Want CNET to notify you of price drops and the latest stories?

BOL 1031: Happy SysAdmin Day!

Today, the last Friday of July is SysAdmin day and we appreciate them even more because they came through during the live show and got us back online. We also talk about David Pogue's new movement to "take back the beep."

3 min read

Today, the last Friday of July is SysAdmin day and we appreciate them even more because they came through during the live show and got us back online. We also talk about David Pogue's new movement to "take back the beep." And we need to watch out for pandas. Listen and you'll find out why. Special guests: The hosts of Hak5.

Watch this: BOL 1031: Happy SysAdmin Day!


Subscribe with iTunes (audio)
Subscribe with iTunes (video)
Subscribe with RSS (audio)
Subscribe with RSS (video)


Apple to fix iPhone security flaw

The truth about the iPhone virus / vulnerability thing

Elinor: Researchers attack my iPhone via SMS

David Pogue wants to take back the beep

Bootkit bypasses Truecrypt full-disk encryption

Hackers: We can bypass San Francisco e-parking meters

HP researchers reveal details of browser-based darknet

Shock threat to shut Skype

CU prof’s iPhone app lets users snoop out surroundings

Cash for Clunkers cars get lethal injections

Fewer than 10 ET civilizations in our galaxy?

Police: Texting, talking NY trucker hits car, pool

Voice mail
Anonymous Premise Technician on Fiber to the premise

SysAdmin on a special holiday

Hi BUZZ Crew:

Just a quick note to say that on episode 1030 you discussed the new SSL vulnerability reported at Black Hat. You also went on to state how this issue could impact some web browsers more then others. You then noted that as it relates to this specific issue IE was more secure then FireFox.

A number of sources are now correcting the original report (including CNET [kudos for that]) to state that this issue will not impact FireFox 3.5 but only 3.0 and prior version of FireFox. I just thought that reporting this correction to BUZZ Town would be important.

Highly addicted to the show,

Joe Dawson
IT Security Consultant
St. John’s, Newfoundland


Hey guys, just wanted to opine on the news story from BOL-1029. Totally normal practice to file a patent application and keep it active for a few years and file continuations with new patent claims (which define the scope of their protection) that cover actual implementations of competitors. There must be support for those new claims in the originally filed specification, however, so if they drafted the original application broadly enough, then it is perfectly legit to file new claims covering podcasting methods.

Quickly reviewed claim 1 and it is interesting, though the channel depth term seems problematic possibly. Looks like the original application is still pending, so they have the opportunity to further amend. Looks to be directed at the user side of the equation, so anyone who develops/deploys a podcatching app (wow, been a while since I used that term) might be running afoul of this patent.

Bob “The Patent Lawyer”

P.S. Been too long since I chimed in. :-) Tom needs to opine more often on patents.