OK, I am not really a big car racing fan.  I don’t know, Long Island was not a NASCAR hot bed. Of course the Indy 500 was always big news.  In any event I have become much more of a race fan since Chip Ganassi racing became a StillSecure customer.  They are using a complete NAC solution that performs both pre and post connect testing. Racing today is not about some gearheads putting in spark plugs and changing tires.  It is high, hi-tech and their information security needs to protect their IP are high priority. 

Rather than the usual case study, our VP of marketing Jayson Ayers actually tried something new.  A video case study is what we have done.  I think it is pretty cool and in the spirit of the YouTube generation, am embedding it here.  You can read more about this on our site here.

Let me run with the pack and put up my own "off to Black Hat" post.  I leave Tuesday actually and won't get there until Tuesday evening.  I will be on a red eye home Thursday night/Friday morning.  In this way I don't break my own three day rule on Vegas.  What is my three day rule?  Suffice to say that it prevents me from spiraling down into the bowels of degeneracy.

So what am I looking forward to at Black Hat?  The Dan K / DNS stuff should be fun.  I will be cheering on my boy Hoff and I always sit in on Jeremiah.  But lets face it, I am there for the party and catching up.  I am looking forward to throwing a few back with Rothman.  Seeing Martin, Mogul and the rest of the bunch.  There are always good parties of course and free drinks and food never hurts.

Of course I will also spend some time at the StillSecure booth shaking hands and kissing babies.  If you would like to say hello feel free to stop on by.

Also, a quick thanks to all of the members of the SBN for their support on our Black Hat affiliation.  The last few weeks have seen a bunch of blogs raising the buzz on the conference.

Let me run with the pack and put up my own "off to Black Hat" post.  I leave Tuesday actually and won't get there until Tuesday evening.  I will be on a red eye home Thursday night/Friday morning.  In this way I don't break my own three day rule on Vegas.  What is my three day rule?  Suffice to say that it prevents me from spiraling down into the bowels of degeneracy.

So what am I looking forward to at Black Hat?  The Dan K / DNS stuff should be fun.  I will be cheering on my boy Hoff and I always sit in on Jeremiah.  But lets face it, I am there for the party and catching up.  I am looking forward to throwing a few back with Rothman.  Seeing Martin, Mogul and the rest of the bunch.  There are always good parties of course and free drinks and food never hurts.

Of course I will also spend some time at the StillSecure booth shaking hands and kissing babies.  If you would like to say hello feel free to stop on by.

Also, a quick thanks to all of the members of the SBN for their support on our Black Hat affiliation.  The last few weeks have seen a bunch of blogs raising the buzz on the conference.

People ask why do you blog?  In the final analysis I blog because I like to. Every once in a while though you get a comment from a reader that reminds you why it is all worth while.  Here is one I received today from a person alleging to be a Julie Peterson:

Julie Peterson commented on Safe Access wins SC Magazine Award Reader Trust Award, again!:

Dressed in a tuxedo and chewing those rubber chicken breasts at the award ceremony is your idea of fun? Aren't you the same mentally retarded idiot who said in 2007 that you hated SC awards and that anyone can buy the SC awards with a sponsorship? Why do you think people give over $10k as sponsorship for the SC awards? Who is watching the awards except other vendors? By the way you suck big time with your rubbish blogs. Didn't networld magazine give you the boot within 3 months? Think before you write Mr. mental. Well done on winning, but please, dont give the impression that you cant buy an award from SC! And don't forget to eat your medication pills tonight, otherwise from your hair it is obvious you ran away from a mental hospital.

First of all Julie, let me thank you for your kind words! You made the statement and let me answer your questions for you.

