Re: [Fed-Talk] I did not know: vmware fusion supports OS/X Leopard Server & Snow Leopard as Guests
Re: [Fed-Talk] I did not know: vmware fusion supports OS/X Leopard Server & Snow Leopard as Guests
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] I did not know: vmware fusion supports OS/X Leopard Server & Snow Leopard as Guests
- From: "Nichols, Jared - 1160 - MITLL" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:42:07 -0500
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] I did not know: vmware fusion supports OS/X Leopard Server & Snow Leopard as Guests
Title: Re: [Fed-Talk] I did not know: vmware fusion supports OS/X Leopard Server & Snow Leopard as Guests
I’ve taken every opportunity to mention to our Federal account reps that having the ability to virtualize the client would be awesome.
They agree.
Nothing’s changed and I don’t think it will. Apple’s not interested in Enterprise.
On 2/19/10 1:23 PM, "Taylor Armstrong" <email@hidden> wrote:
Just my 1/50th of $1 - I agree completely with both of you.
I think this list is entirely the wrong place to discuss the "how" of hacking the OS to allow the Mac OS X client to be virtualized, but applying pressure to Apple to allow it is entirely within the scope of most of our jobs. I'm testing some patches today - I've got a Mac Pro sitting here with 4 hard drive partitions so that I can test in different scenarios... I'd MUCH rather have a VM that I can clone, or simply snapshots that I can roll back, rather than rebooting the hardware off a different disk each time.
That said... open discussions of HOW to bypass the EULA should be left to other forums. If you want to do it badly enough, the information is easy enough to obtain, although I don't consider it a perfect test platform regardless, since you are modifying the OS (however slightly) to make it work.
Taylor
Linton, Matthew C. (ARC-TI) wrote:
Re: [Fed-Talk] I did not know: vmware fusion supports OS/X Leopard Server & Snow Leopard as Guests
Peter: I’m going to do the exact opposite of flame you, and nod in agreement. Not only is it inconsistent with our roles as federal employees, it’s counterproductive for the industry as a whole.
Since having the ability to virtualize MacOSX clients in VMWare would be of enormous benefit to me in the computer security area and is currently not permitted, I think it’s far more productive overall for those of us who WANT that functionality to make it a point to mention it consistently and loudly.
Hey Apple... Why can’t we legally virtualize OSX Clients to do security research and build testing? You don’t think our adversaries in the black hat world are actually obeying the EULA do you?
==========================
Matt Linton, GCIH
Lead Computer Security Official
NASA Ames Research Center
650-380-4281 (mobile)
On 2/19/10 08:02 , "Peter Link" <email@hidden> <mailto:email@hidden> wrote:
I would like to remind people that this email list is for federal agencies who use Apple products and suggesting that we violate Apple's EULA is not consistent with our roles as federal employees. Don't flame me on this.
---
Jared F. Nichols
Desktop Engineer, Client Services
Information Services Department
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington, Massachusetts 02420
781.981.5436
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden