Nikon has today introduced their new Coolpix flagship compact camera, the 13.5 MP Nikon Coolpix P6000. The Nikon Coolpix P6000 features a 4x optical zoom starting at 28mm and includes optical lens shift Vibration Reduction (VR), a 2.7-inch high resolution LCD monitor, four exposure modes (P,S,A,M), a dedicated hotshoe and an optical viewfinder. See full story... Read More
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Nikon D300 Image Samples Available
Nikon D300 Image Samples Available
Nikon Corporation has now provided another four image samples from the soon to be released Nikon D300 digital SLR. The full size images include a couple of portraits, one landscape/scenery and one action shot. The images are taken at 200 ISO, except for one of the portraits captured at 400 ISO. The Nikkor lenses used for these Nikon D300 sample image tests include the Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom Nikkor ED 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G, the prime AF Nikkor 50mm F1.4D and the AF-S VR Nikkor ED 300mm F2.8 IF telephoto lens. Read Full story...
Nikon Corporation has now provided another four image samples from the soon to be released Nikon D300 digital SLR. The full size images include a couple of portraits, one landscape/scenery and one action shot. The images are taken at 200 ISO, except for one of the portraits captured at 400 ISO. The Nikkor lenses used for these Nikon D300 sample image tests include the Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom Nikkor ED 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G, the prime AF Nikkor 50mm F1.4D and the AF-S VR Nikkor ED 300mm F2.8 IF telephoto lens. Read Full story...
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX35 with 4x Wide-Angle 25mm Zoom
Panasonic has today introduced the 10.1-megapixel Lumix DMC-FX35 with an impressive 25mm ultra-wide-angle LEICA DC lens and 4x optical zoom (equivalent to 25mm to 100 mm on a 35mm film camera). Panasonic's Intelligent Auto mode, which includes various shooting-assist functions, has been enhanced in the DMC-FX35 by adding an Intelligent Exposure feature and Digital Red-eye Correction. See full story... Read More
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Sony KDL-32S3000 32 in. LCD Television
Sony released a great range of entry-level HD Ready LCD TVs earlier this year which are the cheapest Read More
Canon Lowers Price on EOS 40D, Rebel XS, SD770 and SD790 IS Digital Cameras
Canon has today announced price reductions on two of their digital SLR cameras, the popular 10.1MP Canon EOS 40D and the new 10MP Canon EOS Rebel XS. The price has been reduced on both the EOS 40D body and the Rebel XS body and also on the respective available body with Canon lens kits. Two other Canon cameras that have been reduced in price include the compact Canon Powershot SD770 IS and the Canon Powershot SD790 IS. See full story... Read More
A new approach to virus removal?
Over the past six years a lot of changes have happened in the world of virus removal and computer security. Basically with the advent of Microsofts most secure operating system ever (Windows XP) the world of virii / spyware / rootkits / exploits (collectively I'll refer to them as malware for this article) etc has exploded. Estimates of the number of new virus released each week are normally in the thousands, if not tens of thousands range. Add to that spyware, unwanted applications (e.g. WinAntivirus2008) , trojans, adware ... and the listis enormous.
Recently I have found it is getting harder to ensure that the latest malware definitions are really catching the latest problems. In the last three weeks we have found several pieces of malware or viruses which have had to be carefully hand removed - with new definitions to detect them coming out 2 to 4 days after we have already discovered them.
Malware detection always lags behind the advent of new malware as a new virus / spyware / trojan etc, when it is released, normally has at least several hours, if not days, head start on the first definitions being released. In order for a new definition to be released the Malware has to be noticed, caught, reported, analysed and finally a fix / detection signature released for it. Finally the update has to be downloaded by the end user.
Part of the process we employ when doing a "Virus Bust" is to run several anti spyware / malware removal and root kit detectors across a system. This of course is quite time consuming, and again - if the malware is a new one, sometimes the only way it is detected is by seeing the results of the malware still present (e.g. rubbish exiting the firewall, strange PC behavious, pop ups etc). Which started me thinking ....
Is it possible that the number if items of legetimate software on the average users PC is growing at a slower rate than the number of malware instances. For example, the average user only wants to surf the net, send emails, write letters, do some word processing and listen to music / videos. Throw into that mix a bit of spreadsheeting, VOIP and games and you are stil only looking at a fairly limited range of software.
On an average week the average user does not add much new software to a system. Microsoft updates and anti virus updates probably account for most of the changes to executable code on a system. Instead of scanning for malware maybe a better solution would be to have a list of known good executable software and run a scan based on that. Any executable code found on a system not in the known good DB can then be flagged as suspicious and that subset of files be scanned / isolated instead of scanning an entire system of mostly good code for the odd piece of rot that has crept in.
Security based not on positive detection of malware but the isolation of unknown code offers a chance to allow quicker detection of potentially dangerous software on a PC. Certify the good code, isolate the unknown code and then apply positive antivirus detection methods against the unknown executables.
