<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Pentest on</title><link>https://geekyschmidt.com/tags/pentest/</link><description>Recent content in Pentest on</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.155.3</generator><language>en</language><copyright>Copyright © 2002–2025, Nicholas Schmidt; all rights reserved.</copyright><lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:05:26 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://geekyschmidt.com/tags/pentest/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>CR-48 ChromeOS Security Posture</title><link>https://geekyschmidt.com/2010/12/11/cr-48-chromeos-security-posture/</link><pubDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:05:26 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://geekyschmidt.com/2010/12/11/cr-48-chromeos-security-posture/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Since everyone is talking about the fit and finish (which is great other than the battery) I thought I’d talk about the security of the device. Google has already spoken about the &lt;a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/advertisement.aspx?ad=communications&amp;amp;id=92&amp;amp;redirect=/web/26882/%3Fp1%3DA1%26a%3Df"&gt;separation of user/system&lt;/a&gt; with the web browser functions so I will skip that portion. The majority of my work was looking at how the OS responded to simple pentesting scans. I used version 5.21 of Nmap running on MacOS 10.6 Server. The ChromeOS box was patched as of 12/11/10.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>