10 interesting stories served every morning and every evening.

1 1,772 shares, 72 trendiness, 490 words and 5 minutes reading time

Honda bucks industry trend by removing touchscreen controls

You are here

Japanese firm reck­ons new tech is difficult to op­er­ate in­tu­itively” for func­tions such as air con­di­tion­ing, mov­ing against grow­ing in­dus­try norm

The new Jazz has a touch­screen for many func­tions, but not tem­per­a­ture con­trol

Honda has done what no other car maker is do­ing, and re­turned to ana­logue con­trols for some func­tions on the new Honda Jazz.

While most man­u­fac­tur­ers are mov­ing to touch­screen con­trols, iden­ti­fy­ing smart­phone use as their in­spi­ra­tion - most re­cently seen in Audi’s lat­est A3 - Honda has de­cided to rein­tro­duce heat­ing and air con­di­tion­ing con­trols via a dial rather than touch­screen, as in the pre­vi­ous-gen­er­a­tion Jazz.

Jazz pro­ject leader Takeki Tanaka ex­plained: The rea­son is quite sim­ple - we wanted to min­imise dri­ver dis­rup­tion for op­er­a­tion, in par­tic­u­lar, for the heater and air con­di­tion­ing.

We changed it from touch­screen to dial op­er­a­tion, as we re­ceived cus­tomer feed­back that it was dif­fi­cult to op­er­ate in­tu­itively. You had to look at the screen to change the heater seat­ing, there­fore, we changed it so one can op­er­ate it with­out look­ing, giv­ing more con­fi­dence while dri­ving.”

More and more man­u­fac­tur­ers are mov­ing to touch­screen-only con­trols. The new Audi A3s elec­tron­ics boss Melanie Limmer told Autocar re­cently its de­ci­sion to re­move some phys­i­cal but­tons was made as more and more peo­ple are get­ting into touch func­tions with smart­phones” and added that the new sys­tem is as user-friendly as the pre­vi­ous one.

While Honda’s de­ci­sion to re­turn to phys­i­cal con­trols will be pop­u­lar with some - in­clud­ing, no doubt, its age­ing owner base in the UK - the pre­dicted move to­wards more voice-con­trolled ac­tions in cars could elim­i­nate the de­bate around touch­screens ver­sus ana­logue con­trols in the fu­ture.

The new Honda Jazz is big­ger than ever thanks to a new chas­sis and longer wheel­base, but does it come with a more en­gag­ing drive

Ford aims to take the crossover class by storm as it re­vives the Puma name

A quick, classy and quiet elec­tric SUV that builds on the solid foun­da­tions…

Mazda’s fuel-sav­ing tech trick­les down to its iconic two-seater sports…

Honda to ditch diesel in Europe by 2021

Honda to elec­trify European line-up by 2022, not 2025

Are you as pas­sion­ate about cars as we are? Get all the best car news, re­views and opin­ion di­rect to your in­box.

Haymarket Media Group, pub­lish­ers of Autocar takes your pri­vacy se­ri­ously. You can un­sub­scribe at any time us­ing the un­sub­scribe mech­a­nism on any email you re­ceive from us. We will use your in­for­ma­tion to en­sure you re­ceive mes­sages that are rel­e­vant to you. To learn more about how we use the in­for­ma­tion you pro­vide to us please see our Full Privacy Notice.

Ford aims to take the crossover class by storm as it re­vives the Puma name

A quick, classy and quiet elec­tric SUV that builds on the solid foun­da­tions…

Mazda’s fuel-sav­ing tech trick­les down to its iconic two-seater sports…


Read the original on www.autocar.co.uk »

2 1,331 shares, 55 trendiness, 365 words and 3 minutes reading time

Open Broadcaster Software

Free and open source soft­ware for video record­ing and live stream­ing.

Download and start stream­ing quickly and eas­ily on Windows, Mac or Linux.

The OBS Project is made pos­si­ble thanks to gen­er­ous con­tri­bu­tions from our spon­sors and back­ers. Learn more about how you can be­come a spon­sor.

High per­for­mance real time video/​au­dio cap­tur­ing and mix­ing. Create scenes made up of mul­ti­ple sources in­clud­ing win­dow cap­tures, im­ages, text, browser win­dows, we­b­cams, cap­ture cards and more.

Set up an un­lim­ited num­ber of scenes you can switch be­tween seam­lessly via cus­tom tran­si­tions.