Not only does this method have the possibilty of being faster in its scanning of systems (creating and checking hashes is potentially faster than applying heuristic algorithms against an entire executable) but means the ability to certify code as being safe might alleviate some of the Zero Hour threats we face now days. Certainly for someone like me isolating the known good from the unknown means we can rapidly discard 99% of all files in a system has safe and concentrate on isolating the threats in the unknown one percent. It also offers a very positive way of providing reliable scanning from an alternative boot disk on compromised systems.
Historically old anti virus systems (circa DOS and Windows 3.1) were able to add CRC codes or hashes to executable files and then check to see files matched a known hash. That method presents problems today, and has fallen out of favour. However as an off-line virus scan, booted from an alternative operating system or boot disk and making use of a 'white list' database, it has the potential to add another tool to the security experts arsenal.
Heaven knows we need it.
This has been a random thought from the fertile and over caffinated brain of Shane. Thoughts, feed back and offers of millions for the idea welcome.
Read More
Recently I have found it is getting harder to ensure that the latest malware definitions are really catching the latest problems. In the last three weeks we have found several pieces of malware or viruses which have had to be carefully hand removed - with new definitions to detect them coming out 2 to 4 days after we have already discovered them.
Malware detection always lags behind the advent of new malware as a new virus / spyware / trojan etc, when it is released, normally has at least several hours, if not days, head start on the first definitions being released. In order for a new definition to be released the Malware has to be noticed, caught, reported, analysed and finally a fix / detection signature released for it. Finally the update has to be downloaded by the end user.
Part of the process we employ when doing a "Virus Bust" is to run several anti spyware / malware removal and root kit detectors across a system. This of course is quite time consuming, and again - if the malware is a new one, sometimes the only way it is detected is by seeing the results of the malware still present (e.g. rubbish exiting the firewall, strange PC behavious, pop ups etc). Which started me thinking ....
Is it possible that the number if items of legetimate software on the average users PC is growing at a slower rate than the number of malware instances. For example, the average user only wants to surf the net, send emails, write letters, do some word processing and listen to music / videos. Throw into that mix a bit of spreadsheeting, VOIP and games and you are stil only looking at a fairly limited range of software.
On an average week the average user does not add much new software to a system. Microsoft updates and anti virus updates probably account for most of the changes to executable code on a system. Instead of scanning for malware maybe a better solution would be to have a list of known good executable software and run a scan based on that. Any executable code found on a system not in the known good DB can then be flagged as suspicious and that subset of files be scanned / isolated instead of scanning an entire system of mostly good code for the odd piece of rot that has crept in.
Security based not on positive detection of malware but the isolation of unknown code offers a chance to allow quicker detection of potentially dangerous software on a PC. Certify the good code, isolate the unknown code and then apply positive antivirus detection methods against the unknown executables.
Not only does this method have the possibilty of being faster in its scanning of systems (creating and checking hashes is potentially faster than applying heuristic algorithms against an entire executable) but means the ability to certify code as being safe might alleviate some of the Zero Hour threats we face now days. Certainly for someone like me isolating the known good from the unknown means we can rapidly discard 99% of all files in a system has safe and concentrate on isolating the threats in the unknown one percent. It also offers a very positive way of providing reliable scanning from an alternative boot disk on compromised systems.
Historically old anti virus systems (circa DOS and Windows 3.1) were able to add CRC codes or hashes to executable files and then check to see files matched a known hash. That method presents problems today, and has fallen out of favour. However as an off-line virus scan, booted from an alternative operating system or boot disk and making use of a 'white list' database, it has the potential to add another tool to the security experts arsenal.
Heaven knows we need it.
This has been a random thought from the fertile and over caffinated brain of Shane. Thoughts, feed back and offers of millions for the idea welcome.
IE7 icon missing On WinXP Desktop
IE7 icon missing On WinXP Desktop
My poor technician must have freaked out earlier today when his boss (me) suddenly burst into fits of hysterical laughter and couldn't stop giggling for at least 5 minutes.
The thing that provoked such mirth was a couple of lines from the Microsoft Help section. It read like a cross between Monty Pythons Cheese Skit and a programmers joke. The lines in question are bolded below.
Some claim it is part of Microsoft's anti-trust agreement responsibilities to have the icon removed and to also remove the ability to put the icon on the desktop as part of the display properties. Personally I think that is bollocks too. How long ago were the anti-trust hearings? Years. To take this long is a mockery of anti-trust, if indeed that was the causative action.
Secondly - with the advent of service pack three, Microsoft's IE components and Internet Explorer security properties are more tightly integrated with the system than ever. As an example, to Install Mozilla Firefox version 3 requires IE 7, or at least some of its components to be present. Why? Because without them some of the dialog boxes and under laying componentry is not present causing the failure of Mozilla 3 during installation.
Further more Mozilla Firefox Three is now so affected by the internet settings in XP that in order to tighten IE 7 to stop downloading and running active X ( and other executable code ) in the Internet Zone also disables downloads in Mozilla Firefox Three (Ref 1). It is now impossible to cripple IE's active X vulnerability completely without also crippling Mozilla's ability to download programmes. While some of these problems stem from Mozilla developers tying Firefox into the Internet Security Panel (Ref 2), the rest also points to Microsoft's embedding of IE in the operating system. Again, try removing IE7 and watch how fast Mozilla Firefox, and presumably other applications, fail.
