program to be a nice little tool in my "Admin Tools" arsenal, on my USB drive. The program is also not very expensive in my opinion, especially now, $49.00 at the moment, it is on sale, normally goes for $99. http://www.dtidata.com/file-recovery-programs.html

 Anyway, I am still working on this machine's recovery, and DART XP has done its job, again. (As I look through this post, it totally seems like a marketing post, I swear it's not, >_<.

MMS Finally on my iPhone

So I get a text message from ATT today which says: "Picture and video messaging (MMS) is now available for iPhone. Your existing messaging plan includes unlimited send and receipt of text, picture & video messages. To enable MMS, connect your iPhone to your computer and click "Check for Update" in iTunes, then restart your iPhone."

Gee thanks ATT for that informative message! After 9834759834758 years ATT finally lets our iPhones use it. But we cannot put all the blame on ATT, after all Apple knew exactly what they were doing when they produced the iPhone and then gave it to ATT, so screw both of them for screwing their customers from a very simple feature in most phones--most "advanced" phones. It's not like we were carrying around old Rotary phones! Or were we?

So now that the iPhone 3G can finally receive "MMS" messages, I think the next question people often ask is:

"How do I email pictures to AT&T phones?" or "How do I email pictures to the iPhone" (<---yeah total Google keyword insertions there ;-)

I was wondering the same thing, I know what the domain address is for Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint, but not for AT&T, I've never used AT&T except for this iPhone. So after searching the net and even the AT&T website in looking for the answer and even coming across wrong information on several websites, I found the one that actually worked:

If you want to send an email with a picture to an AT&T (iPhone) cell, you do it like every other provider:

phone-number-here@mms.att.net

e.g. 555-555-5555@mms.att.net

There you go. I don't know if it changed over time or something, but there were some websites suggesting the following:

@txt.att.net (this one still works, but for TXT only [email to cell txting])
@pix.att.net
@pics.att.net
@mmode.com

And a few other funky ones. I tried them all and none of them worked nor successfully sent an image from email to phone.

And if you're wondering, NO you do not have to send it as an attachment. And don't forget, it is dot NET, not dot COM!

-1 less thing that makes the iPhone blow.

P.S: here is the link to the information on the AT&T website, it was actually not that easy to find considering it isn't a relevant search result in Google nor easy to see by skimming through, I copied the link to the actual bookmark http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/messaging-internet/messaging/faq.jsp#sending_messages-mm

Python: Intro, cytpes, farts

So past couple of weeks I've been working on Python trying to learn this language. In fact I tried it a few years ago but I got distracted and put it on the back burner. So currently I am back on track giving this another attempt. Here is my disclaimer: I am a Python novice. Anything I say for the time being regarding Python are just my experiences and for documentation purposes. As far as facts, I am making the best efforts to try to make everything informative and accurate.

The reason I'm choosing Python treads along the lines of it being easy to read the syntax and in my opinion, seems to be a nice stone-stepper language (among the common reasons: exploits, security, etc). It also has a nice library set and can produce language that is compatible with C.

For instance, we could easily use a CTYPE module in Python to call functions in DLLs. Using the method cdll() to call functions in the C runtime DLL, MSVCRT.DLL. Namely, Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime. This is obviously a Microsoft library with C++ runtimes. I didn't know that specifically before.

So from what I gather, the C++ library just mentioned, can be used as sort of a reference for your Python scripts, to "call" functions within that library that will assist you in carrying out whatever it is you are trying to do, without have to use a C++ programming language.

For example, below is some code (novice) that does just that:

--------------
from ctypes import *

msvcrt.dll = cdll.msvcrt
message_string = "Hello world!\n"
msvcrt.printf("Testing: %s", message_string)
--------------

What this should do for you is output the text, "Hello world!" Pretty easy no? If you read the code, you can notice how you are telling the script to use the CTYPE module and to call the printf (in the C runtime) function using the cdll() method to output the words inside the first set of quotes. A similar thing can be done with this simple line of code just using Python alone:

--------------
>>> print "Hello world!"
Hello world!
--------------

The difference was, the first example was to show that you can easily access the C runtime library to use its functions to accomplish tasks with Python. What this seems to implicate thus far is that instead of just being limited to this small Python language, you actually expand you resources and arsenal by using other libraries that already exist in the operating system. If you think about it, that is a powerful thing, sploitz anyone?

