Disqus - Latest Comments for bensonk

Re: [Discover RC] RakonHeli Inductrix Frame: Quick Build

bensonk — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:43:24 -0000

I'm having a similar problem. It seems like the solution might be to dremel out a little gap in the ring of the motor mount, to allow it to spread a tiny bit, and accomodate the motor.

Re: Code Like You're Awesome, Awesome

bensonk — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:43:33 -0000

Fantastic post. Thanks for sharing this perspective -- I think it's a baseline we can all agree on.

Re: Don’t tell me you want to change the world. Show me.

bensonk — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:05:07 -0000

I've been making half finished stuff for years, but lately I have started breaking things into bite sized chunks. I wrote sendy ( http://GitHub.com/bensonk/s... today in about 15 minutes. It's done enough for public consumption, and if I find time to hack on it, that's a bonus. My attitude is largely inspired by Bre Pettis's cult of done manifesto.

Re: Don’t tell me you want to change the world. Show me.

bensonk — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:15:16 -0000

I've created three new github projexts in the last few weeks, and damn it feels good.

Re: This is a thing

bensonk — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:39:27 -0000

Text indeed. Well done.

Re: http://adrianpike.tumblr.com/post/6009384439

bensonk — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:59:01 -0000

Nice! This looks like a really fun project to try to replicate sometime.

Re: Twitter

bensonk — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:01:28 -0000

My point is that OpenID is designed for distributed logins, whereas oauth is designed to provide authorization. I prefer to use the right tool for each job. Also, oauth should let users specify which permissions to allow. :-)

Re: Twitter

bensonk — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:57:51 -0000

Nice! It's great to know it's doable in many frameworks.

Re: Benson Kalahar

bensonk — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:04:19 -0000

I'm even tired of thinking of things to say in the comments.

Re: Benson Kalahar

bensonk — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:31:38 -0000

I like this test post, I think it's nice.

Re: Adobe slaps band-aid on 13 security holes

bensonk — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:06:41 -0000

I'm glad they are fixing these holes, and I'll continue to avoid reading untrusted PDFs on my linux machines for a while.

Re: Apple tackles 'clickjacking' with latest Safari patch

bensonk — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:54:14 -0000

But did they fix the java applet sandbox vulnerability yet? Until they do, mac browsing with java enabled is like playing with fire.

Re: Encrypted tunnels: Enabling users to circumvent security controls

bensonk — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:50:41 -0000

Very well said, thank you for responding. I think I agree with your position here -- from the article it seemed you were suggesting that network admins go on a search-and-destroy mission for cryptography software on their network, but I can see now that's not what you were advocating. I do think that understanding what the traffic on your network is doing is very important, and encrypted streams can make it very difficult to do that; raising awareness of them is key.

I do agree that the presence of TOR or Gbridge is a problem, and should probably be sought out. Anyone using TOR from inside your corporate network should have a very good explanation for doing so.

Re: Encrypted tunnels: Enabling users to circumvent security controls

bensonk — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:03:35 -0000

I see time and time again people who think that they can keep the users in a "safe" part of the internet by blacklisting the dangers. It's just not true, and gives a mere false sense of security. It's particularly bad when they block sites that "could potentially be used to circumvent security", but that also provide useful work-related features. This kind of attitude ends up wasting everyone's time.

Re: Encrypted tunnels: Enabling users to circumvent security controls

bensonk — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:32:47 -0000

I never expected to see security professionals branding cryptography as a witch. What bothers me more than anything else about the current state of things in the security area is that people seem to think they can blacklist all the dangerous zones and make the internet safe. Protip: blacklists don't work. Whether they use cryptographic tools, steganography, covert channels (like the ones Dan Kaminsky was exploring in DNS), or some other method, your users will find ways around your "firewall". If you allow full access to the web, your users will be able to communicate with any server that is also connected to the net. It's been said that the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it -- this is also true of corporate networks. So please stop vilifying the tools -- cryptography is an asset to security, not a danger -- and start doing your jobs right: communicate with your users, and if necessary whitelist acceptable sites. That said, whitelisting is a draconian step to take -- google will no longer be of any use -- so use caution. The best defense is a well educated user base.