Information

1. Kernel version, CPU and memory spec, boot/sleep/wakeup time
   
2. Mounted filesystems
   
3. Process listing and dump address space
   
4. KEXT(Kernel Extensions) listing
   
5. System Call / Mach Trap Table (Hooking Detection)
   
6. Network socket listing
7. Open files listing by process
8. PE State information ( Device Tree, Video Memory Area)
9. EFI information ( EFI System Table, EFI Configuration Table, EFI Runtime Services)
10. extract keychain master key candidates
11. TrustedBSD analysis
12. other command : uname, dmesg ... etc  

OS	Version	Unlock lock screen	Escalate privileges	Dump memory < 4 GiB
Windows 8	8.1	Yes	Yes	Yes
Windows 8	8.0	Yes	Yes	Yes
Windows 7	SP1	Yes	Yes	Yes
Windows 7	SP0	Yes	Yes	Yes
Windows Vista	SP2	Yes	Yes	Yes
Windows Vista	SP1	Yes	Yes	Yes
Windows Vista	SP0	Yes	Yes	Yes
Windows XP	SP3	Yes	Yes	Yes
Windows XP	SP2	Yes	Yes	Yes
Windows XP	SP1			Yes
Windows XP	SP0			Yes
Mac OS X	Mavericks	Yes (1)	Yes (1)	Yes (1)
Mac OS X	Mountain Lion	Yes (1)	Yes (1)	Yes (1)
Mac OS X	Lion	Yes (1)	Yes (1)	Yes (1)
Mac OS X	Snow Leopard	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mac OS X	Leopard			Yes
Ubuntu (2)	Saucy	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ubuntu	Raring	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ubuntu	Quantal	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ubuntu	Precise	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ubuntu	Oneiric	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ubuntu	Natty	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ubuntu	Maverick	Yes (3)	Yes (3)	Yes
Ubuntu	Lucid	Yes (3)	Yes (3)	Yes
Linux Mint	13	Yes	Yes	Yes
Linux Mint	12	Yes	Yes	Yes
Linux Mint	12	Yes	Yes	Yes

•  I've always enjoyed Armond White's totally insane film criticism, and now that he's at National Review he's gotten even better, leaning more heavily on his culture-warrior malarkey. Since his targets are mostly crap like Maleficent ("All that’s certain is Jolie and Disney’s intention to overturn fundamental moral precepts"), who gives a shit? It's even funnier when White celebrates the "affectionate, often ribald humanity" of... Adam Sandler (who is also the target of the "Lamestream" and its "barely veiled political invective" -- why, do you know, they even call him "tasteless or corny"! Yeah, Adam Sandler!). But in one way it's sad: Once upon a time National Review hired critics like John Simon. Simon was temperamentally conservative (that is, an asshole) and at least as funny in his disapproval as White, but  also interesting when he liked something -- because, for one thing, that happened so rarely, and, for another, he was an astute observer whose tastes were as broad as his standards were high. He could identify and explain the true art in films that wouldn't seem to his tastes -- not only Bergman and Wertmuller, but also, for example, John Avildsen's Joe. Sociopolitical analysis didn't play a big role in his criticism because he focused on the art. It's a shame that no one could expect such a thing of National Review nowadays.

•  Ramesh Ponnuru on Hillary Clinton's age: "Age was a legitimate issue to consider when McCain ran for president. (I wrote an article urging him to allay concerns about his age by pledging to serve one term and picking a reassuring running mate. His campaign let me know my advice was considered, but he went a different way.)" As I am a Christian I want to believe "let me know my advice was considered" is a joke on Ponnuru's part. If so, nice one! There, that's my bipartisanship quota for the month. (Ponnuru's plan for McCain 2008 was sweet reason itself compared to Noah Millman's Palin-resigns-upon-McCain's-death idea. I wonder if the McCain campaign called him back.)

UPDATES.

•  No week is complete without a Jonah Goldberg mouthfart. This one's on the UCSB killings:

And, yes, guns need to be part of that equation. But blanket efforts to ban guns seem like an analogous effort to ban dangerous speech or art.

"Seem like an analogous effort" is the mush-mouth tipoff that Goldberg is lost in the clouds (actually, "blanket efforts to ban guns" is similarly meaningless), but what makes it even dumber is that for years Goldberg's been telling readers that he's in favor of censorship. I guess defending guns after a massacre is such a key part of the National Review mission that he doesn't mind breaking character for it.

•  Oh Christ, Patheos' "Postmodern Conservative" things has been transferred to National Review, and its greatest horror so far is a 2,000-word essay by Carl Eric Scott ("I’m a Gen-X academic arguably too interested in rock") called, I swear to God, "Carl’s Rock Songbook No. 95, Woods, 'Moving to the Left.'" Get a load:

[On some stupid Millenials survey] You don’t need a weathervane to know that those sociological findings predict a leftist direction for politics. 

Conservative columnists Jonah Goldberg and Ross Douthat noted that the report’s results were not exactly comforting to progressives either, as they showed that the habits of trust and involvement vital to any genuinely democratic movement are also in marked decline. When you listen to contemporary rock music, you hear frustrated recognition of this by the millennials themselves. For example, while Mikal Cronin’s “Apathy” provides poetic affirmation of the report’s finding about declining religious identification – old men, sing the song about Jesus, it deadpans at one point – its main message is the repeated refrain I don’t want apathy. Perceptive Millennials fear that many of their peers have fallen into a politically apathetic pattern, and that they could be drawn into the same.

