<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title><![CDATA[[SecurityRatty] tag: tedious]]></title>
    <link>http://securityratty.com/tag/tedious</link>
    <description></description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:42:58 +0000</pubDate>
    <generator>iRatty Engine</generator>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Managed security services: Outsourcing threat management]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/0bc9ade236ccca33fbf3894e7e867ff3</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/0bc9ade236ccca33fbf3894e7e867ff3</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[As prices fall, managed security services from such companies as SecureWorks and Perimeter eSecurity entice enterprises looking to offload the tedious work of monitoring intrusion-detection,...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[As prices fall, managed security services from such companies as SecureWorks and Perimeter eSecurity entice enterprises looking to offload the tedious work of monitoring intrusion-detection, intrusion-prevention and other security systems.]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security services">security services</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security systems">security systems</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/secureworks">secureworks</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tedious">tedious</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/offload">offload</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/companies">companies</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/prices">prices</category>
      <source url="http://www.networkworld.com/supp/2008//100908-trendwatch-mssp.html?fsrc=rss-security">Managed security services: Outsourcing threat management</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Slacker Releases G2 Wi-Fi Music Player]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/6bf0a2996035ec73c7f3c1e291fa58bc</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/6bf0a2996035ec73c7f3c1e291fa58bc</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Slacker joins Apple and Microsoft in releasing new models: It's been a busy week for those who follow the latest developments in music players. Apple's new iPods, while not revolutionary, still up the...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10042321-1.html"><strong>Slacker joins Apple and Microsoft in releasing new models:</strong></a> It's been a busy week for those who follow the latest developments in music players. Apple's new iPods, while not revolutionary, still up the ante for features and quality; Microsoft's new Zunes, released today, come with fascinating new software options; and the Slacker G2 today. The G2, like the iPod touch and all Zunes, sports Wi-Fi.</p>

<p>Slacker licenses music directly from publishers, and includes a perpetual subscription in the cost of the player. Slacker creates stations that feed out an endless supply of music. The new models are $200 for a 4GB model with the ability to list 25 stations (up to 2,500 songs), or $250 for an 8 GB model with 40 stations (up to 4,000 songs). You can also sync your own music in MP3 or WMA format. For $7.50 per month, you can upgrade and store songs you're listening to, as well as avoid ads.</p>

<p><img src="http://wifinetnews.com//images/2008/slacker_g2_front.jpg" alt="slacker_g2_front.jpg" border="0" width="150" height="246" align="right" />The G2 is already getting reviews as a much-improved upgrade from the first release. Like the Zune, there's no browser or other Internet features, and that might be a positive.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/devicescape-enables-effortless-go-wi-fi/story.aspx?guid={A30C3095-A0C9-416D-836E-691261B961B5}&dist=hppr"><strong>G2 is tied into Devicescape's Wi-Fi home and hotspot authentication system</strong></a>, which lets Slacker G2 owners pre-program encryption keys or login information for hotspots that they frequent. Devicescape's software both retrieves and stores login information, allowing the G2 to be used in places that would otherwise require either tedious entry of a WPA passphrase, or be unavailable without a Web browser to handle the login.<br clear="left"></p>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:38:53 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/slacker">slacker</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/login">login</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/stores login information">stores login information</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/music">music</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/slacker joins apple">slacker joins apple</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/login information">login information</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/music players">music players</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/songs">songs</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/apple">apple</category>
      <source url="http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008442.html">Slacker Releases G2 Wi-Fi Music Player</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Zune Swoon 2.0]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/162d344e703b51b1f9a309987ebdb786</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/162d344e703b51b1f9a309987ebdb786</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Latest Zune firmware, software allows Wi-Fi music purchases, FM tagging: Microsoft confirmed the 16-Sept-2008 release of new Zune firmware and players, allowing users of old and new devices alike to...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/sep08/09-08ZuneFallUpdatePR.mspx"><strong>Latest Zune firmware, software allows Wi-Fi music purchases, FM tagging:</strong></a> Microsoft confirmed the 16-Sept-2008 release of new Zune firmware and players, allowing users of old and new devices alike to purchase music over Wi-Fi from the Zune Marketplace. The new firmware also sports FM tagging that uses information that some broadcasters will embed in their analog programming to tag songs for immediate purchase (single track) or download (Zune Pass subscription) over a Wi-Fi hotspot, or to queue for later download.</p>