Intuitive au­dio mixer with per-source fil­ters such as noise gate, noise sup­pres­sion, and gain. Take full con­trol with VST plu­gin sup­port.

Powerful and easy to use con­fig­u­ra­tion op­tions. Add new Sources, du­pli­cate ex­ist­ing ones, and ad­just their prop­er­ties ef­fort­lessly.

Streamlined Settings panel gives you ac­cess to a wide ar­ray of con­fig­u­ra­tion op­tions to tweak every as­pect of your broad­cast or record­ing.

Modular Dock’ UI al­lows you to re­arrange the lay­out ex­actly as you like. You can even pop out each in­di­vid­ual Dock to its own win­dow.

OBS sup­ports all your fa­vorite stream­ing plat­forms and more.

Choose from a num­ber of dif­fer­ent and cus­tomiz­able tran­si­tions for when you switch be­tween your scenes or add your own stinger video files.

Set hotkeys for nearly every sort of ac­tion, such as switch­ing be­tween scenes, start­ing/​stop­ping streams or record­ings, mut­ing au­dio sources, push to talk, and more.

Studio Mode lets you pre­view your scenes and sources be­fore push­ing them live. Adjust your scenes and sources or cre­ate new ones and en­sure they’re per­fect be­fore your view­ers ever see them.

Get a high level view of your pro­duc­tion us­ing the Multiview. Monitor 8 dif­fer­ent scenes and eas­ily cue or tran­si­tion to any of them with merely a sin­gle or dou­ble click.

OBS Studio is equipped with a pow­er­ful API, en­abling plu­g­ins and scripts to pro­vide fur­ther cus­tomiza­tion and func­tion­al­ity spe­cific to your needs.

Utilize na­tive plu­g­ins for high per­for­mance in­te­gra­tions or scripts writ­ten with Lua or Python that in­ter­face with ex­ist­ing sources.

Work with de­vel­op­ers in the stream­ing com­mu­nity to get the fea­tures you need with end­less pos­si­bil­i­ties.

Browse or sub­mit your own in the Resources sec­tion


Read the original on obsproject.com »

3 1,171 shares, 48 trendiness, 1910 words and 20 minutes reading time

Zoom Meetings Aren’t End-to-End Encrypted, Despite Misleading Marketing

Zoom, the video con­fer­enc­ing ser­vice whose use has spiked amid the Covid-19 pan­demic, claims to im­ple­ment end-to-end en­cryp­tion, widely un­der­stood as the most pri­vate form of in­ter­net com­mu­ni­ca­tion, pro­tect­ing con­ver­sa­tions from all out­side par­ties. In fact, Zoom is us­ing its own de­f­i­n­i­tion of the term, one that lets Zoom it­self ac­cess un­en­crypted video and au­dio from meet­ings.

With mil­lions of peo­ple around the world work­ing from home in or­der to slow the spread of the coro­n­avirus, busi­ness is boom­ing for Zoom, bring­ing more at­ten­tion on the com­pany and its pri­vacy prac­tices, in­clud­ing a pol­icy, later up­dated, that seemed to give the com­pany per­mis­sion to mine mes­sages and files shared dur­ing meet­ings for the pur­pose of ad tar­get­ing.

Still, Zoom of­fers re­li­a­bil­ity, ease of use, and at least one very im­por­tant se­cu­rity as­sur­ance: As long as you make sure every­one in a Zoom meet­ing con­nects us­ing computer au­dio” in­stead of call­ing in on a phone, the meet­ing is se­cured with end-to-end en­cryp­tion, at least ac­cord­ing to Zoom’s web­site, its se­cu­rity white pa­per, and the user in­ter­face within the app. But de­spite this mis­lead­ing mar­ket­ing, the ser­vice ac­tu­ally does not sup­port end-to-end en­cryp­tion for video and au­dio con­tent, at least as the term is com­monly un­der­stood. Instead it of­fers what is usu­ally called trans­port en­cryp­tion, ex­plained fur­ther be­low.

In Zoom’s white pa­per, there is a list of pre-meeting se­cu­rity ca­pa­bil­i­ties” that are avail­able to the meet­ing host that starts with Enable an end-to-end (E2E) en­crypted meet­ing.” Later in the white pa­per, it lists Secure a meet­ing with E2E en­cryp­tion” as an in-meeting se­cu­rity ca­pa­bil­ity” that’s avail­able to meet­ing hosts. When a host starts a meet­ing with the Require Encryption for 3rd Party Endpoints” set­ting en­abled, par­tic­i­pants see a green pad­lock that says, Zoom is us­ing an end to end en­crypted con­nec­tion” when they mouse over it.

