Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…
What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!
Regarding Nokia, they are still a big mobile back bone provider and developing tech that requires more back bone throughput means more money for them, plus licensing of the technology to end user device manufacturers.
Aren’t they also coming up on the end of the licensing of the Nokia brand for making mobile handsets, so they will be able to start producing their own devices again, with some sort of Nokia branding? Cameras used to be the differentiator back in the pre-iPhone days, and during the Windows Phone days, their camera tech was usually very good, but crippled by Windows Phone’s capabilities. That boat has long sailed, so they need to find a new USP, if they want to get back into the market.
That said, with a phone held to the ear doing mono, or the phone being held in front of the user on loudspeaker, it isn’t going to bring anything to the conversation (I’ll get my coat!), only if the recipient is wearing spacially aware headphones or ear buds (or maybe attached to a Dolby Atmos speaker system) , which most people don’t even have!
1 Like
I can see a method that could be used to phish the health department that could make people more prone to falling for phishing attacks. People who need to securely send or receive anything that is covered by HIPAA are likely used to receiving secure emails that are little more than a link that brings you to a website that requires you to verify you are who the sender believes who you are. I technically work for a university, not the associated health system, so how the hackers is less likely to gain access to patient records, because my university log in does not give access to medical records. Some research studies, which is still bad, but it’s not too readily convenient to tie back the data to the study participant. You need to also need the key to associate a study ID to a person.
It is likely that the hacker sent a “secure” email to employees that contained a link to a tailored website that very much looked like the type of website they were used to seeing when they receive legitimate secure emails. When I receive one, I get presented with two options: log in through the university’s single sign on system or have a second email that will be sent to my email that kind of verifies that I was the intended recipient. If it was a phishing email and wanted to maintain the pretense that you received a legitimate secure email, the second email would have to send you to a website that would seem to fail and then ask that recipient just use their log in information to verify it is them.
If the attacker did design a meticulous attack that sent a legitimate looking email to send the recipients to a well designed verification website that leads to a well designed spoofed login page, I could see a lot of people falling for that, even you. Granted, you are less likely to fall for it, because your password manager wouldn’t fill in your log in information because you’re not actually on a site the manager recognizes, but that would probably be your only saving grace. Your password manager is sending up a red flag that you are not on the site you think you are on.