Welcome

Welcome to my digital home! There are lots of articles you might find helpful buried in this site on topics such as modifying an Alfa Romeo 159, rebuilding a Lotus 7 (Robin Hood 2B), not to mention a ton of stuff on technology in general. It’s all here somewhere, so use the search function or navigate using the menu structure. if you want to talk, reach out via the contact function, I usually do answer!

Random Post Selection
GeneralI can’t give these little devices enough praise! They are so easy to use and bring a new dimension to your sound. Ok, so most modern mixes have cuts and kills by default, but they are not a patch on one of these, not even on a Pioneer DJM600! These little gems use near analogue circuitry to give you a warm rich softer sound, rather than the cheaper mixer embedded kills you find these days. If you can find some of these, buy them,  they really are worth it. I had to get mine off ebay in the US, but despite coming with 110v power supplies and the hastle it took to find a suitable UK one to replace them, it was worth every penny. This is what you get for your money: “The Electrix EQ Killer ($299) is a Kill Box that lets DJs and producers EQ an element without investing in expensive equipment. Built like a tank, the unit comes encased in a rugged aluminium housing that will absorb a lot of abuse. With the included joiner plate, you can connect two Electrix Mods devices in a 19-inch rack. The EQ Killer can also rest on a flat surface. The front panel is tilted upward, making the controls easier to read. Kill the Band The front panel is divided into three sections: Low, Mid, and High. Each section has a Momentary switch, a Band Kill switch, and level control knobs. The level knobs dial up the amount of gain or attenuation for their respective frequency bands, offering up to 6 dB of gain per band. Unity gain is achieved when the level knob is set at 12 o’clock. Between the Low, Mid, and High level knobs are the Low X-Over and High X-Over sweep controls. The Low X-Over sets the point where the Low band ends and the Mid band starts. The High X-Over adjusts where the Mid band ends and the High band starts. The back panel has three input/output sections. Inputs 1 and 2 have standard RCA stereo connectors. There’s also a switch to select between line level and turntable input levels, and grounding posts for turntables. The third section’s Send/Return loop lets you apply external effects to the killed band. At the front of the unit’s bottom right-hand corner is an input selection switch for toggling between turntables or line-level devices. The button will act as a bypass switch if there’s only one device connected to EQ Killer”.Related Images: [...]
RH2B Build DiaryIn the dash of the hoody was a previously installed large cubby holder. This had been damaged at some point and one of the previous owners had used a stick on faux leather pocket to hide the damage. As you can guess, this was not going to do for me and I thought I would put my 3d printer to good use and make something a little more useful! Aside from the damaged cubby, I had a few cables dangling in the passenger foot well that I needed to do something with. Firstly I had the CTEK charge cable that I added for ease of keeping the battery tip top, then I had the ECU programming cable that I also needed to be able to easily access. Both of these needed a new home and they needed to be out of the way of a passengers feet! CTEK Charge Point The combination of broken plastic part + need to tidy cables & access to a 3D printer led me straight to Fusion 360 where I set about designing a new solution. The first design was an “all in one” unit that had to be printed with lots of supports and with the rear face on the bed. This left a less than desirable finish and was simply not going to do. This led me to my first “multi-part” design and print. Utilizing Fusions component feature I was able to design the face and all parts that connect to it as separate objects that could then be printed individually. In total the final design had 4 parts. A face, a cubby, a light box and a lens. Yes, that’s right, I added LED’s 🙂 The idea was to have the Lotus Super 7 logo as well as the letters GBS (Great British Sportscars) cut through the face and an LED behind them so that it illuminated when the ignition was on. Printed Parts for the final cubby The face I decided to paint, which is a first for me, but I thought given it was on display and a large flat area, it could benefit from some paint. I used Plasti-Kote primer and black satin paint after some light sanding and the finish was truly impressive. Once all the components were ready for assembly, I installed a small strip of 12v LED’s into the light box and painted the clear PLA diffuser lens in the same body paint that the car is painted in. This actually turned out better than I hoped for and was a very easy thing to do. Light box and LEDs The final product looks pretty cool and holds the parts I needed it to perfectly. Everything is neat and there is a more functional, better looking solution to a problem that was part my own doing and part legacy 🙂 Final Part Assembled Related Images: [...]
InfoSecOpen post to see coverage: Accountancy Age – August 2009 – Dark Pools of Talent Related Images: [...]