But when reached for com­ment about whether video meet­ings are ac­tu­ally end-to-end en­crypted, a Zoom spokesper­son wrote, Currently, it is not pos­si­ble to en­able E2E en­cryp­tion for Zoom video meet­ings. Zoom video meet­ings use a com­bi­na­tion of TCP and UDP. TCP con­nec­tions are made us­ing TLS and UDP con­nec­tions are en­crypted with AES us­ing a key ne­go­ti­ated over a TLS con­nec­tion.”

The en­cryp­tion that Zoom uses to pro­tect meet­ings is TLS, the same tech­nol­ogy that web servers use to se­cure HTTPS web­sites. This means that the con­nec­tion be­tween the Zoom app run­ning on a user’s com­puter or phone and Zoom’s server is en­crypted in the same way the con­nec­tion be­tween your web browser and this ar­ti­cle (on https://​thein­ter­cept.com) is en­crypted. This is known as trans­port en­cryp­tion, which is dif­fer­ent from end-to-end en­cryp­tion be­cause the Zoom ser­vice it­self can ac­cess the un­en­crypted video and au­dio con­tent of Zoom meet­ings. So when you have a Zoom meet­ing, the video and au­dio con­tent will stay pri­vate from any­one spy­ing on your Wi-Fi, but it won’t stay pri­vate from the com­pany. (In a state­ment, Zoom said it does not di­rectly ac­cess, mine, or sell user data; more be­low.)

For a Zoom meet­ing to be end-to-end en­crypted, the video and au­dio con­tent would need to be en­crypted in such a way that only the par­tic­i­pants in the meet­ing have the abil­ity to de­crypt it. The Zoom ser­vice it­self might have ac­cess to en­crypted meet­ing con­tent, but would­n’t have the en­cryp­tion keys re­quired to de­crypt it (only meet­ing par­tic­i­pants would have these keys) and there­fore, would not have the tech­ni­cal abil­ity to lis­ten in on your pri­vate meet­ings. This is how end-to-end en­cryp­tion in mes­sag­ing apps like Signal work: The Signal ser­vice fa­cil­i­tates send­ing en­crypted mes­sages be­tween users, but does­n’t have the en­cryp­tion keys re­quired to de­crypt those mes­sages and there­fore, can’t ac­cess their un­en­crypted con­tent.

When we use the phrase End to End’ in our other lit­er­a­ture, it is in ref­er­ence to the con­nec­tion be­ing en­crypted from Zoom end point to Zoom end point,” the Zoom spokesper­son wrote, ap­par­ently re­fer­ring to Zoom servers as end points” even though they sit be­tween Zoom clients. The con­tent is not de­crypted as it trans­fers across the Zoom cloud” through the net­work­ing be­tween these ma­chines.

Matthew Green, a cryp­tog­ra­pher and com­puter sci­ence pro­fes­sor at Johns Hopkins University, points out that group video con­fer­enc­ing is dif­fi­cult to en­crypt end to end. That’s be­cause the ser­vice provider needs to de­tect who is talk­ing to act like a switch­board, which al­lows it to only send a high-res­o­lu­tion videostream from the per­son who is talk­ing at the mo­ment, or who a user se­lects to the rest of the group, and to send low-res­o­lu­tion videostreams of other par­tic­i­pants. This type of op­ti­miza­tion is much eas­ier if the ser­vice provider can see every­thing be­cause it’s un­en­crypted.

If it’s all end-to-end en­crypted, you need to add some ex­tra mech­a­nisms to make sure you can do that kind of who’s talk­ing’ switch, and you can do it in a way that does­n’t leak a lot of in­for­ma­tion. You have to push that logic out to the end­points,” he told The Intercept. This is­n’t im­pos­si­ble, though, Green said, as demon­strated by Apple’s FaceTime, which al­lows group video con­fer­enc­ing that’s end-to-end en­crypted. It’s doable. It’s just not easy.”

They’re a lit­tle bit fuzzy about what’s end-to-end en­crypted,” Green said of Zoom. I think they’re do­ing this in a slightly dis­hon­est way. It would be nice if they just came clean.”