Now considering how new I am to higher programming languages in general, I did make a mistake with the above code in example 1. After checking spelling and syntax over and over I was about to pull my hair out before learning a valuable lesson. It is case-sensitive. Of course I knew that, but it completely eluded me and one hour later, I did a face palm.

The reason the code was not running was due to a very simple mistake. It was in the line, "from ctypes import *". The F was capitalized and was causing the program not to "expect" the  command as it literally informed me of. Humorously, it attempted to tell me what it did "expect." Something to the lines of, Python was "expecting //, if, or," etc. It gave me a list of commands and functions (a long one) in trying to tell me I was wrong. After figuring it out I felt I accomplished something even though it was my mistake, what better way can you learn than from your own mistakes?

Sorry if this post felt straight to the point, I am out of time today and leaving now. Anyway, this was just a short binary fart that the wonders of autonomous pressure releases of an admin learning a language results in. Did that even make sense? Probably not.


- - -
Vocabulary


ctype: Python modules that allow you to own


cdll(): Loads libraries using the cdecl calling convention


binary fart: invented by adminalive.blogspot.com, Copyright 2009 all rights reserved. (still figuring out what it exactly means >:-\) Usage: "I had a long binary fart that ones and zeros fell out my ass crack." OR "I barted."

Patch Panel Needs a Patch?

I once had a friend come to my job and check out my new job when I first started working here. It was exciting and there was much to learn. My friend asked about our patch panel, and I opened up the cabinet that contains this nightmare and he said:

“Dude that looks like colored spaghetti in yo closet!”

I couldn't agree more! Actually, it was far more worse before I tried to organize it, some what. Apparently the guys that cabled this mess were not cable installers, obvious right? Anyway, I am now stuck with this. Yes we have a relatively small network, but a network being smaller does not lessen the importance of cable organization and just plain neatness. In fact we use a lot of technology that I know some bigger networks have never used. Either way, this isn't some peer-to-peer workgroup, its a live breathing TCP/IP network. Unfortunately I cannot do much about it, they left no slack at all. As I was discussing with someone earlier, short of re-cabling the entire building (not an option at the moment) I can perhaps relocate the patch panel, sorta. My solution so far is to perhaps use patch cables from the patch panel itself for each port and pull these patch cables (much longer than true patch cables of course and of solid CAT5e, not stranded) over to a new location in the building, about 20-30 feet away. This would be an ideal location because it is the actual server room and there is more than enough space to expand and organize. Another advantage would be the cooling in this room, and of course security. Currently, the patch panel resides in a cabinet so small that you can feel the heat once you open the doors. Security is at risk also because this patch panel is accessible to anyone. It should be locked up.

My other solution I am toying with in my thoughts is simply just leaving it where it is. Then I would have to cut the bottom of the cabinet so that I have room to expand and organize the patch panels. This would eliminate the work of having to create patch cables and pulling them over. Also, I would have to buy less hardware to do it this way.  If I go with this route, I would definitely find a way to secure this patch panel and perhaps ventilate it better. Perhaps a rack cooler may help with this since it will not be in a highly cooled area. It only has two switches, but I do have two other switches that handle network security cameras that use PoE (Power-Over-Ethernet) technology that requires specifically designed switches. That is why I have 4 switches (among the smaller ones around the network) not because our network is big.

I am planning on stopping by the electronics shop downtown and see if they have any suggestions or hardware I am not aware of yet that I could use. In either case, I am not too fond of patching from an already existing patch panel to another patch panel, nor am I fond of keeping the patch panel at its existing location. I'll keep you posted on the progress of this small project to correct and better organize the mess someone else made.

