For those of you out there who want a pet but have allergies, or are living in areas with pesky rules about importing "exotic" animals, or just want something really different for a housepet, well... You have your wish.

Bioengineered pets!

Pets of the Future, here today!

Dagmar wrote:
Someone's basically got a very interesting video feedback loop protection going on a table in some nightclub.

Talk about setting a mantrap for people on hallucinogens...

Messed around with some similar things in Linux last year:

http://effectv.sourceforge.net/

http://waterworks.sourceforge.net/

There's a lot of good code out there. A bunch of pd (kind of an open source MAX/MSP) stuff that I haven't yet messed with as well that looks like it could pull this off no prob.

Wouldn't surprise me if they're using MAX/MSP under the hood for these installations.

RE: Better Reality Through Technology (demonstrations!)

Someone's basically got a very interesting video feedback loop protection going on a table in some nightclub.

Talk about setting a mantrap for people on hallucinogens...

Better Reality Through Technology (demonstrations!)

Here is a conceptual project based on flexible screen technology. “Timeflex” is a disposable watch that can be bent or rolled with the flexibility of paper. The menu is controlled by touchscreen technology. The energy will be supplied by small super batteries, located in a thin layer of the watch.

Timeflex

It's a shame probably no one but patent attorneys will ever see any benefit from this idea.

Timeflex

There has been an almost unbelievable amount of hubbub lately about the research that Mike Lynn gave a demonstration of at the BlackHat conference last week, and there's been a positively dizzying amount of "spin" applied to the media. Let me say one thing to everyone reading this, right up front. What Lynn uncovered is a serious issue, probably actually more serious than what the media is making it out to be. While coverage on the issue is good (and useful to both "sides") the lack of actual accurate reporting on the issue isn't helpful to anyone.

Part of the problem is that apparently, outside of the list of BlackHat attendees, there's not that many people running around who truly understand what Lynn's research uncovered. Lynn did not reveal an "exploit" in the usual sense. In fact, Lynn of his own volition has been playing his cards fairly close to his chest on this, and omitted most of the technical details of the problem from his presentation in order to assure that no one would be able to easily "follow in his footsteps". Lynn, it can safely be said, was scared by what he discovered--scared enough that he has risked his livelihood not once but twice in order to be sure that should the technical aspects of what he's found not be resolved before someone with less respect for the continuation of the Internet figures it out for themselves, the network and security administrators of the world will have had time to take some steps to reduce the amount of damage done. It can no longer be thought of as a sure thing that just because a particular vulnerability could "break the Internet" that no one's going to try it just to see if it's really true. We have a rather excellent example in recent history that pretty much everyone is aware of by now... the MS Blaster worm which raged around the Internet wreaking rather unprecedented havok. Pretty much everyone on the Internet was either personally affected by this, or knows someone who was. Blaster made use of a vulnerability that had become rather common knowledge by the time it was released, but had already been known to many security professionals for months. The real problem that made things so painful and propagation of Blaster so widespread, was that for those months, Microsoft had been actively denying that there was ever a problem until Blaster forced them to admit it. Had system administrators been made aware of the issue and the meager steps needed to impede the spread of Blaster (which everyone implemented in a white-hot hurry once their networks were figuratively ablaze) the damage could have been much less indeed.

Cisco is not helping the issue, or I should say, Cisco's lawyers are not helping the issue. Cisco makes some really awesome products, and their technical people can't really be faulted for this one technical flaw. The problem is that Cisco's lawyers are convinced that public knowledge of a serious issue ... [ Read More (1.3k in body) ]

The networking giant and Internet Security Systems jointly filed a request Wednesday for a temporary restraining order against Michael Lynn and the organizers of the Black Hat security conference.

We may need to start a legal defense fund for Michael.

The thing that really gets me about these occurances, is how is this not equivalent to whistle blowing? I mean, if this was a disease or a terrorist threat that you had discovered and you published it or exposed it, you'd be lauded as a hero. But because there's technology involved, then you're a target and a criminal.

Cisco hits back at flaw researcher

-----Original Message-----
From: First Last [mailto:c01n0p@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 11:50 AM
To: pen-test@securityfocus.com
Subject: list of address that you don't want to scan

FYI...

Original site link -
http://professionalsecuritytester.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=70

IP address you should NOT scan
Posted by cdupuis on Thursday, April 01 @ 09:38:09 CST Contributed by cdupuis

The Government Security website at
http://www.governmentsecurity.org has produced a nice list of IP address you should be aware of as a tester.
They are mostly government agencies addresses and could quickly get you in trouble if you would scan them by mistake.

Click on Read More... below see the whole list

Enjoy!

Clement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With kindly thanks to Mountainman, the list of dangerosly ranges is updated again!!!
-------------------------------------------------

RANGE 6
6.* - Army Information Systems Center

RANGE 7
7.*.*.* Defense Information Systems Agency, VA

RANGE 11
11.*.*.* DoD Intel Information Systems, Defense Intelligence Agency, Washington DC

RANGE 21
21. - US Defense Information Systems Agency

RANGE 22
22.* - Defense Information Systems Agency

RANGE 24
24.198.*.*

RANGE 25
25.*.*.* Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, UK

RANGE 26
26.* - Defense Information Systems Agency

RANGE 29
29.* - Defense Information Systems Agency

RANGE 30
30.* - Defense Information Systems Agency

RANGE 49
49.* - Joint Tactical Command

RANGE 50
50.* - Joint Tactical Command

RANGE 55
55.* - Army National Guard Bureau

RANGE 55
55.* - Army National Guard Bureau

RANGE 62
62.0.0.1 - 62.30.255.255 Do not scan!

RANGE 64
64.70.*.* Do not scan
64.224.* Do not Scan
64.225.* Do not scan
64.226.* Do not scan

RANGE 128
128.37.0.0 Army Yuma Proving Ground
128.38.0.0 Naval Surface Warfare Center
128.43.0.0 Defence Research Establishment-Ottawa 128.47.0.0 Army Communications Electronics Command 128.49.0.0 Naval Ocean Systems Center 128.50.0.0 Department of Defense 128.51.0.0 Department of Defense 128.56.0.0 U.S. Naval Academy 128.60.0.0 Naval Research Laboratory 128.63.0.0 Army Ballistics Research Laboratory 128.80.0.0 Army Communications Electronics Command 128.98.0.0 - 128.98.255.255 Defence Evaluation and Research Agency 128.102.0.0 NASA Ames Research Center 128.149.0.0 NASA Headquarters 128.154.0.0 NASA Wallops Flight Facility 128.155.0.0 NASA Langley Research Center 128.156.0.0 NASA Lewis Network Control Center 128.157.0.0 NASA Johnson Space Center 128.158.0.0 NASA Ames Research Center 128.159.0.0 NASA Ames Research Center 128.160.0.0 Naval Research Laboratory 128.161.0.0 NASA Ames Res... [ Read More (4.7k in body) ]

Sites you should never *ever* scan

In the stupidest security move microsoft has made to date, they've decided that pirated copies of microsoft products should not recieve security patches.

What's next, 'How to write a worm', published by Microsoft Press?

[ This was inevitable. Its a good idea for their business and a bad idea for computer security on the whole. Its hard to argue that Microsoft has a moral obligation to patch stolen software, but on the other hand this is going to make a bad situation worse. ]

Microsoft: No Patches for Pirated Windows