The only fea­ture of Zoom that does ap­pear to be end-to-end en­crypted is in-meet­ing text chat. Zoom E2E chat en­cryp­tion al­lows for a se­cured com­mu­ni­ca­tion where only the in­tended re­cip­i­ent can read the se­cured mes­sage,” the white pa­per states. Zoom uses pub­lic and pri­vate key to en­crypt the chat ses­sion with Advanced Encryption Standard (AES-256). Session keys are gen­er­ated with a de­vice-unique hard­ware ID to avoid data be­ing read from other de­vices.” A Zoom spokesper­son wrote, When end-to-end en­cryp­tion for chat is en­abled, the keys are stored on the lo­cal de­vices and Zoom does not have ac­cess to the keys to de­crypt the data.”

Without end-to-end en­cryp­tion, Zoom has the tech­ni­cal abil­ity to spy on pri­vate video meet­ings and could be com­pelled to hand over record­ings of meet­ings to gov­ern­ments or law en­force­ment in re­sponse to le­gal re­quests. While other com­pa­nies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft pub­lish trans­parency re­ports that de­scribe ex­actly how many gov­ern­ment re­quests for user data they re­ceive from which coun­tries and how many of those they com­ply with, Zoom does not pub­lish a trans­parency re­port. On March 18, hu­man rights group Access Now pub­lished an open let­ter call­ing on Zoom to re­lease a trans­parency re­port to help users un­der­stand what the com­pany is do­ing to pro­tect their data.

Transparency re­ports are one of the strongest ways for com­pa­nies to dis­close threats to user pri­vacy and free ex­pres­sion. They help us un­der­stand sur­veil­lance laws in dif­fer­ent ju­ris­dic­tions, pro­vide use­ful in­for­ma­tion on net­work shut­downs and dis­rup­tions, and they show us which com­pa­nies are push­ing back against im­proper re­quests for user in­for­ma­tion,” said Isedua Oribhabor, U. S. pol­icy an­a­lyst at Access Now. Access Now’s Transparency Reporting Index shows a down­ward trend in con­sis­tent trans­parency re­port­ing, which Oribhabor said re­moves an es­sen­tial tool for users and civil so­ci­ety to hold gov­ern­ments and com­pa­nies ac­count­able.

Oribhabor pointed out that Zoom could be com­pelled to hand over data to gov­ern­ments that want to mon­i­tor on­line as­sem­bly or con­trol the spread of in­for­ma­tion as ac­tivists move protests on­line. The lack of a trans­parency re­port makes it dif­fi­cult to de­ter­mine whether there’s been an in­crease in re­quests and un­clear how Zoom would re­spond.

Companies have a re­spon­si­bil­ity to be trans­par­ent about these kinds of re­quests, to help users and civil so­ci­ety see where gov­ern­ment abuse is oc­cur­ring and how the com­pany is push­ing back,” Oribhabor said.

Zoom com­plies with our le­gal oblig­a­tions or the le­gal oblig­a­tions of our cus­tomers. This in­cludes re­spond­ing to valid le­gal process, or as rea­son­ably nec­es­sary to pre­serve Zoom’s le­gal rights. Zoom is legally re­quired to work with law en­force­ment when there is a vi­o­la­tion of Zoom’s Online Terms of Service,” a Zoom spokesper­son said in an email.

It’s pos­si­ble that Zoom’s mar­ket­ing could be con­sid­ered an un­fair or de­cep­tive trade prac­tice that would run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission. In 2014, both Fandango and Credit Karma set­tled charges with the FTC af­ter fail­ing to prop­erly im­ple­ment SSL en­cryp­tion for pro­cess­ing credit card in­for­ma­tion, de­spite their se­cu­rity promises. This left cus­tomer’s per­sonal data vul­ner­a­ble to man-in-the-mid­dle at­tacks.

Independent tech­nol­o­gist Ashkan Soltani, who for­merly served as the FTCs chief tech­nol­o­gist, said it’s un­clear to him whether Zoom is ac­tu­ally im­ple­ment­ing end-to-end en­cryp­tion; he was un­aware that it claimed to do so prior to speak­ing with The Intercept. But he said that if a rea­son­able con­sumer makes a de­ci­sion to use Zoom with the un­der­stand­ing that it has end-to-end en­cryp­tion for video chat when, in fact, it did not, and if Zoom’s rep­re­sen­ta­tion is de­cep­tive, it could be a de­cep­tive trade prac­tice.

This kind of mar­ket­ing could im­pact not just con­sumers, but also other busi­nesses.