Meh.

Real Reasons the iPhone Sucks. . .

Just like my older posts, I often have access to many phones and I've often reviewed them on a personal level. Well the iPhone too I have evaluated. Mind you this pertains mainly to the iPhone 3G 8GB. I know the new 3Gs is out--which I think still sucks.

Reason # (Aside from the obvious: it is ridiculously priced, ATT restricted, it's from Apple etc.)

1) It has no keypad or not even a hidden one. Most people have realized that "touch screen" isn't that cool in the long run. It is cumbersome, smudges, needs protection, slower (the processing power to register every touch slows it down), feeling a keypad button is much more efficient, especially whilst driving or doing covert texts!

2) The 4 buttons are useless. They are nice looking (chrome) but they are pretty useless--except the power button. Okay maybe the "vibrate on/off" switch is handy, but it is not really a "feature," because you need that button to quickly put it on vibrate without having to screw with the Settings menu just to accomplish this simple task. The home key is also pretty useless, it would be nice if it could be used for more things than just taking you "Home." The poor attempt to making useful by allowing you to hit it twice to access a shortcut isn't enough. That little circle button would have been a lot nicer if it would work like the circular jogging wheel on iPods. At least then I could use it to navigate and slide through media.

3) The speakers aren't that great. In fact this one, only one of them is working which is even worse. What is even more worse (worstststs?), is that if I am listening to a song or watching a video through these speakers, my hand often covers the speakers and completely muffling the sound accidentally. It happens more often than not.

4) It has no detachable battery. Seriously, it looks nice that the back of the iPhone is "smooth" and "sleek" and all that jazz, but what does it matter when that "sleek" look has to be covered up with some ugly cases to protect this overly expensive piece of garbage? Without a detachable battery, you are pretty limited to the amount of time it takes for this power hungry bells and whistles phone to drain all your battery life. It doesn't take long, especially if you use "all the apps."

5) Fails for business applications. Seriously, the commercials emphasize that they "have an app for dat," as if it is a good thing. Have you opened up a brand new iPhone? Their commercials have to say they "have an app for dat." Why? Because it comes with nothing useful. Especially when you compare it to other business phones that come with a ton of apps already installed and ready to go for business. "Let's say, you have a few apps that were opened but your memory is all hogged up and you cannot clear the memory because the iPhone doesn't give you that ability, well there's an app for dat. "Free Memory."" Really, most Smart phones have a 'task manager' that takes care of this. This is just one example.

6) Poor password handling. Apparently the iPhone gets easily confused with some of the passwords I've tried to "save" in it. For example, I created a VPN profile to my network and to eliminate a step while testing, I entered and saved my password. Even though it was entered correctly and saved, it still asks me for the password. How do I know it cannot handle the password? Well because if I do the same with a much more simple password, like "password" or "iphone" it saves it and gives me no problems. Yes it will accept the password if I manually enter it every time I access resources that require credentials, but it just seems funny it won't save it--it becomes confused.

7) No directory access. Come on, really? If you wish to browse through your directory to perhaps, oh I don't know, delete some files? You can't. (Unless perhaps if you JailBreak it.) For example, say I have an mp3 and I notice the song isn't as great as I originally thought when I synced it with iTunes, oh but wait, I can't delete it, I have to wait until I get home and turn on my computer and plug my iPhone in and delete it through iTunes.

8) No command prompt. Do they have an app for dat? Not from what I saw. . .not even an 'emulated' one. Again you have to JailBreak it. Update: (Apparently there is now, it wasn't always free though.)

9) The limited camera. While I'll admit, it has a pretty decent camera that takes pretty good pictures for what it is, it has no flash! What if it's dark? Too bad. You cannot record video either. I don't care that the "new" iPhone 3GS does, it doesn't fix the problem that the other previous iPhones do not! How can you make a modern phone that cannot do this simple task? Even crappy phones have this ability. There exists no digital zoom. Yes there's an app for dat, that can haphhazardly do that but it is something the phone should be able to do on its own.

