Video: (Tutorial) Flash Symbian Belle on your Nokia N8 (follow at own risk!)

 

 OK read title: Put Belle on your N8 at your own risk.
Last week was pretty exciting in tech (MotoGoog, HP kills webOS and exits PC business, and the reveal of, sadly, TabCo). The Nokia scene was busy too, with Belle leaked and Anna update finally released (wow).
We’ve seen plenty of Belle screenshots now, videos too, and most recently Camb078′s selection.
That may have tempted some of you into flashing Belle to your N8. Some bricked their N8 as the first release was corrupted, but more users are expressing positive reactions to Belle. There have been some bugs, noted by Danny himself (the guy who leaked Belle) as well as the other users moving up to Belle. If you have looked around to what these are and are aware of the risks of bricking your phone but not really sure how to get Belle on your N8, you might find a tutorial helpful. A reader, Hawke commented on his tutorial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcB_J2sy3Fc

Video by hazelnuts23
There’s one comment there saying they’ve had success with this (and it’s not some new recent account).

Belle Menu on Nokia N8/E7

Has Nokia's 'Belle' come just in time?

As Nokia unveils its latest Symbian update, 'Belle', we look at the good, the bad and the positively similar in a bid to see what the future holds for the company

The curtain has finally been raised on Nokia's Symbian 'Belle' update and first impressions have been resoundingly positive from the smartphone community.
It's a big update, bringing with it a lot of functionality, such as NFC, which is bizarre because Symbian Anna was only released three months ago.
While 'Belle' brings Nokia smartphone users into the 21st century it does so with a little help from a certain little green robot. Sure we're happy to finally see Nokia 'getting with the program', but we're unsure whether the world needs an Android 1.6-esque Nokia platform, when it already has Android 2.3 devices aplenty?
Straight off the bat our answer would be 'Yes'. For the simple reason that a lot of people have invested in Nokia's hardware, only to have ailing software let down what are, generally speaking, well built, quality devices.
While 'Belle' does look to be heavily inspired by Android with its drag-down blind, organisable and resizable widgets and similar visual style, it's easy to see that some solid hard work has gone into bringing the ailing platform up to muster.
Inclusion of NFC support will prove to be a great hit, not only with consumers but with traders too. A name like Nokia offering reasonably spec'd, NFC-ready devices can only do wonders for the roll-out of NFC payments and services. But we don't think that alone is reason enough to choose a Nokia device over one of its competitors.
Plus points aside, the main issue is that the aforementioned hard work should have been done three, even four years ago. Sure, it's nice to know that Nokia customers haven't been forgotten and that they'll finally be getting the device that they paid for – but should we forget the stubbornness and oversight that afflicted its devices in the first place?
The new smartphones (Nokia 710, 700, 600) being launched with 'Belle' look to be sound entries into a competitive market and with their reported price points they will definitely compete. But has the ship of loyalty finally sailed from Espoo's harbour, with a course plotted to calmer waters?
A good number of the usually stalwart Nokia fan-base have voted with their feet in recent months, making their way over to Android, iOS and even Windows Phone 7 platforms, which is emphasised by Nokia's rapidly diminishing market share.
Nokia's executives have spoken at length about their decision to overlook Android in favour of Windows Phone 7 and the release of 'Belle' shows users why that choice was made.
Belle is Nokia's ace-in-the-hole. It's like Android, but Symbian – and it has NFC. And this would be great if it were true. Unfortunately it isn't. It's still Symbian. It'll still have all those Symbian-related issues and no amount of NFC-fluff or Android-like drop-down menus can change that.
Nokia also had a massive head-start on the competition as well. A lead it failed to act on time and time again, which is why we're struggling to believe that the company has what it takes to start stealing clientelle back from Google and Apple.
We do like the look of Belle. It's perfectly adequate. But in a world where Windows Phone 7 Mango will soon rule the roost, it's difficult to see how Symbian will survive until 2016 in smartphones.
Our 2p? Symbian will power the low-end of the spectrum, Windows Phone Mango the rest.
Sorry, Symbian, but you've taken too long and implemented very little to actually get excited about in the grand scheme of things.

Google One of Many Victims in SSL Certificate Hack

A Dutch company that issues digital certificates used to authenticate websites said late Tuesday that several dozen other websites in addition to Google have been affected by a security breach.