If Zoom claimed they have end-to-end en­cryp­tion, but did­n’t ac­tu­ally in­vest the re­sources to im­ple­ment it, and Google Hangouts did­n’t make that claim and you chose Zoom, not only are you be­ing harmed as con­sumer, but in fact, Hangouts is be­ing harmed be­cause Zoom is mak­ing claims about its prod­uct that are not true,” he said. So it’s ac­tu­ally ben­e­fit­ing from false claims, and peo­ple are es­sen­tially re­ceiv­ing more mar­ket share be­cause of those false claims.”

Zoom busi­ness cus­tomers with a min­i­mum of 10 hosts have the op­tion of us­ing an on-premises Meet­ing Connector, which al­lows com­pa­nies to es­sen­tially host a Zoom server on their in­ter­nal cor­po­rate net­work. With this setup, meet­ing meta­data, like the names and times of meet­ings and which par­tic­i­pants join them, goes through Zoom’s servers, but the meet­ing it­self is hosted in cus­tomer’s in­ter­nal net­work,” ac­cord­ing to the white pa­per. All real-time meet­ing traf­fic in­clud­ing au­dio, video, and data shar­ing go through the com­pa­ny’s in­ter­nal net­work. This lever­ages your ex­ist­ing net­work se­cu­rity setup to pro­tect your meet­ing traf­fic.” Even though Zoom meet­ings are not end-to-end en­crypted, the com­pany should not have ac­cess to the video and au­dio of meet­ings that go through a cus­tomer’s Meeting Connector server; only the cus­tomer should have ac­cess to that.

Zoom pro­vided the fol­low­ing state­ment to The Intercept: Zoom takes its users’ pri­vacy ex­tremely se­ri­ously. Zoom only col­lects data from in­di­vid­u­als us­ing the Zoom plat­form as needed to pro­vide the ser­vice and en­sure it is de­liv­ered as ef­fec­tively as pos­si­ble. Zoom must col­lect ba­sic tech­ni­cal in­for­ma­tion like users’ IP ad­dress, OS de­tails and de­vice de­tails in or­der for the ser­vice to func­tion prop­erly. Zoom has lay­ered safe­guards in place to pro­tect our users’ pri­vacy, which in­cludes pre­vent­ing any­one, in­clud­ing Zoom em­ploy­ees, from di­rectly ac­cess­ing any data that users share dur­ing meet­ings, in­clud­ing — but not lim­ited to — the video, au­dio and chat con­tent of those meet­ings. Importantly, Zoom does not mine user data or sell user data of any kind to any­one.”


Read the original on theintercept.com »

4 1,011 shares, 40 trendiness, 0 words and 0 minutes reading time

Manage HTML DOM with vanilla JavaScript

78 — Select an el­e­ment or list of el­e­ments


Read the original on htmldom.dev »

5 859 shares, 33 trendiness, 264 words and 2 minutes reading time

Dark Sky Has a New Home

Today we have some im­por­tant and ex­cit­ing news to share: Dark Sky has joined Apple.

Our goal has al­ways been to pro­vide the world with the best weather in­for­ma­tion pos­si­ble, to help as many peo­ple as we can stay dry and safe, and to do so in a way that re­spects your pri­vacy.

There is no bet­ter place to ac­com­plish these goals than at Apple. We’re thrilled to have the op­por­tu­nity to reach far more peo­ple, with far more im­pact, than we ever could alone.

There will be no changes to Dark Sky for iOS at this time. It will con­tinue to be avail­able for pur­chase in the App Store.

The app will no longer be avail­able for down­load. Service to ex­ist­ing users and sub­scribers will con­tinue un­til July 1, 2020, at which point the app will be shut down. Subscribers who are still ac­tive at that time will re­ceive a re­fund.

Weather fore­casts, maps, and em­beds will con­tinue un­til July 1, 2020. The web­site will re­main ac­tive be­yond that time in sup­port of API and iOS App cus­tomers.

Our API ser­vice for ex­ist­ing cus­tomers is not chang­ing to­day, but we will no longer ac­cept new signups. The API will con­tinue to func­tion through the end of 2021.

As part of this tran­si­tion, use of Dark Sky by Apple is sub­ject to the Apple Privacy Policy, which can be found at ap­ple.com/​pri­vacy.