10) Most good apps aren't free. The commercials should go like this instead, "say you such and such, and you need an app that can do this and this, well you gotta pay for dat." It's great an all that there are tons of apps, but most of the free ones are pretty limited, or are free but chock full of ads. I have 3 good applications that I find very useful, I had to pay for each of them, some aren't only a few bucks either. This only adds to the TCO of this already limited phone. Might as well pay less and get a more scalable phone.

11) No additional storage. Sure you can get a nice chunk of storage built-in your iPhone, but what if you run out from the "ton of apps" and mp3s you can't immediately delete? At least other smart phones you can practically have infinite storage using multiple storage cards.

12) Safari stays open. You can have multiple open browser windows which you can conveniently "flick" through and even close them on the fly. This of course can help with memory consumption. It's always nice to see a friendly "X" button that lets you close programs. Unfortunately this is the only place I see them, too bad you cannot close other programs this way also. When you hit the Home button of course like all other programs it doesn't close Safari--except with a "hard close" by apparently holding the home button for 6 seconds. If you don't do this and don't take the time to close every single open browser window, you will have them running in the background for the next time you open up Safari.

13) No MMS (Multi-media-Message). Since the day iPhone came out even up to the slim 3G, MMS isn't available. Why the long wait? Every other crappy phone has the feature but not the ultimate iPhone? There isn't even an "app for dat!" There were many pseudo-MMS apps that weren't really MMS, but just easier ways of having to enter a user name and password on some stupid link hosted by ATT. Even now after the v3.0.1 update, that was supposed to give the feature for MMS still hasn't for most 3G users. Unless you upgrade to the new 3Gs, it isn't available to you "yet." As if it is some new technology to revolutionize phones. It isn't, the technology has been around for a long time now and the iPhone is barely catching up on its latest release. (UPDATE: Read about it here. We will see how this turns out though of course. [see below])

14) Cumbersome to make custom ring-tones. It is much easier on other phones, even non-Smartphones.

15) Non Customizable. There isn't much to say, you just can't customize your iPhone's look, unless you (yes you guessed it) JailBreak it.

16) Expensive insurance. Other phones--for example through Verizon, you can at least get your phone covered by Asurion which only costs an extra 4.99 a month. Even ATT offers insurance for their other phones for about the same price. Not the iPhone.

17) The Novelty wears out. Fast.

18) Recent update broke Exchange. Read about it here. "According to the Apple KB on this issue, the iPhone 3GS supports device encryption, while the earlier iPhone models do not, and their recommendation is to have the Exchange administrator change the mailbox security policy to stop requiring device encryption."


There are probably a ton of more things that could be pointed out about the iPhone, aside from common freeze ups due to application hogging resources and buggy applications but we'll leave them for another time. If there are any mistakes point them out. But I don't think there are, I have been using one for 4 months now. In my opinion, I would not included it as part of our company's business model. We need to use business tools not toys. The iPhone has excellent potential to be fun,  but in most cases, it seldom can really be called a 'business phone.' However on an individual basis, there may be exceptions.

Of course there are some nice features and applications that are worth mentioning, but the "bad" out weighs the good and--who cares? But I'll mention one.

The WinAdmin application is useful. It doesn't have many options, but for remote desktop use, it works great, sure there are applications like this one on other phones--I agree, I've used them. The thing that makes it different on the iPhone and the only reason I am not taking it apart to see its guts is the Pinch and Zoom features. When you remote via RDP to a remote machine you can navigate it very quickly and zooming helps see things you cannot normally see as easy on any other phone. Simply flicking the window very quickly takes you to the other side of the window and so forth. It's not like the MotoQ you use buttons to navigate, it's not like the AudioVox you use a stylus etc, it's like an iPhone, you use the dexterity of your hand. Other than that, save your money, it's basically a Mac with dialing capabilities. Sure it can be JailBroken but why go through the trouble? There really isn't any big "I gotta have this!" app out there that really impels me to JailBreak it other than a few tools and customization options that I can get on another phone without circumventing Apple's and ATT's ToS.

