At the moment, event correlation and event analysis is Gartner’s closest magic quadrant (MQ)  that relates directly to complex event processing (and event processing in general).    

A number of our friends and colleagues would like to position CEP as BRE, BRMS, BPM, SOA, algo trading and just about every other technology under the sun, except event correlation!

In a nutshell, the state-of-the-state of CEP/EP is that a number of firms in the software industry have found some “uncharted magic quadrant waters” and are positioning themselves to be “chart worthy”. Instead of competing head on with the experienced players (event correlation and analysis) that have been in the event processing field for many years.   

As I have mentioned a few times here on The CEP Blog, if the current generation self-described CEP engines were leading the industry in event correlation and analysis (CEP’s core technology domain) they would be either be on Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for IT Event Correlation and Analysis, or possibly acquired by a one of these large giants in event processing to solve complex event processing and event correlation problems that remain, for the most part, still unsolved!

Bind("AmountCharged", "{0:C}")

While this displays just as you'd expect (e.g., $200), it doesn't do so well when you submit an edit that includes the same value ($200):

Input string was not in a correct format.

I searched around and didn't find much in the way of a clean solution, but I did solve the problem with just a few lines of code. The trick is to handle the data-bound control's Updating event. Since I was working with a GridView, my solution looked a bit like this:

<asp:GridView DataSourceID='myDataSource'
              OnRowUpdating='FixFormatting'
              AutoGenerateColumns='false'
              CellPadding="3" ...>

Notice the OnRowUpdating handler that I've installed in my grid view. That code looks like this:

protected void FixFormatting(object sender, GridViewUpdateEventArgs args)
{
    decimal amountPaid = ParseDecimal((string)args.NewValues["AmountPaid"]);
    args.NewValues["AmountPaid"] = amountPaid;
}

When you handle this event, you're given a dictionary of old and new values, which appear to come directly from the controls (in my case, a TextBox was used to gather the updated data AmountPaid, so the type of object that I found in NewValues["AmountPaid"] was a string. I wrote a little helper method called ParseDecimal that parses a string into a decimal value, allowing currency characters, decimal points, and thousands separators. I also allowed a blank value to indicate zero:

public static decimal ParseDecimal(string value)
{
    if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(value))
        return 0;
    return Decimal.Parse(value,
        NumberStyles.AllowThousands |
        NumberStyles.AllowDecimalPoint |
        NumberStyles.AllowCurrencySymbol,
        CultureInfo.InstalledUICulture);
}

This solved the problem quite nicely. Now two-way binding works with formatted data.

For example, Reconnex that was recently absorbed by McAfee, touts "information protection" before compliance. Similarly, my friends from nexTier only mention "compliance" on a few pages. Even newly unveiled DLP resource  (DLP In-Depth portal) only contains a little bit  of information on how DLP solutions help with various compliance projects. People tout "data protection", " data security", "data governance" (aka "we know big words - bigger than you") or even "data risk management" (aka "we are confused about what we sell")

I decide to explore this curious phenomenon.

Initially, I thought that it was reverse compliance at work? People not wanting to know what content packs up and leaves their network. Then I thought that maybe DLP vendors just aren't "the bandwagon jumping kind" (yeah, right!) Then I thought that they are "beyond compliance" already :-)

But you know what? I actually think that it is something different, much more sinister. It is the ominous checklist mentality (here too)!  You know, DLP is newer than  most regulations (PCI DSS, HIPAA, FISMA, etc) and - what a shock! - the documentation for these mandates just doesn't mention DLP (or CMF) by name. Sure, they talk about data protection (e.g. PCI DSS Requirements 3 and 4), but mostly in terms of encryption, access control, logging (of course!).

Also, PCI DSS directly and explicitly says "get a firewall", "deploy log management", "get scanned", "install and update AV" - but where is DLP? Ain't there...

Yes, Virginia, folks who "go by the book" and just "do the minimum" are missing out on the chance to procure DLP while their compliance budgets are still flowing. To me that means that many still don't get the "compliance+" model - buy for compliance -> use for security, operations, having fun, etc. Think what a good DLP solution  will do for you in discovering regulated data across the entire organization, blocking those pesky email with SSNs, PHI (hi, HIPAA) and CCs (hi, PCI) as well as solving plenty of other problems ...

But it is sometimes desirable to transition the employee out of the organization as quickly as possible. For example, you would not want a lame-duck network engineer to continue to have access to critical IT infrastructure. In such cases, it is appropriate to relieve the employee of keys, computer access and other company property and to escort him or her off the premises immediately.

Of course, it’s good to plan ahead for this event — make sure all critical admins are documenting their jobs, and keeping documentation for their network as they go. It would be highly annoying, and probably embarrassing, to escort your newly resigned network admin off premises, only to realize he was the only guy who knew how to access your important file systems.

For the third year in a row, the government’s overall FISMA grade improved. But don’t get too excited; the grade only improved from a C- to a C this year. (And D+ in 2005).

But there’s a lot to hide in an “average grade”. Turns out that the reality is a split between overachievers and underachievers.

The agencies/departments with a grade of A-, A or A+:

• Department of Justice
• US AID
• EPA
• NSF
• SSA
• HUD
• OPM (I would hope so)

And, sadly the ones that got an F:

• Department of the Interior
• Department of Treasury
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Department of Agriculture

FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) became a federal law back in 2002 as part of the E-Government Act. Six years later, there has been improvement, but there’s still clearly a long way to go.

So what’s the disconnect? Speaking from a vendor perspective, we’ve had first-hand experience with the lack of actionable, concrete guidelines around FISMA – for processes, monitoring and check-list assessment items. We even contacted NIST directly to get more guidance on how their very broad guidelines should be translated to actual features and reporting in something like our monitoring solution. The end goal, after all, is to help our government customers not only meet the FISMA requirements but also to be seen/assessed as meeting those requirements. As we do for other compliance/governance requirements like Sarbanes-Oxley, the more that EM7 can automate and report on, the better.

But that leads to the second issue here. How accurate is the FISMA scorecard? SC Magazine writes, “Many have seen organizations get an A when they believe they should have received an F, and vice versa” and some experts “blame this on the lack of a standardized evaluation, as well as censorship among auditors.” There’s talk about language ambiguities and opinions that the scorecard is not “one size fits all” – that small agencies face different IT security challenges than the big guys.

So what’s right about FISMA? We can point to a heightened awareness about the importance of security and the “security picture” in each federal agency. Certainly, from our own survey at FOSE, we saw the difference just from last year to this one:

• 91% surveyed said FISMA was important (up from 66% last year)
• Over 50% had solutions installed to help with FISMA (up from only 14% last year)

Based on these numbers, we’re not surprised to see the FISMA average grade go up, but we expected it to be even higher. So what will it take to get the government on the honor roll? From Rep. Tom Davis, “We need to seriously consider incentives for agency success and funding penalties and personnel reforms for agencies that don’t measure up…We need a bill with teeth, and we need agencies to understand the goal is to keep information safe, not to check a statutory box.”

ShareThis