<p>Apple added access for iPhone and iPod touch users to a subset of its iTunes Store over Wi-Fi--the awkwardly named iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store--more than a year ago, along with the ability to access that store at no cost from handhelds and laptops <a href="http://www.apple.com/itunes/starbucks/"><strong>via Starbucks outlets</strong></a> in New York, Seattle, and throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. (Chicago and Los Angeles have been "coming soon" for a year, but the new AT&T/Starbucks deal may have delayed opening up those markets.)</p>

<p><img src="http://wifinetnews.com//images/2008/zune_tagging.jpg" alt="zune_tagging.jpg" border="0" width="175" height="385" align="right" hspace="5" />Terrestrial AM/FM radio stations would like to figure out how to remain meaningful in a world of streaming Internet radio. Their latest strategy is to embed information that allows a listener to mark a song they want, potentially getting a piece of music sold in this fashion. With FM tagging, Zune players tap into an existing very low-data-rate encoding protocols that allow stations to push out their call letters and current song information. By adding a very short code, broadcasters can allow Zunes to look up the appropriate song.</p>

<p>At launch, 450 stations from major networks, including Clear Channel, Entercom, and others, will broadcast tagging details. Note that Microsoft includes KEXP, a Seattle independent and alternative radio station, in its sample image, for the new models. KEXP, given a boost a few years ago through significant short-term funding by Paul Allen--funding that involved changing its call letters to his Experience Music Project museum initials--has an enormous listenership over the Internet ironically enough. KEXP will be a programming partner creating channels of music for the subscription-based Zune Pass service. (Zune Pass is $15 per month, all you can eat.)</p>

<p>This option could allow Microsoft to ink partnerships with hotspot networks to brand them with Zune compatibility, lets radio stations promote something other than iPods that they would have a direct relationship with (and, potentially, some kind of revenue stream from?), and may be part of breaking Apple's digital music hegemony. <em>May be.</em> Nobody's gotten rich betting against Apple for the last several years. (Details of revenue sharing with radio stations hasn't been discussed.)</p>

<p>Apple opted for a partnership with HD Radio broadcasters and equipment makers that has a relatively elaborate process of tagging songs. HD Radio is digital AM/FM, a patented and licensed method that has provoked a lot of controversy, and has lagged enormously in the marketplace, despite well over 1,000 stations (including many public radio stations) broadcasting in this digital format, some for over three years. </p>

<p>HD Radio tagging requires an HD radio receiver with a Tag button; pressing that button stores the song's tag information. The radio must also have an iPod dock. Docking an iPod syncs the tag information, and the next time the iPod is sync with iTunes, you can see which songs were tagged. Kind of tedious compared to "press a button while listening to an FM station and buy the song over Wi-Fi." (I've been writing about HD Radio for years, and even launched a blog that's gone moribund; the technology is interesting, but Internet radio on mobile devices coupled with on-demand music purchasing over cell and Wi-Fi may simply make HD Radio unnecessary for listeners.)</p>

<p>Microsoft has a more compelling "marketing story" for this feature than Apple, that's for sure. On the other hand, do you really need to tag songs from stations that play only the most popular music in a given format?</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:39:20 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/public radio stations">public radio stations</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/stations">stations</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/radio stations promote">radio stations promote</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/radio">radio</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/radio unnecessary">radio unnecessary</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/radio receiver">radio receiver</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/internet radio">internet radio</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/radio stations">radio stations</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/wi-fi music purchases">wi-fi music purchases</category>
      <source url="http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008432.html">Zune Swoon 2.0</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Mashup of the Titans]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/6289294023616c0d4219941919c976a5</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/6289294023616c0d4219941919c976a5</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Information Security - an Oxymoron for the information age

Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question. e. e. cummings
or why i am with Gelernter