LiveMixesAnoter day another mix…… back in the style of electro madness! David Guetta feat. Kelly Rowland – When Love Takes Over (Electro Extended Mix) Melleefresh, Deadmau5 – Sex Slave (Original Mix) Costello – Girls Speak Louder (Donique Mix) Alexis, Darmon, Eran Hersh, George F – Girls Who Like Girls (Original Living Room Club Mix) Larry Tee Feat. Roxy Cottontail – Lets Make Nasty (Afrojack Remix) Jewlez – Get Down (Original Mix) Pain, Gubellini – Shake It Up feat. Darook Mc (Maurizio Gubellini & Stefano Pain Main Mix) Martin Solveig – Poptimistic (Bingo PLayers Vox) Mowgli – London To Paris (Original Mix) Laidback Luke, Lee Mortimer – Blau! (Original Mix) Funkagenda – H3lix (Original Club Mix) Wolfgang Gartner – Latin Fever (Original Mix) Starkillers – Bitch Ass Trick (Original Version) Incidentally, this is my first recorded mix on the APC40 with Ableton 🙂 https://jabawoki.com/wp-content/mp3/Jabawoki_DirtyFriday_05032010.mp3 Podcast: Play in new window | Download Related Images: [...]
InfoSecThere is often a lot of talk about this concept, specifically in the white hat vs black hat debate that has gone on for what seems like forever now. I have, as you would expect, my own take on this. Lets start with a history lesson and the basics. White Hats are the “good guys” and Black Hats are the “bad guys”, why? because back in the good old days of spaghetti westerns, good guys always wore White Hats and the bad guys wore Black Hats, it’s that simple! Of course, in the scripted world of the western, it was that simple, the bad guy was that easy to spot and the good guys rode off into the sunset, but back in the real world it’s a little more difficult to identify. The line between Black and White is often understood to be the law itself, i.e. if you’re a hacker, cracker or even a “skidie”, your hat changes colour the minute you go from having permission to do something to not having permission.  I however wager that if we were to exact that understanding on every security expert in this field of expertise, today, it would be a near 100% perfect sea of Black Hats. So the question becomes, if that’s the case, are we all really the “bad guys”? I put to you a different concept, I different way of thinking about this that, personally, I think fits much better. First of all let’s forget about hats and the law and look at a couple of basic concepts. Motivation is the activation or energization of goal-oriented behaviour and  is defined as intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation comes from rewards inherent to a task or activity itself – the enjoyment of a puzzle or the love of playing whereas Extrinsic motivation comes from outside of the performer. Money is the most obvious example, but coercion and threat of punishment are also common extrinsic motivations. Another point of consideration is Goal orientation, often seen as an aspect of an individual’s motivation. An individual’s goal orientation describes the goals that they choose and the methods used to pursue those goals. One of the most common conceptualizations of goal orientation is the three factor model, that is, individuals can be described in terms of goal orientation based on three factors: mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoid. Individuals with a mastery goal orientation seek challenging tasks and value learning. Highly performance-approach oriented individuals seek tasks that allow them to demonstrate the skills they already possess, and highly performance-avoidant tend to avoid tasks where they may fail and thus appear incompetent. The final aspect to consider in this equation is an agent’s intention in performing an action. In so much as his or her specific purpose in doing so, the end or goal that is aimed at, or intended to accomplish. In recent years, there has been a large amount of work done on the concept of intentional action in experimental philosophy. This work has aimed at illuminating and understanding the factors which influence people’s judgments of whether an action was done intentionally. For instance, research has shown that unintended side-effects are often considered to be done intentionally if the side-effect is considered bad and the person acting knew the side-effect would occur before acting. Yet when the side-effect is considered good, people generally don’t think it was done intentionally, even if the person knew it would occur before acting. The most well-known example involves a chairman who implements a new business program for the sole purpose to make money but ends up affecting the environment in the process. If he implements his business plan and in the process he ends up helping the environment, then people generally say he unintentionally helped the environment; if he implements his business plan and in the process he ends up harming the environment, then people generally say he intentionally harmed the environment. The important point is that in both cases his only goal was to make money. While there have been many explanations proposed for why the “side-effect effect” occurs, researchers on this topic have not yet reached a consensus. So now we understand a little about motivation, goals & Intentions, what really makes the “bad guy” bad? Well its worth adding into themix that the “good guys” and “bad guys” all have the same level of skill, they all learned it the same way and they all have the same aptitude (loosely speaking of course). In fact during the learning process its probably fair to wager that on occasion everyone ended up, purely through exploration, somewhere they shouldn’t have been.  Does this make us all “bag guys”? I certainly do not think so. In my opinion, motivation, goals & intent are what separate the good from the bad, and in this context the “White Hats” from the “Black Hats”. Let’s look at an example. the CERT Coordination Centre came up with an interesting classification matrix, which I have provided below as a diagram: In the above diagram, we see six types of attacker (as well as a virtual 7th type that could be all 6 in a different context), six types of motivation and four goals.  It is assumed in  this classification, as insinuated by the word “Attacker”, that we are dealing with the “bag guys” or Black Hats here, however, I would argue that the first type, “Hacker” has a motivation and goal that is not negative or in fact malicious in any way, so should they also be considered a “bad guy”?  Its fair to say, someone hell bent on the quest for knowledge in that particular classification may take a devil may care approach that could have a negative impact on the systems they are exploring, but again, is this malicious intent, or just carelessness? In summary I put it to you that there are no White Hats, or Black hats in the world today, just Shades of Grey, and that only motivation, goals and intent separate those of us trying to help from those who have a more nefarious purpose. Related Images: [...]
