Sophos Security Chet Chat – Episode 140 – March 26, 2014
News, opinion, advice and research!
Here’s our latest security podcast, featuring Sophos experts and Naked Security writers Chester Wisniewski and Paul Ducklin.
(Audio player above not working for you? Download to listen offline, or listen on Soundcloud.)
Stories covered in Chet Chat Episode 140
- Microsoft issues alert for Word zero-day – booby-trapped RTF files already used in attacks
- Apple users: Try these five tips for better Mac security
- Google switches Gmail to HTTPS only
- Microsoft admits reading blogger’s Hotmail as part of leak investigation
- WhatsApp and privacy – will Facebook make things better, worse, or both?
8 comments on “SSCC 140 – Does Windows have more holes than OS X? Whither messaging privacy? [PODCAST]”
Would be nice to be able to view a transcript
A month or three ago, several people asked for transcripts, giving as a reason that they _would_ spend 5′ reading but would definitely not give us 15′ to listen, even on the bus or in the car.
We pointed out that we used to do transcripts, a year or two ago, but one week I forgot and no-one ever noticed, or said a thing, so we stopped, and no one ever said a thing. As editing the podcast is my day job, and I am not a stenographer, the transcripts meant a LOT of extra work in the evening, so I wasn’t sad to see them go.
Nevertheless, I decided, “OK, let’s try again,” on the grounds that 5′ reading is better than 0′ listening. So, in the last few weeks I have painstakingly transcribed two episodes as an experiment. (Well, I and Apple Dictate did the work, though Apple Dictate’s understanding of English is a little perilous at times).
No-one noticed, or said a thing. Not a peep from the people who’d asked so keenly. Traffic to the transcripts was vanishingly small.
My own opinion is that podcasts are made to be listened to, not read. Spoken English is pretty much a different language to written English, and transcripts don’t read well, just like scripted podcasts sound bogus…and the traffic seemed to confirm this. So I am sorry to say that I just gave up doing the transcripts again. And until your comment right now, no-one noticed, or said a thing 🙂
Anyway…convince me they’re a good thing, and I’ll give it one last try. How about that?
A ‘middle path’ alternative: Transcribe just enough to give a sense of what’s really in the podcast.
Then if the reader is hooked and knows she wants more, provide links showing how she can obtain resources to do the rest of the transcribing herself.
And if that’s too much, now that she knows some more of what’s really in the podcast, she can choose to click and just listen.
It’s an irony, but people often resist clicking to listen when they don’t know enough of what’s inside — even if they will click to view a page, or start a video.
Even though I usually skip articles that have audio and no text, I agree that transcription is optional. Listening allows you do other things, and while that is not usually my cup of tea, it’s just the nature of the medium!
All I can say is that I have just listened to your latest and I enjoyed it, and yes, I was doing other things, so for me it is better than a transcript.
Keep up the good work.
Hi Paul – My 2 cents.
If an audio article does not have a transcript, most of the time I will just skip over it. Playing it may bother others, or I may be listening to music. That’s just a problem with audio podcasts; videos are worse.
Sometimes I do stream a podcast, when I am working on the house or something. It’s an alternative to turning on the radio.
Every once in awhile I will download a podcast, usually to play in the car on a long trip, but not often.
The thing is, although I enjoy your articles, there are a lot of articles out there. If I skip your podcast because it doesn’t have a transcript, it is not such a loss to me that I need to make a comment. And if I don’t have time to listen to a podcast, I probably don’t have time to make a comment.
As for commenting when you DO have a transcript, well, I apologize for not doing so. I did think that was your format, and not something to especially thank you for, any more than I usually thank a writer for putting in a graph or a magazine editor for having a magazine cover.
To notice when you are adding a transcript and when you are not requires that I “follow” your blog more avidly than I do. I enjoy your articles; I subscribe to the Sophos newsletter and your name is familiar (and trusted), but I do not follow you like a fan.
So what am I saying? Yes, I would like a transcript. A transcript would increase the number of times I consume (?) your podcast. But it’s not that big a deal, and if you find making a transcript to be a burden, then so be it. I won’t be upset.
By the way, from the length of my response, you can tell I have time right now, and I will listen to the podcast. But you can probably tell that I am more print-oriented by the fact that I read the comments first.
I listen to all your podcasts they are very informative. Keep up the good work
Re: the Word 0-day:
Instead of saving an rtf file to disk and then loading it into WordPad, why not just associate the rtf file extension with WordPad? Combined with Microsoft’s registry hack to disassociate the rtf file extension from Word, wouldn’t one be redundantly safe from malicious rtf files?