This is a mashup of Saltzer &amp;...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>Information Security - an Oxymoron for the information age</div><br /><div>“Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question.” e. e. cummings</div><div>...or why i am with Gelernter</div><br /><div>This is a mashup of Saltzer &amp; Schroeder&#39;s famous <a href="http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs551/saltzer/">information security principles</a> with David Gelernter&#39;s <a href="http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge70.html">Manifesto</a>.</div><br /><div>The premise of this mashup is to examine the paper by Saltzer and Schroeder which was written in 1975 and serves as the basis for most information security programs against the Gelernter&#39;s manifesto as to where computing is actually going. Each of the eight principles in Saltzer and Schroeder&#39;s paper is listed in order, and followed by select excerpts of Gelernter&#39;s manifesto. This comparison is to examine theoretical information security principles vis a vis the actual utility of modern information systems. I will not make an attempt to reconcile theory and practice, but will point out where the two schools of thought agree. In fairness, Saltzer and Schroeder&#39;s paper was written 25 years before Gelernter&#39;s, however Saltzer and Schroeder&#39;s principles dominate the thinking about information security to this day and so its important to view them side by side with Gelernter&#39;s thinking on the direction of computing.</div><br /><div style="color: #bf5f00; ">Saltzer and Schroeder:</div><div>&quot;a) Economy of mechanism: Keep the design as simple and small as possible. This well-known principle applies to any aspect of a system, but it deserves emphasis for protection mechanisms for this reason: design and implementation errors that result in unwanted access paths will not be noticed during normal use (since normal use usually does not include attempts to exercise improper access paths). As a result, techniques such as line-by-line inspection of software and physical examination of hardware that implements protection mechanisms are necessary. For such techniques to be successful, a small and simple design is essential.&quot;</div><br /><div style="color: #0060bf; ">Gelernter:</div><div>&quot;9. The computing future is based on &quot;cyberbodies&quot; — self-contained, neatly-ordered, beautifully-laid-out collections of information, like immaculate giant gardens.&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #00bf00; ">Conclusion(gp):</span>&#0160;So far, so good</div><br /><div>**</div><br /><div><span style="color: #bf5f00; ">Saltzer and Schroeder:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;b) Fail-safe defaults: Base access decisions on permission rather than exclusion. This principle, suggested by E. Glaser in 1965,8 means that the default situation is lack of access, and the protection scheme identifies conditions under which access is permitted. The alternative, in which mechanisms attempt to identify conditions under which access should be refused, presents the wrong psychological base for secure system design. A conservative design must be based on arguments why objects should be accessible, rather than why they should not. In a large system some objects will be inadequately considered, so a default of lack of permission is safer. A design or implementation mistake in a mechanism that gives explicit permission tends to fail by refusing permission, a safe situation, since it will be quickly detected. On the other hand, a design or implementation mistake in a mechanism that explicitly excludes access tends to fail by allowing access, a failure which may go unnoticed in normal use. This principle applies both to the outward appearance of the protection mechanism and to its underlying implementation.&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #00bf00; ">Conclusion(gp):</span>&#0160;A conservative design principle that puts the object&#39;s owner in control of permissions. This makes a lot of sense from the object point of view, but does little to address the use case in which it executes.</div><br /><div>**</div><br /><div><span style="color: #bf5f00; ">Saltzer and Schroeder:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;c) Complete mediation: Every access to every object must be checked for authority. This principle, when systematically applied, is the primary underpinning of the protection system. It forces a system-wide view of access control, which in addition to normal operation includes initialization, recovery, shutdown, and maintenance. It implies that a foolproof method of identifying the source of every request must be devised. It also requires that proposals to gain performance by remembering the result of an authority check be examined skeptically. If a change in authority occurs, such remembered results must be systematically updated.&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #0060bf; ">Gelernter:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;8. The software systems we depend on most today are operating systems (Unix, the Macintosh OS, Windows et. al.) and browsers (Internet Explorer, Netscape Communicator...). Operating systems are connectors that fasten users to computers; they attach to the computer at one end, the user at the other. Browsers fasten users to remote computers, to &quot;servers&quot; on the internet.</div><br /><div>Today&#39;s operating systems and browsers are obsolete because people no longer want to be connected to computers — near ones OR remote ones. (They probably never did). They want to be connected to information. In the future, people are connected to cyberbodies; cyberbodies drift in the computational cosmos — also known as the Swarm, the Cybersphere.</div><br /><div>13. Any well-designed next-generation electronic gadget will come with a ``Disable Omniscience&#39;&#39; button.</div><br /><div>17. A cyberbody can be replicated or distributed over many computers; can inhabit many computers at the same time. If the Cybersphere&#39;s computers are tiles in a paved courtyard, a cyberbody is a cloud&#39;s drifting shadow covering many tiles simultaneously.