The company, DigiNotar, issues SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) and EVSSL (Extended Validation) certificates, which are validated by Web browsers to ensure people are not visiting a fake website that is trying to appear legitimate.
DigiNotar is what's called a Certificate Authority (CA), an entity that sells digital certificates to legitimate website owners. But DigiNotar issued a digital certificate for the google.com domain, a mistake that could allow a skilled attacker to intercept someone's e-mail.
Google said Monday the fraudulent certificate was used and targeted users in Iran, although a security feature in its Chrome browser detected the certificate, tipping off users with a warning.
DigiNotar, a subsidiary of a security company called Vasco Data Security International, issued a statement on Monday saying it discovered on July 19 during an audit that its infrastructure used to issue the certificates had been breached.
In an interview late Tuesday afternoon, Jochem Binst, corporate communications director for Vasco, said that the attackers created fraudulent certificates for "several dozen" websites. Most were revoked after their discovery, he said.
But the digital certificate for google.com -- which was issued July 10 -- only went live on Sunday, Binst said. In its statement, Vasco said that it was notified by the Dutch Computer Emergency Response Team that it had not been revoked yet. It was finally revoked on Monday, Binst said.
It's not known how attackers breached DigiNotar's certificate-issuing infrastructure or how long they had access, but an audit is under way. "We are in the course of doing an extra audit and those findings will probably be known by the end of the week," Binst said.

DigiNotar is halting sales of digital certificates as it investigates, Binst said. DigiNotar primarily sells its digital certificates to businesses in the Netherlands.
Those businesses will have a hard time over the next few days. Google, Mozilla and Microsoft have revoked or are in the process of revoking DigiNotar's authority to vouch for its certificates. That means that people who go to websites using those certificates will likely see a warning saying the website is untrusted and should not be accessed.
Binst said DigiNotar is contacting its customers. One option to fix the problem is to have those websites switch over certificates issued by the Dutch government, although he could not say which agency would issue those replacement certificates. Another option, Binst said, is to approach the browser makers to make technical changes to honor its certificates.
Binst could not say how many customers DigiNotar has for its digital certificates, but Vasco said in its statement that the subsidiary's revenue from issuing digital certificates was less than €100,000 (US$144,000) for the first six months of this year.

Send news tips and comments to josejohn47@gmail.com

Hack or No Hack, the Linux Kernel Is Well-Protected

It was shocking to learn yesterday that Kernel.org was hacked last month. News like that is routine in the world at large, but not in the home of the all-important heart of Linux.
Investigations are no doubt continuing on numerous fronts, and Kernel.org is working to make sure that each of its 448 users change their passwords and SSH keys. In the meantime, however, the good news is that there appears to be no need to worry about the Linux code we all know and love.
Three separate explanations of why that's the case have appeared since the hack was first discovered. In essence, they boil down to the fact that kernel development is done using Linux creator Linus Torvalds' own Git distributed revision control system. Here's why that makes such a big difference.
'A Cryptographically Secure Hash'
“The potential damage of cracking kernel.org is far less than typical software repositories,” reads the note on the Kernel.org website.
“For each of the nearly 40,000 files in the Linux kernel, a cryptographically secure SHA-1 hash is calculated to uniquely define the exact contents of that file,” the note explains. “Git is designed so that the name of each version of the kernel depends upon the complete development history leading up to that version. Once it is published, it is not possible to change the old versions without it being noticed.”
Furthermore, those files and their associated hashes exist in numerous places: on the kernel.org machine and its mirrors as well as on the hard drives of many thousand kernel developers, distribution maintainers and others involved with kernel.org, the site adds.
“Any tampering with any file in the kernel.org repository would immediately be noticed by each developer as they updated their personal repository, which most do daily.”
'No Need to Worry'
Jonathan Corbet, executive editor at LWN.net and a Linux kernel contributor, had similarly reassuring words.
While admitting that the breach was “disturbing and embarrassing,” Corbet wrote that “there is no need to worry about the integrity of the kernel source or of any other software hosted on the kernel.org systems.
“If kernel developers worked by shipping simple files of source code around, they might well be vulnerable to malware added by an intruder,” Corbet explained. “But that is not how kernel development is done.”
Git's hash function produces 160-bit numbers, Corbet noted, and any time the contents of a file change, the hash does too. “An attacker would be unable to change a file without changing its hash as well. Git checks hashes regularly, so a simplistic attempt to corrupt a file would be flagged almost immediately,” he pointed out.
'It Would Be Immediately Apparent'
Then, too, there's the fact that “for any given state of the kernel source tree, git calculates a hash based on (1) the hashes of all the files contained within that tree, and (2) the hashes of all of the previous states of the tree,” Corbet added. “So, for example, the hash for the kernel at the 3.0 release is 02f8c6aee8df3cdc935e9bdd4f2d020306035dbe. There is no way to change any of the files within that release - or within any previous release - without changing that hash. If anybody (even the kernel.org repository) were to present a 3.0 kernel with a different hash, it would be immediately apparent that something was not right.”
Further explanation can be found in a blog post from Git developer Junio C. Hamano, as noted on The H, providing even more technical detail.
Bottom line? If the words of these experts are anything to go by--and I'm pretty sure they are--the Linux kernel is safe and sound.

Newest Crazy, Funny, Insane Videos ..

check this out guys...really really FUnnY......

The Hell TV  !!