To our cus­tomers, fam­ily and friends, we are grate­ful for your sup­port over the past eight years. We look for­ward to con­tin­u­ing to build great prod­ucts, so stay tuned…


Read the original on blog.darksky.net »

6 841 shares, 32 trendiness, 465 words and 5 minutes reading time

Elon Musk's SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns -memo

(Reuters) - Elon Musk’s rocket com­pany SpaceX has banned its em­ploy­ees from us­ing video con­fer­enc­ing app Zoom, cit­ing significant pri­vacy and se­cu­rity con­cerns,” ac­cord­ing to a memo seen by Reuters, days af­ter U. S. law en­force­ment warned users about the se­cu­rity of the pop­u­lar app.

Use of Zoom and other dig­i­tal com­mu­ni­ca­tions has soared as many Americans have been or­dered to stay home to slow the spread of coro­n­avirus.

SpaceX’s ban on Zoom Video Communications Inc il­lus­trates the mount­ing chal­lenges fac­ing aero­space man­u­fac­tur­ers as they de­velop tech­nol­ogy deemed vi­tal to na­tional se­cu­rity while also try­ing to keep em­ploy­ees safe from the fast-spread­ing res­pi­ra­tory ill­ness.

In an email dated March 28, SpaceX told em­ploy­ees that all ac­cess to Zoom had been dis­abled with im­me­di­ate ef­fect.

We un­der­stand that many of us were us­ing this tool for con­fer­ences and meet­ing sup­port,” SpaceX said in the mes­sage. Please use email, text or phone as al­ter­nate means of com­mu­ni­ca­tion.”

Two peo­ple fa­mil­iar with the mat­ter con­firmed the con­tents of the mail.

A rep­re­sen­ta­tive for SpaceX, which has more than 6,000 em­ploy­ees, did not re­spond to a re­quest for com­ment. Chief Executive Musk also heads elec­tric car maker Tesla Inc.

NASA, one of SpaceX’s biggest cus­tomers, also pro­hibits its em­ploy­ees from us­ing Zoom, said Stephanie Schierholz, a spokes­woman for the U. S. space agency.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Boston of­fice on Monday is­sued a warn­ing about Zoom, telling users not to make meet­ings on the site pub­lic or share links widely af­ter it re­ceived two re­ports of uniden­ti­fied in­di­vid­u­als in­vad­ing school ses­sions, a phe­nom­e­non known as zoombombing.”

Investigative news site The Intercept on Tuesday re­ported that Zoom video is not end-to-end en­crypted be­tween meet­ing par­tic­i­pants, and that the com­pany could view ses­sions.

We want to start by apol­o­giz­ing for the con­fu­sion we have caused by in­cor­rectly sug­gest­ing that Zoom meet­ings were ca­pa­ble of us­ing end-to-end en­cryp­tion,” the com­pany said in a blog post. Zoom has al­ways strived to use en­cryp­tion to pro­tect con­tent in as many sce­nar­ios as pos­si­ble, and in that spirit, we used the term end-to-end en­cryp­tion.” (bit.ly/​2x­H3Et8)

The com­pany added that it en­crypts all con­tent from Zoom meet­ings where every­one is us­ing the Zoom app and the ses­sions are not be­ing recorded. It said it was un­able to cur­rently en­crypt con­tent when users log in us­ing other de­vices.

Zoom did not im­me­di­ately re­spond to re­quests for com­ment on SpaceX’s de­ci­sion.

As a de­fence con­trac­tor, California-based SpaceX has been clas­si­fied as an es­sen­tial busi­ness, al­low­ing it to stay open through shut­downs in California and Texas, the de­vel­op­ment and test­ing hub for its Starship rocket that could be used to get to the moon and Mars and send na­tional se­cu­rity satel­lites to space.


Read the original on www.reuters.com »

7 818 shares, 32 trendiness, 0 words and 0 minutes reading time

Are you a robot?

Please make sure your browser sup­ports JavaScript and cook­ies and that you are not block­ing them from load­ing. For more in­for­ma­tion you can re­view our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy.


Read the original on www.bloomberg.com »

8 815 shares, 32 trendiness, 0 words and 0 minutes reading time

[ANNOUNCE] WireGuard 1.0.0 for Linux 5.6 Released


Read the original on lore.kernel.org »

9 753 shares, 18 trendiness, 370 words and 3 minutes reading time

[ANNOUNCE] WireGuard 1.0.0 for Linux 5.6 Released

Jason at zx2c4.com

Previous mes­sage (by thread): wg sync­conf changes end­point to IPv4 and re­moves fw­mark

Next mes­sage (by thread): [ANNOUNCE] WireGuard 1.0.0 for Linux 5.6 Released

Hi folks,

Earlier this evening, Linus re­leased [1] Linux 5.6, which con­tains our first re­lease of WireGuard. This is quite ex­cit­ing. It means that ker­nels from here on out will have WireGuard built-in by de­fault. And for those of you who were scared away prior by the dOnT uSe tHiS k0de!!1!” warn­ings every­where, you now have some­thing more sta­ble to work with.