</div><br /><div>20. If a million people use a Web site simultaneously, doesn&#39;t that mean that we must have a heavy-duty remote server to keep them all happy? No; we could move the site onto a million desktops and use the internet for coordination. The &quot;site&quot; is like a military unit in the field, the general moving with his troops (or like a hockey team in constant swarming motion). (We used essentially this technique to build the first tuple space implementations. They seemed to depend on a shared server, but the server was an illusion; there was no server, just a swarm of clients.) Could Amazon.com be an itinerant horde instead of a fixed Central Command Post? Yes.&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #00bf00; ">Conclusion(gp):</span>&#0160;Complete mediation provides the underpinning for Saltzer and Schroeder&#39;s system, but does not appear to scale to the desired itinerant horde at least in common interpretation.</div><br /><div>**</div><br /><div><span style="color: #bf5f00; ">Saltzer and Schroeder:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;d) Open design: The design should not be secret. The mechanisms should not depend on the ignorance of potential attackers, but rather on the possession of specific, more easily protected, keys or passwords. This decoupling of protection mechanisms from protection keys permits the mechanisms to be examined by many reviewers without concern that the review may itself compromise the safeguards. In addition, any skeptical user may be allowed to convince himself that the system he is about to use is adequate for his purpose. Finally, it is simply not realistic to attempt to maintain secrecy for any system which receives wide distribution.&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #00bf00; ">Conclusion(gp):</span>&#0160;both seem to agree, hard to get the itinerant horde moving in a swarm without open standards.</div><br /><div>**</div><br /><div><span style="color: #bf5f00; ">Saltzer and Schroeder:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;e) Separation of privilege: Where feasible, a protection mechanism that requires two keys to unlock it is more robust and flexible than one that allows access to the presenter of only a single key. The relevance of this observation to computer systems was pointed out by R. Needham in 1973. The reason is that, once the mechanism is locked, the two keys can be physically separated and distinct programs, organizations, or individuals made responsible for them. From then on, no single accident, deception, or breach of trust is sufficient to compromise the protected information. This principle is often used in bank safe-deposit boxes. It is also at work in the defense system that fires a nuclear weapon only if two different people both give the correct command. In a computer system, separated keys apply to any situation in which two or more conditions must be met before access should be permitted. For example, systems providing user-extendible protected data types usually depend on separation of privilege for their implementation.&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #0060bf; ">Gelernter:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;37. Elements stored in a mind do not have names and are not organized into folders; are retrieved not by name or folder but by contents. (Hear a voice, think of a face: you&#39;ve retrieved a memory that contains the voice as one component.) You can see everything in your memory from the standpoint of past, present and future. Using a file cabinet, you classify information when you put it in; minds classify information when it is taken out. (Yesterday afternoon at four you stood with Natasha on Fifth Avenue in the rain — as you might recall when you are thinking about &quot;Fifth Avenue,&quot; &quot;rain,&quot; &quot;Natasha&quot; or many other things. But you attached no such labels to the memory when you acquired it. The classification happened retrospectively.)&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #00bf00; ">Conclusion(gp):</span>&#0160;Information Security models tend to look at things statically through information classification lenses, but its how information is used that makes it valuable. In practice this is how information security theory breaks down in the face of reality - what does an access control matrix look like for a mashup? What does it look like for a data mining app?</div><br /><div>**</div><br /><div><span style="color: #bf5f00; ">Saltzer and Schroeder:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;f) Least privilege: Every program and every user of the system should operate using the least set of privileges necessary to complete the job. Primarily, this principle limits the damage that can result from an accident or error. It also reduces the number of potential interactions among privileged programs to the minimum for correct operation, so that unintentional, unwanted, or improper uses of privilege are less likely to occur. Thus, if a question arises related to misuse of a privilege, the number of programs that must be audited is minimized. Put another way, if a mechanism can provide &quot;firewalls,&quot; the principle of least privilege provides a rationale for where to install the firewalls. The military security rule of &quot;need-to-know&quot; is an example of this principle.&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #0060bf; ">Gelernter:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;28. Metaphors have a profound effect on computing: the file-cabinet metaphor traps us in a &quot;passive&quot; instead of &quot;active&quot; view of information management that is fundamentally wrong for computers.</div><br /><div>29. The rigid file and directory system you are stuck with on your Mac or PC was designed by programmers for programmers — and is still a good system for programmers. It is no good for non-programmers. It never was, and was never intended to be.