Change Primary GMAIL Address for Blogger

I will explain how to change your primary address in Google Account for Blogger, sorta. Let's first clear up a few things, this is primarily aimed at those people that have a "Primary Email Address" in Google and they perhaps have moved and switched ISPs or for one reason or another they can no longer access their old email address and therefore cannot access emails such as notifications sent through Blogger to the "Primary Email Address." So one would see one of the reasons why someone would want to change the Primary Email Address, but Google doesn't really let you in some cases. This article will address that case.

Note: These steps have been mentioned elsewhere, but for different reasons, and actually, I wrote this before I found out that fact. In short, the process simply involves, changing ownership. Why the article then? Instead of simply providing quick steps on how to accomplish the ownership change, I found it far more useful to include additional information for anyone that wanted to know more. This isn't just a "quick fix" blog.

When you create a Google Account it lets you choose the "associated" email address you want to use. It can be any email address from any provider, for example, Hotmail etc.

Now in the future if you decide to create a GMAIL account and decide to perhaps no longer use Hotmail or whatever other email address you used to originally open your Google Account the steps are simple. You create a GMAIL account, and in most cases you can go to the account settings in Google and add your new GMAIL address. It should mark it as primary. Which is fine. Or in other cases, if you simply have a Google Account and later decide you want a GMAIL as well, it will automatically make it your Primary Email Address. (Sometimes though, Google behaves weird, so if you get strange results . . . let me know.) It seems that if you opened the Google Account by creating a GMAIL account then it's your Primary Email Address in Google. But if you created the Google Account with a non-GMAIL account, and later create a GMAIL account it gives you the error: "You can not associate a Gmail address with your Google Account" Why the heck not?!

The problem I encountered was with this Blog here, it was originally opened with the old Blogger convention using a "username," you know, before Google "acquired" Blogger. Then recently since I logged back into this Blog after a couple of years of non-activity, it pretty much said, "oh wait, you now need a Google account to use Blogger!" So it took me through a few steps and it associated it with an existing GMAIL account I already had. I entered this GMAIL account just to get passed the "setup" process not knowing it would make it a "primary" email for the Google Account.

Now the goal to accomplish here is: Change my Primary Email Address so that it would be my Primary username for Blogger. Both Google Account and Blogger do not seem to allow you to do this directly. With Google however, it seems it has to do with the Primary Email Address type in deciding if it will allow you to change it or not.

* (Before performing any further steps, create your Google Account or GMAIL account that you wish to use for Blogger. Preferably GMAIL, since it technically should create your Google Account at the same time.)

The problem with this was, I didn't want some unused GMAIL account to be my primary. So after entering it in, I immediately regretted it. The only way I could login to this Blog was through that GMAIL account I did not want--let alone the user name itself. So I tried the common protocol, and went into the Google Account settings to add an "associated email" in hopes that it would allow me to change the Primary Email address, but it did not allow me to. After some tinkering around I figured out how to do it. On a technicality, Google does not let you change the Primary Email Address, if it is already associated with a GMAIL account. At least that's what I experienced. If you've experienced differently please do point it out. So my goal was to accomplish the following: I want "B (new GMAIL)" not "A (old GMAIL)" for my username/email for Blogger.