Look what's happening out in the street/ Got to revolution, got to revolution!

...Woods has not been a noticeably political band, but as they’ve always cultivated a hippie-esque sound and image, and as they prominently display a peace symbol on their new album, we can assume their political sympathies are at least somewhat leftist... 

The other possibility is that Earl himself isn’t a good leftist at heart but, as the leader of an artsy Brooklyn rock band, finds the typical bohemian expectation of and faith in leftist social change wearisome.

Another possibility is fuck you.

Good article with a downloadable Excel file that has the Crosswalk -

http://www.secuilibrium.com/1/post/2014/02/comparing-isoiec-27001-with-nists-cybersecurity-framework.html

After a post-INTA, do-it-ourselves visit to China with Mrs Kat, this Kat is pleased to be back on domestic terra firma. Oddly, perhaps, this Kat’s most lasting trade mark memory of the INTA meeting in Hong Kong was not directly connected to the meeting itself, but rather to a recurring image of three coffee shops, one more or less next to the other, located on a main road in the Wan Chai neighbourhood, here, not too far from the Convention Center. One was a Starbucks outlet, the second was a Pacific Coffee outlet, while the identity of the third shop has since escaped my feline memory. Walking along the road and observing the three coffee shops, this Kat got to wondering—why would three branded companies, each seeking custom from pass-by coffee drinkers, all invest in a shop location within the immediate shadow of not just one, but two competitors? Wasn’t one of the reasons that Starbucks itself brought back its visionary leader, Howard Schultz, here, to once again run the operation was the over-presence of Starbucks outlets on seemingly every corner in various downtowns? It led this Kat to think more about the nature of retail clustering and branding.

There is of course nothing wrong with the fact that certain industries tend to cluster in a given area. From the medieval guilds to the eye-wear manufactures in Northern Italy to the hi-tech component manufacturers in Taiwan to the hi-tech sprawl of Silicon Valley, industry after industry has enjoyed the advantages —manpower, know-how and support services — of clustering. But this tendency to form industrial clusters does not have any direct connection with the brands that may ultimately be associated with the products that are made by the various entities within the cluster. Such clusters are several distribution levels removed from the end customer who ultimately decides to purchase the product based on its brand and trade mark.

For instance, it is this Kat’s understanding that various designer labels for eyewear originate from the same manufacturing location (or a small number) in northern Italy. The overall quality of the eyewear products in the aggregate may well benefit from the manufacturing advantages that are offered by the clustering of manufacture in Italy (though Chinese competition is eroding this state of affairs). But the purchaser ultimately makes his purchase based on the interaction between price and the cachet of the designer label. From this vantage, such clustering actually may have the effect of smoothing out differences between the products, elevating even more in importance the strength of the brands competing for the consumer’s attention.

But the role of brands in an eyeglass store seems quite different from that of coffee shop outlets. There is a clear benefit to the consumer to have a choice of eye-wear brands under a single roof. Moreover, given the fact of inevitable competition, the proprietor of the eyeglass store will likely be interested in promoting its own service mark brand as the place to go when purchasing designer eye-wear (in the pre-brand ages of past, there was a view under Jewish law that the presence of a second competitor in proximity to the first entity might actually constitute a form of trespass on the livelihood of the first entity. The rise of the consumer and the centrality of brands have made that approach inapplicable to some extent. But it can be said that it still survives in concept in the form of the right to exclusive distribution for a defined territory at the level of intra-brand competition, i.e., where only a single brand is at issue.)

That may be well and good for designer eye-wear. But what about branded coffee shops? After all, the clustering is taking place at the consumer level.  At first glance, this retail outlet clustering seems an advantage to the consumer since there is greater choice from his end (sort of like the food court at a shopping mall). The position of the coffee shop purveyors is less clear. Presumably, the brand owners must believe that there is a benefit to the location, even at the risk that you are sharing the location with your branded competitors. Moreover, the brand owners must be convinced that the presence of the three competitors, each being proximate to the other, increases the potential size of the overall pass-by, coffee-drinking market. This is especially so if each of the competitors attracts a somewhat different type of customer, with the result that the presence of the three coffee shops actually provides greater consumer choice in the aggregate.

Still, there seems to be another risk for the coffee shop brands. If your coffee shop is attracting less custom that one or both of its competitors on the Wan Chai road, this will be in clear view of all. To the extent that one places a value on the social dimension of the coffee-drinking experience, then the sight of a (relatively) empty coffee shop cannot be very helpful to your brand image. Unless, perhaps, as suggested above, each of the three coffee shops attracts a somewhat different clientele, such that they are not necessarily viewed as mere substitutes for each other.

In the end, this Kat passed by all three coffee shops and simply continued on for a hundred meters or so to enter the nearest subway station. Presumably, however, a critical mass of passers-by on the road acted otherwise, choosing to enter one of the three proximate shops for a preferred coffee-drinking experience. Still, that Kat wonders—does inter-brand competition of this kind in the coffee shop world make commercial sense?

More on Pacific Coffee, here.

More on Suzy Wong and the Wan Chai neighborhood, here.

More on "three coins in the fountain", here.

KaliLinuxEncryptedUSBPersistence

ToolDevelopersAhoy!

KaliLinux:GreaterThantheSumofitsParts

Torrents,VirtualMachine&ARMimages