</div><br /><div>30. If you have three pet dogs, give them names. If you have 10,000 head of cattle, don&#39;t bother. Nowadays the idea of giving a name to every file on your computer is ridiculous.&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #00bf00; ">Conclusion(gp):</span>&#0160;Least Privilege is the point where the practical matter of applying Saltzer and Schroeder&#39;s principles breaks down in modern systems. Its a deployment issue, and a matter of insufficient models and modes.</div><br /><div>**</div><br /><div><span style="color: #bf5f00; ">Saltzer and Schroeder:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;g) Least common mechanism: Minimize the amount of mechanism common to more than one user and depended on by all users [28]. Every shared mechanism (especially one involving shared variables) represents a potential information path between users and must be designed with great care to be sure it does not unintentionally compromise security. Further, any mechanism serving all users must be certified to the satisfaction of every user, a job presumably harder than satisfying only one or a few users. For example, given the choice of implementing a new function as a supervisor procedure shared by all users or as a library procedure that can be handled as though it were the user&#39;s own, choose the latter course. Then, if one or a few users are not satisfied with the level of certification of the function, they can provide a substitute or not use it at all. Either way, they can avoid being harmed by a mistake in it.&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #0060bf; ">Gelernter:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;6. Miniaturization was the big theme in the first age of computers: rising power, falling prices, computers for everybody. Theme of the Second Age now approaching: computing transcends computers. Information travels through a sea of anonymous, interchangeable computers like a breeze through tall grass. A dekstop computer is a scooped-out hole in the beach where information from the Cybersphere wells up like seawater.</div><br /><div>16. The future is dense with computers. They will hang around everywhere in lush growths like Spanish moss. They will swarm like locusts. But a swarm is not merely a big crowd. The individuals in the swarm lose their identities. The computers that make up this global swarm will blend together into the seamless substance of the Cybersphere. Within the swarm, individual computers will be as anonymous as molecules of air.</div><br /><div>55. Software can solve hard problems in two ways: by algorithm or by making connections — by delivering the problem to exactly the right human problem-solver. The second technique is just as powerful as the first, but so far we have ignored it.</div><br /><div>56. Lifestreams and microcosms are the two most important cyberbody types; they relate to each other as a single musical line relates to a single chord. The stream is a &quot;moment in space,&quot; the microcosm a moment in time.&quot;</div><br /><div>**</div><br /><div><span style="color: #bf5f00; ">Saltzer and Schroeder:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;h) Psychological acceptability: It is essential that the human interface be designed for ease of use, so that users routinely and automatically apply the protection mechanisms correctly. Also, to the extent that the user&#39;s mental image of his protection goals matches the mechanisms he must use, mistakes will be minimized. If he must translate his image of his protection needs into a radically different specification language, he will make errors.&quot;</div><br /><div><span style="color: #0060bf; ">Gelernter:</span><br /></div><div>&quot;7. &quot;The network is the computer&quot; — yes; but we&#39;re less interested in computers all the time. The real topic in astronomy is the cosmos, not telescopes. The real topic in computing is the Cybersphere and the cyberstructures in it, not the computers we use as telescopes and tuners.</div><br /><div>27. Modern computing is based on an analogy between computers and file cabinets that is fundamentally wrong and affects nearly every move we make. (We store &quot;files&quot; on disks, write &quot;records,&quot; organize files into &quot;folders&quot; — file-cabinet language.) Computers are fundamentally unlike file cabinets because they can take action.</div><br /><div>31. Our standard policy on file names has far-reaching consequences: doesn&#39;t merely force us to make up names where no name is called for; also imposes strong limits on our handling of an important class of documents — ones that arrive from the outside world. A newly-arrived email message (for example) can&#39;t stand on its own as a separate document — can&#39;t show up alongside other files in searches, sit by itself on the desktop, be opened or printed independently; it has no name, so it must be buried on arrival inside some existing file (the mail file) that does have a name. The same holds for incoming photos and faxes, Web bookmarks, scanned images...</div><br /><div>32. You shouldn&#39;t have to put files in directories. The directories should reach out and take them. If a file belongs in six directories, all six should reach out and grab it automatically, simultaneously.</div><br /><div>33. A file should be allowed to have no name, one name or many names. Many files should be allowed to share one name. A file should be allowed to be in no directory, one directory, or many directories. Many files should be allowed to share one directory. Of these eight possibilities, only three are legal and the other five are banned — for no good reason.