To do this, you have to change your Primary Email Addres in your Google Account, which it did not let me do! (Some folks say they were able to change it on some forums, I know they are not lying, I think Google Account reacts differently to different situations, and what type of Email address you originally had as Primary. Because I have seen screenshots of the "Account Settings" in Google Account that shows "edit email address" under the security heading and I've also seen the same screen not have that option! My situation was the latter.) Here is what I did to accomplish this though--there is always a way. (These steps are pretty easy and it took me a lot longer to figure out than to actually perform them):

First you want to LOGIN to Blogger with your current UNWANTED username/email address. Once you are in Blogger, perform the following:

DASHBOARD > SETTINGS > PERMISSIONS

Once you are in the PERMISSIONS tab, you want to add Authors. When the blank text box appears asking you to enter the Email Address of the person you want to grant "Author" permissions to, (I think that you can use an external email address that is not a GMAIL domain, since it will ask you to create a Google Account associated with that email address anyway, but I did not try this, so you'd have to try it yourself if you do not want to use a GMAIL account as your username.)

When you are done entering it, click "Invite" and the invitation will be sent to your preferred GMAIL (or email) account. Now check your email and follow the directions to "verify" the email account. Once you are done with the verification process you are now able to access the Blog that really belongs to the old GMAIL account. At first you only have very limited access and permissions, so you have to change that. So again, logout (of the current username), then login with the un-wanted@gmail.com username, again. Go back into the PERMISSIONS tab (Dashboard > Settings > Permissions) and elevate the new author's permissions to full admin--root ;-) Yes you just created somewhat of a backdoor. Now your new username/gmail account has full access, but "A" (the old GMAIL) is still the Primary Blogger. You can tell by going into the unwanted account in Blogger and checking the profile, the "username" is obviously still the same. From here I would recommend you verify that the "B" account can login and has full access to all account permissions. When you have full access on the new account, simply remove the original owner/author of the Blog and boom--you're root and now have become the Primary Email Address for Blogger.

*The following steps are not necessary, unless you wish to wipe the old accounts.

Once you verify that (by logging in and using it) we need to do some cleaning up. What you need to do is login to the Google Account (logging into Blogger does the same, as you can click "My Account" and it takes you to Google Account page also,) of the GMAIL/Google Account you do not want as Primary for Blogger<--- When you are at that page, click on the "EDIT" link by the "MY PRODUCTS" heading. Here is a screenie: Yeah, I must admit, I never really noticed that stupid link. And if I did, I believe I must have thought it was to edit the way the page looked or was organized. Simply saying "Edit" doesn't tell us anything at all. After clicking EDIT, you come to a page that gives you some strong options. Depending what this particular Google Account has in respects to services (Blogger, Talk etc) you can delete them here. But what you want to do is Delete the GMAIL (email) account. Make sure you get everything off this unwanted GMAIL account before you do though! It will be gone forever. When you choose to delete it, it will ask you for an alternate existing email address to send a verification to and to take over the Google Account. Remember, this is only deleting the GMAIL account not the Google Account (which can be used for many other things.) Though you can delete the entire account, there is an option for that too, but I did not do it that way, it doesn't matter, if you want it all gone, delete the entire account.

Once the GMAIL account is gone, its association with Blogger is gone too. There is something to note, the email address that it asks you for--for "verification" can be tricky. I found Google gave me problems with entering an account it would allow me to use. It was really ticking me off, I couldn't even use my GMAIL account! (yeah I don't know what's up with that.) Finally I provided a backup account, but just for this instance to get through the steps, and it accepted it (a Windows Live one). It sent the verification and I verified. Now un-wanted@gmail.com "A" is gone, (please note you cannot use the account ever again.)

In essence all you did was, 1) invite a new Author, 2) grant him full access, logged in with new Author, 3) deleted original Author (ownd) and Blogger automatically changes your username to be the new Authors email address. Now there is no association to the old user.

However if you want to do a complete clean-up I'd recommend after acquiring full access, and removing original author, delete the unused Google Account.

Of course this whole article could have easily been summed up in a couple of paragraphs, however I found it informative to explain reasons why someone would do this, reasons why they would be unable to change the Primary Email Address and how working through Blogger, you could accomplish what you wanted. Make note that since your new "username" is also a new Blogger profile, therefore your "views" will be zero. That's the only thing you really lose. Some people may choose to not delete the other account and simply just not use it to login, but Blogger will not recognize your new account as the Owner or Primary.