1. Is dressing in a tuxedo and chewing rubber chicken breasts my idea of fun?  Actually, I do enjoy dressing up in a tuxedo once in a while.  The food at the awards ceremony was actually pretty good, if not diet friendly, as were the cocktails.  The entertainment at the awards show was pretty good as well. Catching up with friends you had not seen for a while and networking with industry peers was pretty worthwhile too.  Maybe your idea of a good time is putting on a bowling shirt and swilling a couple of beers and pretzels before going home and undressing into your dirty ripped underwear. Hey I say to each his own.

2. I am not the idiot who in 2007 said that I hated the SC awards and that anyone can buy the SC awards with a sponsorship.  I am the idiot who said that about the InfoSec Products Guide award by the folks at Silicon Valley Communications.  In contrast I have always said nice things about the SC awards. I actually have a lot of respect for them.  Also for the record, StillSecure has never been a sponsor of the SC Magazine awards. I have seen sponsors who did not win awards as well.  So looks like you got that one wrong Julie, but it happens.

3. ???Networld??? magazine didn???t give me the boot within 3 months.  They never had the chance, as I never wrote for ???networld, network world or any other magazine. Maybe you have me confused with Mike Rothman or Mitchell Ashley, who do and did write for Network World. But let me assure you that I do try and think before I write.

4. Regarding what medication pills I take and does my hair make it obvious I ran away from a mental hospital. I don???t take any medication, maybe I should.  Better living through chemistry you know ;-)  As to my hair, what can I say.  At this stage I am happy I have any hair at all.  My wife always says when I get my haircut it looks like a Buzz Lightyear style, but no one ever mentioned a mental hospital look to it.  In any event sorry it doesn???t appeal to you.

So who is this troll Julie Peterson?  Could it be Richard Stiennon in drag?  Maybe his wife striking out?  Maybe another one of my fans?  Who knows, but these sort of comments keep me juiced about blogging and remind me of how much fun I have doing it.  Thanks again Julie!

People ask why do you blog?  In the final analysis I blog because I like to. Every once in a while though you get a comment from a reader that reminds you why it is all worth while.  Here is one I received today from a person alleging to be a Julie Peterson:

Julie Peterson commented on Safe Access wins SC Magazine Award Reader Trust Award, again!:

Dressed in a tuxedo and chewing those rubber chicken breasts at the award ceremony is your idea of fun? Aren't you the same mentally retarded idiot who said in 2007 that you hated SC awards and that anyone can buy the SC awards with a sponsorship? Why do you think people give over $10k as sponsorship for the SC awards? Who is watching the awards except other vendors? By the way you suck big time with your rubbish blogs. Didn't networld magazine give you the boot within 3 months? Think before you write Mr. mental. Well done on winning, but please, dont give the impression that you cant buy an award from SC! And don't forget to eat your medication pills tonight, otherwise from your hair it is obvious you ran away from a mental hospital.

First of all Julie, let me thank you for your kind words! You made the statement and let me answer your questions for you.

1. Is dressing in a tuxedo and chewing rubber chicken breasts my idea of fun?  Actually, I do enjoy dressing up in a tuxedo once in a while.  The food at the awards ceremony was actually pretty good, if not diet friendly, as were the cocktails.  The entertainment at the awards show was pretty good as well. Catching up with friends you had not seen for a while and networking with industry peers was pretty worthwhile too.  Maybe your idea of a good time is putting on a bowling shirt and swilling a couple of beers and pretzels before going home and undressing into your dirty ripped underwear. Hey I say to each his own.

2. I am not the idiot who in 2007 said that I hated the SC awards and that anyone can buy the SC awards with a sponsorship.  I am the idiot who said that about the InfoSec Products Guide award by the folks at Silicon Valley Communications.  In contrast I have always said nice things about the SC awards. I actually have a lot of respect for them.  Also for the record, StillSecure has never been a sponsor of the SC Magazine awards. I have seen sponsors who did not win awards as well.  So looks like you got that one wrong Julie, but it happens.