As this blog entry isn't a rant about MS or how IE is such a PITA I wont go into detail about the fact that if you start IE7, after it has upgraded itself, you have no ability to set the default page until you stop pushing cancel and start answering the damn questions about security and settings youhave ... eeerrr .. had already dealt with previously and that has now been reverted by MS with the IE 7 upgrade.
Did I mention that trying to tell IE7 to push off and not bother me with Live Search (AKA dead useless) as I am already using Lycos, or google, or yahoo or wiki or ....bugger!!!!! There is now only live seach - and if I click on - "Go make another search engine the default" - Mozilla pops up as the default browser so I have to enable IE7 as the default browser to get rid of live search tool bar and then re-enable Mozilla as the default browser.
No IE7 tie in to the operating system - hah - my left testicale is less tied in to me than IE is to Microsofts OS.
1 - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/07/firefox_3_follows_ie7s_securit_1.html
2 - http://kb.mozillazine.org/Unable_to_save_or_download_files#Reset_system_Internet_security_settings_-_Windows
* DISCLAIMER - Not my programming practices - other peoples. I just had to explain or fix up their bollocks - honest injun - it wasn't me.
loadTOCNode(1, 'summary');loadTOCNode(1, 'cause'); 
My poor technician must have freaked out earlier today when his boss (me) suddenly burst into fits of hysterical laughter and couldn't stop giggling for at least 5 minutes.
The thing that provoked such mirth was a couple of lines from the Microsoft Help section. It read like a cross between Monty Pythons Cheese Skit and a programmers joke. The lines in question are bolded below.
SUMMARYTheAs a programmer I know that poor programming practice* leading to buggy functionality is often passed off on the poor unsuspecting customer as a 'feature' or an implementation 'by design'. For Microsoft to state that the ability to put the Internet Explorer icon on the desktop or Start Menu is not an issue and is by design is ludicrous. Further more for Service Pack Three to REMOVE the icon from the Start Menu or Desktop or even worse, to change the functionality of the icon to bring up Internet Properties instead of starting IE is doubly idiotic.
Internet Explorer icon might be missing after either you upgrade the
Internet Explorer version to 7, or installed through Windows updates.CAUSEThis
Back to the top
is not an issue and is by design. Unlike the previous versions of
Internet Explorer, the option to enable to Internet Explorer icon on
the Windows Desktop is not available. The behavior of Internet Explorer
7, which is bundled with Windows Vista is also the same.
[ BTW - HERE IS THE FIX FOR THIS ] -> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555849
Some claim it is part of Microsoft's anti-trust agreement responsibilities to have the icon removed and to also remove the ability to put the icon on the desktop as part of the display properties. Personally I think that is bollocks too. How long ago were the anti-trust hearings? Years. To take this long is a mockery of anti-trust, if indeed that was the causative action.
Secondly - with the advent of service pack three, Microsoft's IE components and Internet Explorer security properties are more tightly integrated with the system than ever. As an example, to Install Mozilla Firefox version 3 requires IE 7, or at least some of its components to be present. Why? Because without them some of the dialog boxes and under laying componentry is not present causing the failure of Mozilla 3 during installation.
Further more Mozilla Firefox Three is now so affected by the internet settings in XP that in order to tighten IE 7 to stop downloading and running active X ( and other executable code ) in the Internet Zone also disables downloads in Mozilla Firefox Three (Ref 1). It is now impossible to cripple IE's active X vulnerability completely without also crippling Mozilla's ability to download programmes. While some of these problems stem from Mozilla developers tying Firefox into the Internet Security Panel (Ref 2), the rest also points to Microsoft's embedding of IE in the operating system. Again, try removing IE7 and watch how fast Mozilla Firefox, and presumably other applications, fail.
As this blog entry isn't a rant about MS or how IE is such a PITA I wont go into detail about the fact that if you start IE7, after it has upgraded itself, you have no ability to set the default page until you stop pushing cancel and start answering the damn questions about security and settings you
Did I mention that trying to tell IE7 to push off and not bother me with Live Search (AKA dead useless) as I am already using Lycos, or google, or yahoo or wiki or ....bugger!!!!! There is now only live seach - and if I click on - "Go make another search engine the default" - Mozilla pops up as the default browser so I have to enable IE7 as the default browser to get rid of live search tool bar and then re-enable Mozilla as the default browser.
No IE7 tie in to the operating system - hah - my left testicale is less tied in to me than IE is to Microsofts OS.
1 - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/07/firefox_3_follows_ie7s_securit_1.html
2 - http://kb.mozillazine.org/Unable_to_save_or_download_files#Reset_system_Internet_security_settings_-_Windows
* DISCLAIMER - Not my programming practices - other peoples. I just had to explain or fix up their bollocks - honest injun - it wasn't me.
loadTOCNode(1, 'summary');loadTOCNode(1, 'cause');
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)