The last sev­eral weeks of 5.6 de­vel­op­ment and sta­bi­liza­tion have been ex­cit­ing, with our code­base un­der­go­ing a quick se­cu­rity au­dit [3], and some real head­way in terms of get­ting into dis­tri­b­u­tions.

We’ll also con­tinue to main­tain our wire­guard-linux-com­pat [2] back­ports repo for older ker­nels. On the back­ports front, WireGuard was back­ported to Ubuntu 20.04 (via wire­guard-linux-com­pat) [4] and Debian Buster (via a real back­port to 5.5.y) [5]. I’m also main­tain­ing real back­ports, not via the com­pat layer, to 5.4.y [6] and 5.5.y [7], and we’ll see where those wind up; 5.4.y is an LTS re­lease.

Meanwhile, the usual up-to-date dis­tri­b­u­tions like Arch, Gentoo, and Fedora 32 will be get­ting WireGuard au­to­mat­i­cally by virtue of hav­ing 5.6, and I ex­pect these to in­crease in num­ber over time.

Enjoy! Jason

[1] wi9ZT7Stg-uS­pX0UWQza­m6OP9Jz­z6X­u1Ck­Yu1­ci­cpD5OA@mail.gmail.com/“>https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wi9ZT7Stg-uS­pX0UWQza­m6OP9Jz­z6X­u1Ck­Yu1­ci­cpD5OA@mail.gmail.com/ [2] https://​git.zx2c4.com/​wire­guard-linux-com­pat/ [3] https://​lore.ker­nel.org/​net­dev/​20200319003047.113501-1-Ja­son@zx2c4.com/ [4] https://​git.launch­pad.net/~​ubuntu-ker­nel/​ubuntu/+​source/​linux/+​git/​fo­cal/​tree/​de­bian/​dkms-ver­sions?h=mas­ter-next [5] https://​salsa.de­bian.org/​ker­nel-team/​linux/-/​tree/​mas­ter/​de­bian%2F­patches%2F­fea­tures%2Fall%2Fwire­guard [6] https://​git.zx2c4.com/​wire­guard-linux/​log/?​h=back­port-5.4.y [7] https://​git.zx2c4.com/​wire­guard-linux/​log/?​h=back­port-5.5.y

Previous mes­sage (by thread): wg sync­conf changes end­point to IPv4 and re­moves fw­mark

Next mes­sage (by thread): [ANNOUNCE] WireGuard 1.0.0 for Linux 5.6 Released

More in­for­ma­tion about the WireGuard

mail­ing list


Read the original on lists.zx2c4.com »

10 724 shares, 40 trendiness, 672 words and 7 minutes reading time

Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

In 2002, my hus­band and I be­came se­ri­ously ill af­ter a va­ca­tion to Martha’s Vineyard. It took ten doc­tors and a year to dis­cover the root cause: We’d been bit­ten by un­seen ticks har­bor­ing the par­a­sites that cause Lyme dis­ease and babesio­sis, a malaria-like dis­ease.

Our road to re­cov­ery was gru­el­ing, re­quir­ing five years of in­ter­mit­tent an­timi­cro­bial treat­ments. Later, I dis­cover that my sit­u­a­tion was­n’t all that un­com­mon. About one in five Lyme pa­tients con­tinue to suf­fer from on­go­ing symp­toms af­ter be­ing treated with the rec­om­mended course of an­tibi­otics. After that ex­pe­ri­ence, it was abun­dantly clear that we need bet­ter treat­ments.

That’s why I was ex­cited to hear about a study from Stanford Medicine re­searchers and their col­lab­o­ra­tors that pro­vides ev­i­dence that the drug azlocillin elim­i­nates the bac­te­ria that cause Lyme dis­ease at the on­set of in­fec­tion in lab mice and cul­tures.