3. “Networld” magazine didn’t give me the boot within 3 months.  They never had the chance, as I never wrote for “networld, network world or any other magazine. Maybe you have me confused with Mike Rothman or Mitchell Ashley, who do and did write for Network World. But let me assure you that I do try and think before I write.

4. Regarding what medication pills I take and does my hair make it obvious I ran away from a mental hospital. I don’t take any medication, maybe I should.  Better living through chemistry you know ;-)  As to my hair, what can I say.  At this stage I am happy I have any hair at all.  My wife always says when I get my haircut it looks like a Buzz Lightyear style, but no one ever mentioned a mental hospital look to it.  In any event sorry it doesn’t appeal to you.

So who is this troll Julie Peterson?  Could it be Richard Stiennon in drag?  Maybe his wife striking out?  Maybe another one of my fans?  Who knows, but these sort of comments keep me juiced about blogging and remind me of how much fun I have doing it.  Thanks again Julie!

I was reading Tim Greene's column this morning about Symantec's new on demand web log in for guests as part of their SNAC appliance offering. I have to admit that even I who follows the NAC market and competition pretty closely, get pretty confused with all of the different offerings Symantec has come out with around NAC. Symantec seems to be following a fling stuff on the wall and see what sticks strategy when it comes to NAC.  The problem is separating the keepers from the rest of it when evaluating their offering.

This latest offering appears to sure up a hole that was called out in the recent CRN review of their product in a bake off against Sophos and StillSecure's Safe Access. In that review Symantec's drop off in functionality between agent and agentless was called out.  So within just a few days comes this announcement addressing the issue.  Very timely indeed.  This comes on the heels of Symantec's peer-to-peer approach to NAC, which came on the heels of their Endpoint Security product version 11 which had NAC included (and which I understand has already been patched/upgraded several times since its release). 

At this point you have Symantec NAC with their endpoint suite which is a throw in but has no guest access option on its own. Than you have the Symantec NAC appliance which can do enforcement of managed devices beyond what just endpoint suite gives you.  Now you also have on demand/dissolvable agents available with the Symantec NAC server (but I guess not with the endpoint suite). You also have the Symantec peer-to-peer stuff, which I think also requires the SNAC server.  Starting to get confusing? I guess this is what happens when your NAC offering is made up of an amalgamation of several different products lumped together.

Not to worry though, I am sure Big Yellow will still sell plenty of all flavors of their NAC offering. At the end of the day some of this stuff is bound to stick.

I was reading Tim Greene's column this morning about Symantec's new on demand web log in for guests as part of their SNAC appliance offering. I have to admit that even I who follows the NAC market and competition pretty closely, get pretty confused with all of the different offerings Symantec has come out with around NAC. Symantec seems to be following a fling stuff on the wall and see what sticks strategy when it comes to NAC.  The problem is separating the keepers from the rest of it when evaluating their offering.

This latest offering appears to sure up a hole that was called out in the recent CRN review of their product in a bake off against Sophos and StillSecure's Safe Access. In that review Symantec's drop off in functionality between agent and agentless was called out.  So within just a few days comes this announcement addressing the issue.  Very timely indeed.  This comes on the heels of Symantec's peer-to-peer approach to NAC, which came on the heels of their Endpoint Security product version 11 which had NAC included (and which I understand has already been patched/upgraded several times since its release). 

At this point you have Symantec NAC with their endpoint suite which is a throw in but has no guest access option on its own. Than you have the Symantec NAC appliance which can do enforcement of managed devices beyond what just endpoint suite gives you.  Now you also have on demand/dissolvable agents available with the Symantec NAC server (but I guess not with the endpoint suite). You also have the Symantec peer-to-peer stuff, which I think also requires the SNAC server.  Starting to get confusing? I guess this is what happens when your NAC offering is made up of an amalgamation of several different products lumped together.

Not to worry though, I am sure Big Yellow will still sell plenty of all flavors of their NAC offering. At the end of the day some of this stuff is bound to stick.