</div><br /><div>53. Your car, your school, your company and yourself are all one-track vehicles moving forward through time, and they will each leave a stream-shaped cyberbody (like an aircraft&#39;s contrail) behind them as they go. These vapor-trails of crystallized experience will represent our first concrete answer to a hard question: what is a company, a university, any sort of ongoing organization or institution, if its staff and customers and owners can all change, its buildings be bulldozed, its site relocated — what&#39;s left? What is it? The answer: a lifestream in cyberspace.&quot;</div><br /><br /><div>**</div><div style="color: #00bf00; ">Conclusion(gp):</div><br /><div>The Saltzer and Schroeder principles of Open Design and Economy of Mechanism hold up well in the face of modern computing realities, and to a certain extent Fail Safe Defaults does as well; however if we information security people are to be effective we need to re-think the other principles.</div><br /><div>**</div><br /><div>Last word:&#0160;<span style="color: #0060bf; ">Gelernter:</span></div><div>We&#39;ll know the system is working when a butterfly wanders into the in-box and (a few wingbeats later) flutters out — and in that brief interval the system has transcribed the creature&#39;s appearance and analyzed its way of moving, and the real butterfly leaves a shadow-butterfly behind. Some time soon afterward you&#39;ll be examining some tedious electronic document and a cyber-butterfly will appear at the bottom left corner of your screen (maybe a Hamearis lucina) and pause there, briefly hiding the text (and showing its neatly-folded rusty-chocolate wings like Victorian paisley, with orange eyespots) — and moments later will have crossed the screen and be gone.</div>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/protection mechanisms">protection mechanisms</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/protection mechanisms correctly">protection mechanisms correctly</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/information security">information security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/information">information</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/implements protection mechanisms">implements protection mechanisms</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/information travels">information travels</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/information security people">information security people</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/protection">protection</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/potential information path">potential information path</category>
      <source url="http://1raindrop.typepad.com/1_raindrop/2008/06/mashup-of-the-titans.html">Mashup of the Titans</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Successful 802.1X Every Time]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/31c561f94756b4a64cf6425397c85c5b</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/31c561f94756b4a64cf6425397c85c5b</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Its not rocket science, but any time we mingle and intertwine four or five different pieces of technology, theres always the potential for a mess or at least a misconfiguration or two along the way....]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not rocket science, but any time we mingle and intertwine four or five different pieces of technology, there&#8217;s always the potential for a mess&#8230; or at least a misconfiguration or two along the way. Don&#8217;t know what 802.1X is? Check out the recent <a href="http://www.securityuncorked.com/security-uncorked/2008/4/2/what-is-8021x-heres-a-technology-primer-for-you.html" target="_blank">802.1X technology primer</a>. </p><p><strong>If you&#8217;re planning to, or are&nbsp;implementing wired&nbsp;802.1X, wireless security&nbsp;and/or NAC</strong>, the contents of this blog <em>may</em> save you hours of time and trouble. </p><p>Throughout the implementations I&#8217;ve done, for both wired and wireless 802.1X, I&#8217;ve developed a procedure for implementing and testing 802.1X each step of the way. Following these steps my seem to be tedious and unnecessarily time-consuming. But, if&nbsp; you&#8217;re just starting with 802.1X, I&#8217;m offering a way to implement it in phased pieces that will give you the information to test, confirm and troubleshoot at each step. </p><p>To be honest, I frequently skip these steps, but I&#8217;ve done many 802.1X implementations and can <em>usually</em> hit the bullseye the first time (unless there&#8217;s buggy software or firmware- <em>you guys know who you are</em>). But, if something doesn&#8217;t work, I start right back at Number 1 here and I follow this procedure. </p><p><strong>1) Configure wired 802.1X</strong><br />First setup the basic wired 802.1X. Ideally, start with a Windows test, using XP SP3 or a later server edition and PEAP. Provision RADIUS, I recommend Microsoft IAS because it&#8217;s well-documented and well supported. Even if you have other future plans, if you&#8217;re using Active Directory, start with IAS. You&#8217;ll need to setup a test RADIUS group and policy and link to AD. Get a test switch, add it as a RADIUS client, and configure it to talk to your RADIUS. Set up some ports for 1X and enable it on the switch. I recommend testing with PEAP as the authentication method and a Windows credential pass-thru. <em>Note- you&#8217;ll need to create a server certificate to use PEAP- a self-signed Microsoft cert is fine.