Lyme dis­ease, the most com­mon vec­tor-borne dis­ease in the United States, af­fects more than 300,000 peo­ple a year. It is caused by the bac­terium Borrelia burgdor­feri, which is trans­mit­ted to hu­mans through the bite of in­fected black­legged ticks. If the dis­ease is­n’t treated promptly, it can lead to life-threat­en­ing heart is­sues and chronic neu­ro­log­i­cal prob­lems. Common per­sis­tent Lyme symp­toms in­clude fa­tigue, joint pain, mus­cle pain, numb­ness, tin­gling, burn­ing pains, and changes in mood, mem­ory or men­tal clar­ity.

Standard treat­ment of Lyme dis­ease is oral an­tibi­otics, typ­i­cally doxy­cy­cline, in the early stages of the dis­ease; but for rea­sons that are un­clear, the an­tibi­otics don’t work for up to 20% of peo­ple with the tick-borne ill­ness. One pos­si­bil­ity is that drug-tol­er­ant bac­te­ria cause the lin­ger­ing symp­toms.

This drug study, pub­lished on­line in Scientific Reports, was con­ducted by a team led by Jayakumar Rajadas, PhD, as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine and di­rec­tor of Stanford’s Biomaterials and Advanced Drug Delivery Laboratory, and re­search as­so­ci­ate Venkata Raveendra Pothineni, PhD.

The team ze­roed in on azlocillin as a promis­ing drug can­di­date through the use of high through­put drug screen­ing. This process en­tails ac­quir­ing libraries” of thou­sands of known chem­i­cal com­pounds and drugs, then mix­ing Lyme bac­te­ria with each in tiny wells to see which ones are best at killing the or­gan­isms. The best drug can­di­dates were retested in larger cul­ture dishes, then the safest of these were tested in vivo in seven mice.

Early re­sults of this team’s screen­ing process, first pub­lished in 2016, led to the dis­cov­ery of an­other promis­ing Lyme drug can­di­date, disul­fi­ram, which is ap­proved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treat­ment of al­co­hol abuse dis­or­der. This drug is cur­rently be­ing eval­u­ated in a clin­i­cal trial with pre­vi­ously-treated Lyme pa­tients. The trial co­or­di­na­tors are still look­ing for vol­un­teers.

According to the re­cent study, azlocillin shows promise be­cause it ap­pears to be able to kill the two mor­pho­log­i­cal forms of the Lyme bac­te­ria — the ac­tively repli­cat­ing spi­ral forms and the semi-dor­mant round-body forms.

Azlocillin also ap­pears to kill drug-tol­er­ant per­sis­ters very ef­fec­tively. These pro­tec­tive per­sis­ters form when the bac­te­ria are threat­ened with de­fen­sive im­mune sys­tem bio­chem­i­cals or an­tibi­otics. After the threat has passed, the bac­te­ria can reemerge to cause ac­tive dis­ease. Many re­searchers be­lieve that doxy­cy­line’s in­abil­ity to clear the per­sis­ters may ac­count for the on­go­ing symp­toms of some Lyme suf­fer­ers.

Although azlocillin is an FDA-approved drug, more re­search needs to be done be­fore it is used to treat Lyme pa­tients. Rajadas and Pothineni have patented the com­pound for the treat­ment of Lyme dis­ease and are work­ing with a com­pany to de­velop an oral form of the drug. Researchers plan to con­duct a clin­i­cal trial.

As Pothineni said in the Stanford Medicine news re­lease:

We have been screen­ing po­ten­tial drugs for six years … We’ve screened al­most 8,000 chem­i­cal com­pounds. We have tested 50 mol­e­cules in the dish. The most ef­fec­tive and safest mol­e­cules were tested in an­i­mal mod­els. Along the way, I’ve met many peo­ple suf­fer­ing with this hor­ri­ble, lin­ger­ing dis­ease. Our main goal is to find the best com­pound for treat­ing pa­tients and stop this dis­ease.”

A for­mer sci­ence writer with Stanford Medicine, Kris Newby is the au­thor of Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons. She is now work­ing on a doc­u­men­tary based on the book.

Photo by Image by Gabor Tinz/Shutterstock. Image cour­tesy of Michal Tal, PhD, in­struc­tor at Stanford’s Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine.


Read the original on scopeblog.stanford.edu »

To add this web app to your iOS home screen tap the share button and select "Add to the Home Screen".

10HN is also available as an iOS App

If you visit 10HN only rarely, check out the the best articles from the past week.

If you like 10HN please leave feedback and share

Visit pancik.com for more.