InfoSecThis is a short video explanation of how the UK Cyber Security Challenge’s launch cipher was put together, and subsequently how to break it! C4Odla8I0Hs Related Images: [...]
LiveMixesOldschool Hard House from the archives   https://jabawoki.com/wp-content/mp3/Jabawok_17122000_Stompin_Pumpin_Hard_House.mp3 Podcast: Play in new window | Download Related Images: [...]
LiveMixeshttps://dev.jabawoki.com/mp3/Jabawok_Tranceitions.mp3 Podcast: Play in new window | Download Related Images: [...]
InfoSecPersonally, I think this is one of the most important concepts of today. Its simple enough to grasp and illustrates the point very well. Consider these examples: From an effort perspective, the effort required to secure a system is significantly less than that required to exploit it. From a cost perspective, it is less expensive to prevent a serious data breach than it is to clean up and recover from one. Point 1 above was illustrated very clearly to me on the IISP’s TopGun event I attended recently, and is a scenario that you have to step back from to fully appreciate. Eg. If you have a smallish network, with most modern services such as web, email, mobile, databases, websites etc, then the effort to secure that is quite mammoth. You have to consider the perimeter, the information, how its stored and used, what services are on offer and the impacts etc. Then you have to consider every conceivable vulnerability, patching strategies and stay on top and at least up to speed with the curve of change. All of these efforts equate to a team of people, but all it takes to break in, is 1 person with a brain, motive, and a few freely available tools. Point 2 of course, was illustrated very well by a study by the Pnemon Instutue LLC in conjunction with PGP and Vontu (Symantec), this study evaluated the true cost of a breach of data security and considered factors such as direct and indirect costs, and has trended the data over the last few years with enlightening results. Despite both of these points clearly illustrating that the best way to tackle the security conundrum is head on and proactively, those of us in the industry will all surely testify that getting the right backing, funding, and often, even the right audience with the business, is still a hard task. From my perspective, I will keep on trying, and keep on flying the flag in the hope that one day reality sets in and my job / life gets easier! Related Images: [...]
InfoSecI am getting a little annoyed with hearing people wax lyrical about “the cloud” and how its going to revolutionise the world. I have a news flash for you all, its not new and its not revolutionary! First of all, lets define what we are talking about. There is a simple definition for Cloud Computing, and three models of operation as held by NIST, these are: Definition: Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models. Models of Operation: Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to use the provider’s applications running on a cloud infrastructure. The applications are accessible from various client devices through a thin client interface such as a web browser (e.g., web-based email). The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, storage, or even individual application capabilities, with the possible exception of limited user-specific application configuration settings. Cloud Platform as a Service (PaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to deploy onto the cloud infrastructure consumer-created or acquired applications created using programming languages and tools supported by the provider. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, or storage, but has control over the deployed applications and possibly application hosting environment configurations. Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to provision processing, storage, networks, and other fundamental computing resources where the consumer is able to deploy and run arbitrary software, which can include operating systems and applications. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure but has control over operating systems, storage, deployed applications, and possibly limited control of select networking components (e.g., host firewalls). Now, I am pretty sure that during my long career, I have seen a lot of companies doing IaaS and PaaS as a “Business as Usual” activity, haven’t you? In my experience, IaaS is nothing more than a traditional infrastructure outsourcing arrangement, as undertaken with IBM, HP/EDS or BT, while PaaS is just a simple hosting service offered by most ISP’s (I accept I am simplifying here). So what are we really talking about when the press pickup and pedal the term “cloud computing”. Looks to me like they are talking about SaaS, which again, has been around for a while, Hotmail anyone?, but not really taken off in the enterprise until it became “cloud computing”. So is this just a media spin to pedal Hotmail to the enterprise or just a natural progression from outsourcing boxes to apps? What is revolutionary here, I am yet to see. Related Images: [...]

Related Images:

Related Images: