Does Oracle run the world? I would have to say no but Raj (Larry Ellison is his idol) and the 40,000 Oracle customers that descended upon SF last week might beg to differ. What do James Carville and Mary Matalin have to do with enterprise software? Pretty much nothing, except for the fact that they delivered the opening keynote for Oracle OpenWorld. (And that’s the only and last politically-oriented thing you’ll hear from me as we run up to the election). For a surprisingly funny and extensive photo gallery of the eye-popping event, check out cdye1’s photostream on Flickr.

But UB40, Elvis Costello and Seal aside, Oracle OpenWorld did offer training, certifications, and always entertaining speeches by Ellison. Ben Worthen’s favorite – “Larry Ellison’s Brilliant Anti-Cloud Computing Rant” delivered to analysts on Thursday. From Ben’s slightly-edited excerpt:

“The interesting thing about cloud computing is that we’ve redefined cloud computing to include everything that we already do. I can’t think of anything that isn’t cloud computing with all of these announcements. The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women’s fashion. Maybe I’m an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It’s complete gibberish. It’s insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?

“We’ll make cloud computing announcements. I’m not going to fight this thing. But I don’t understand what we would do differently in the light of cloud computing other than change the wording of some of our ads. That’s my view.”

So did everyone catch that? Cloud computing is complete gibberish and idiocy, but apparently Oracle’s already been doing enough around it to advertise the fact. I will have my cake and eat it too!

We’ve been pumping out the posts from the shows we went to – let me tell you, live-blogging is hard when you’re trying to share apparently miniscule amounts of bandwidth with 14,000 other attendees – and we have even more to share as we step back, contemplate and describe how some of the announcements, info and especially roadmaps fit into our overall picture over here at ScienceLogic.

For example, we released the results of our annual industry IT survey last week. Twice a year – at FOSE (for Government IT) and at Interop NY (for enterprises) – we take advantage of the fact that we have a big beautiful booth at these shows and offer a fabulous ScienceLogic t-shirt in return for a couple of minutes time with attendees living the problems we try to solve. Instead of telling people what their problems and priorities are, we like to ask.
Interop NY Survey - Trends and Challenges
Detailed Reports on Trends and Comparison to Government IT

And I just had to share this one because it is so bizarre. Are VMware and Paul Maritz guilty of plagiarism? You have to check this out to get even part of the picture. Apparently this guy has posted his slides (we know they are from VMworld 2007 because it says so in the lower-right-hand corner…) which prove that the “virtual datacenter operating system” idea was his idea a year before it showed up on Maritz’s keynote this year. Hmmm. And then after posting all these slides and making all the connections between his presentation and Maritz’s, he says he’s just kidding about the plagiarism. Can anyone sort this out and let me know?

I’ll tell you who wasn’t kidding when I went by their booth at VMworld – a certain chargeback vendor and VMware “partner” who was quite shocked two months ago when they walked into a meeting with VMware about future roadmap. Apparently, the slides they saw (preview of VMware’s announcement re adding extended chargeback capability within vCenter management services) were mighty might similar to slides they had given in a presentation to VMware about their own roadmap. Coincidence? I’ll let you decide. And I’ll also say, their strategy to combat this – support for Hyper-V coming early in 2009.

We write to express our firm belief that research on security vulnerabilities, and the sensible publication of the results of the research, are critical for scientific advancement, public safety and a robust market for secure technologies. Generally speaking, the norm in our field is that researchers take reasonable steps to protect the individuals using the systems studied. We understand that the student researchers took such steps with regard to their research, notably by planning not to present a critical element of a flaw they found. They did this so that their audience would be unable to exploit the security flaws they uncovered. . . .

The restraining order at issue in this case also fosters a dangerous information imbalance. In this case, for example, it allows the vendors of the technology and the MBTA to claim greater efficacy and security than their products warrant, then use the law to silence those who would reveal the technologies’ flaws. In this case, the law gives the public a false sense of security, achieved through law, not technical effectiveness. Preventing researchers from discussing a technology’s vulnerabilities does not make them go away - in fact, it may exacerbate them as more people and institutions use and come to rely upon the illusory protection. Yet the commercial purveyors of such technologies often do not want truthful discussions of their products’ flaws, and will likely withhold the prior approval or deny researchers access for testing if the law supports that effort. . . .

Yet at the same time that researchers need to act responsibly, vendors should not be granted complete control of the publication of such information, as it appears MBTA sought here. As noted above, vendors and users of such technologies often have an incentive to hide the flaws in the system rather than come clean with the public and take the steps necessary to remedy them. Thus, while researchers often refrain from publishing the technical details necessary to exploit the flaw, a legal ban on discussion of security flaws, such as that contained in the temporary restraining order, is especially troubling.

It will be interesting to see what arguments the MBTA uses to keep the students from speaking on a topic where all the important vulnerability information seems to have already disclosed. Sure the students haven’t presented a cookbook exploit tool but they have also stated they have no intention of doing so.

Perhaps the court will investigate what the MBTA’s and their technology vendors response has been to the MiFare card vulnerabilities that were disclosed responsibly. If there has been no vigorous response to responsibly disclosed vulnerabilities of many months ago how can they say with a straight face that are truly responding to new security information and just need more time.

We write to express our firm belief that research on security vulnerabilities, and the sensible publication of the results of the research, are critical for scientific advancement, public safety and a robust market for secure technologies. Generally speaking, the norm in our field is that researchers take reasonable steps to protect the individuals using the systems studied. We understand that the student researchers took such steps with regard to their research, notably by planning not to present a critical element of a flaw they found. They did this so that their audience would be unable to exploit the security flaws they uncovered. . . .

The restraining order at issue in this case also fosters a dangerous information imbalance. In this case, for example, it allows the vendors of the technology and the MBTA to claim greater efficacy and security than their products warrant, then use the law to silence those who would reveal the technologies’ flaws. In this case, the law gives the public a false sense of security, achieved through law, not technical effectiveness. Preventing researchers from discussing a technology’s vulnerabilities does not make them go away - in fact, it may exacerbate them as more people and institutions use and come to rely upon the illusory protection. Yet the commercial purveyors of such technologies often do not want truthful discussions of their products’ flaws, and will likely withhold the prior approval or deny researchers access for testing if the law supports that effort. . . .

Yet at the same time that researchers need to act responsibly, vendors should not be granted complete control of the publication of such information, as it appears MBTA sought here. As noted above, vendors and users of such technologies often have an incentive to hide the flaws in the system rather than come clean with the public and take the steps necessary to remedy them. Thus, while researchers often refrain from publishing the technical details necessary to exploit the flaw, a legal ban on discussion of security flaws, such as that contained in the temporary restraining order, is especially troubling.

It will be interesting to see what arguments the MBTA uses to keep the students from speaking on a topic where all the important vulnerability information seems to have already disclosed. Sure the students haven’t presented a cookbook exploit tool but they have also stated they have no intention of doing so.

Perhaps the court will investigate what the MBTA’s and their technology vendors response has been to the MiFare card vulnerabilities that were disclosed responsibly. If there has been no vigorous response to responsibly disclosed vulnerabilities of many months ago how can they say with a straight face that are truly responding to new security information and just need more time.

An interesting excerpt:

“CIOs have emphasized to us that they are buying on a need versus want basis, are often downsizing deals to fit with current budget constraints…In fact, contrary to general tightening in spending, purchases with an especially compelling ROI are being accelerated in the current environment.”

Hmm. Certainly we all understand prioritizing what to buy on need versus want– my friend who runs an art gallery that has only sold one piece in the past 2 months can certainly explain it. I “need” that Picasso? But does it take the entire economy slowing down before CIOs, even at Fortune 100 companies, to focus on ROI? So it’s not surprising what showed up at the top of the list for spending priorities for 2008-2009:

1. Server Virtualization
2. Server Consolidation
3. Cost Cutting

At the bottom of the list, grid computing and on-demand computing.

Compare this to last year’s spending survey where the top 10 priorities by rank were:

1. Applications integration
2. Security
3. Cost Cutting
4. BI
5. ERP
6. Web-based app development
7. Datacenter consolidation
8. Disaster Recovery
9. Compliance/risk management
10. Identity and access management

So in one year, the very hot “server virtualization” (and quite similar server consolidation) jumped to the top of the spending priority list. Can anyone have predicted just how much mindshare virtualization would capture in such a short time? Virtualization is not a new concept; it just seems that way. What will be # 1 next year?

ShareThis

1. Another fun (and horrible) laptop theft story, to be shown to those naive souls who say "ah, just stolen for hardware"
2. Very fun dailydave thread on security future (sad, of course :-)) - here is an excerpt: "The complexity in security is not from any complexity in technology but the complexity in motivating people to truly care about security and act accordingly."
3. Prediction markets for security? Fun idea!
4. "Elevator pitch for explaining security risks to executives" by Lenny Zeltser @ SANS.
5. "In Praise of the Information Security Checklist."
6. A great WAF battle rages on (here and in many other places). PCI + June 30 + 6.6 + WAF = BOOM!
7. How do you protect from IT admins "going bad?" Separate data and infrastructure (easier said than done, for sure). Another related one is "Staff more dangerous than hackers."
8. Curious about PCI DSS compliance outside the US? Read this and this. Yes, it is pretty bad.
9. "Terminating an employee with privileged access" from SANS (scroll to bottom)
10. An interesting view on sad state of academic research in information security.
11. Useful reminder to many people pushing silly/useless security solutions: while you are doing this, your organization is losing 6% of revenue to fraud. Today. Every day. Fraud checklist is linked there as well.
12. Rich on "consumerization" of IT. Good stuff. You are ready for it, aren't you? More on this subject.
13. Obviously, you are reading Mike R mid-year grades for his predictions.  One that failed in the most spectacular fashion (grade "D") is also an instructive read.
14. Really good post on security vs risk management. Just read it.
15. Matasano launches a GRC solution :-)
16. After "security idiot" became "an official meme", it didn't take long for SecurityIdiot.com to launch with much fanfare! If you are still wondering how to misspell "SOX" go there... the mystery is answered.

See you next time!

First it was the EU looking at passing a law that would require bloggers to disclose their identity and affiliation. Now the AP is looking to enforce a new license that would require payments when a blogger puts an excerpt from an AP article in their blog.  My friend Kevin McLaughlin blogged on this over at Channel Web blog today. Basically the AP says that if you excerpt more than 5 words you need to start paying them fees.  Kevin reached out to me and I gave him my views on this one.

I think that it is a really short sighted move by the AP.  First of all it shows they really don't understand blogging.  Blogging is about taking an idea which often comes from another source and putting the bloggers own spin and ideas behind it. In this way topics are built on one blog at a time with each blogger adding a bit more to the conversation. Each additional blog on topic enriches those blogs and articles that preceded it.  As I said in the Channel Web article, it is like a jazz musician playing a riff on top of a line already laid down.

In real terms blogging on the AP content will only generate more views and interest in the AP content.  AP is just a dinosaur with this type of view and will soon go the way of dinosaurs if they try to enforce this. In the meantime bloggers can talk about an AP article, but don't link to it and don't excerpt from it. I suspect that the next thing is we will have a replay of the inbound links litigation we had 8 years ago.  In the meantime blogging will continue to march on with AP or not.

First it was the EU looking at passing a law that would require bloggers to disclose their identity and affiliation. Now the AP is looking to enforce a new license that would require payments when a blogger puts an excerpt from an AP article in their blog.  My friend Kevin McLaughlin blogged on this over at Channel Web blog today. Basically the AP says that if you excerpt more than 5 words you need to start paying them fees.  Kevin reached out to me and I gave him my views on this one.

I think that it is a really short sighted move by the AP.  First of all it shows they really don't understand blogging.  Blogging is about taking an idea which often comes from another source and putting the bloggers own spin and ideas behind it. In this way topics are built on one blog at a time with each blogger adding a bit more to the conversation. Each additional blog on topic enriches those blogs and articles that preceded it.  As I said in the Channel Web article, it is like a jazz musician playing a riff on top of a line already laid down.

In real terms blogging on the AP content will only generate more views and interest in the AP content.  AP is just a dinosaur with this type of view and will soon go the way of dinosaurs if they try to enforce this. In the meantime bloggers can talk about an AP article, but don't link to it and don't excerpt from it. I suspect that the next thing is we will have a replay of the inbound links litigation we had 8 years ago.  In the meantime blogging will continue to march on with AP or not.