</em> </p><p>If this simple configuration doesn&#8217;t work, you have some troubleshooting options. <strong>First</strong>, view the system events log in the RADIUS/AD server and look for informational events from IAS. If the authentication request is making it from the client -&gt; switch -&gt; RADIUS, you&#8217;ll see something here. The something you see should tell you if the EAP method is mismatched, or if the credentials were wrong, etc. <strong>Your second</strong> line of troubleshooting comes if you don&#8217;t see any RADIUS log activity. If that happens, throw on a packet capture utility like <a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://www.wireshark.org/" target="_blank">Wireshark</a>. You want to search for 2&nbsp;things. First look for conversations from your Test Switch to the RADIUS server (filter on IP or MACs). If you see something here, see where the conversation drops off. If that comes up empty, it means the conversation is terminated between the Test Switch and Test Client. I have some neat tricks for troubleshooting I&#8217;ll share with you later. </p><p style="margin-right: 0px"><strong>2) Add in Wireless<br /></strong>If you&#8217;re planning to implement 802.1X for wireless, now is the time to throw 802.11 in the mix. It&#8217;s harder to sniff wireless traffic for troubleshooting, which is why I recommend starting with wired 1X. Keep it simple, and then start layering. Once you have the wired 1X configured, all you need to do is get your AP ready and configure it just as you did your switch- add it as a RADIUS client and configure it to talk to RADIUS. For wireless, you&#8217;ll need to configure encryption also. Note, I recommend (for testing) to begin with your primary VLAN. </p><p>If your wireless 802.1X isn&#8217;t working, follow our troubleshooting above and re-check settings based on the RADIUS event log contents. If nothing is making it to RADIUS, then most likely something is misconfigured in your AP/Controller and the AP isn&#8217;t communicating with the RADIUS server. You know the rest of it&#8217;s working (RADIUS, AD, Client) so you can narrow your troubleshooting scope. Once that&#8217;s working you can stop if wireless is your goal, or keep going if you&#8217;re layering on more security.</p><p style="margin-right: 0px"><strong>3) Replace with Custom Pieces</strong><br />If you&#8217;re planning to use a different RADIUS server or&nbsp;a different supplicant, now would be a good time to start swapping out our vanilla configuration with custom pieces. Replace 1 piece at a time and re-test. </p><p style="margin-right: 0px"><strong>4) Add in NAC or Endpoint Integrity</strong><br />Most NAC or EI solutions will integrate with your 802.1X infrastructure (if you want them to) and can be &#8216;consulted&#8217; prior to authenticating and opening the secured port. My suggestion is to always get 1X working 100% before you add any type of integrity or compliance testing. </p><p style="margin-right: 0px">If you follow these steps, you can turn a complex configuration into a set of simple baby-steps. It may sound stupid, but I promise it&#8217;ll work for you every time!</p><p style="margin-right: 0px"># # #</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/test radius">test radius</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/radius">radius</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/radius log activity">radius log activity</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/test">test</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/radius client">radius client</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/test client">test client</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/time">time</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/radius server">radius server</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/test switch">test switch</category>
      <source url="http://www.securityuncorked.com/security-uncorked/2008/6/20/successful-8021x-every-time.html">Successful 802.1X Every Time</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Toshiba notebook protects itself with faces]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/f994b2c0b52dbc2b9a48d253ae701d81</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/f994b2c0b52dbc2b9a48d253ae701d81</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[It's not just fingerprints -- the shape, contours and lines of your face are also as unique as you are. Toshiba Corp.'s Face Recognition software (which is available as a standard feature on the...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[It's not just fingerprints -- the shape, contours and lines of your face are also as unique as you are. Toshiba Corp.'s Face Recognition software (which is available as a standard feature on the Satellite Pro U400, M300, A300 and P300 models) attempts to replace tedious passwords and uncertain finger swipes with identification gleaned from images of you smiling at your computer's webcam.]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/uncertain finger swipes">uncertain finger swipes</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/satellite pro u400">satellite pro u400</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/replace tedious passwords">replace tedious passwords</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/recognition software">recognition software</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/toshiba corp">toshiba corp</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/standard feature">standard feature</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/p300 models">p300 models</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/contours">contours</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fingerprints">fingerprints</category>
      <source url="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/052308-toshiba-notebook-protects-itself-with.html?fsrc=rss-security">Toshiba notebook protects itself with faces</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Wee-Fi: General Commuter-Fi, Microsoft Bus-Fi, Nikon S52c]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/86c751230072c6e3823a2e160b8a6528</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/86c751230072c6e3823a2e160b8a6528</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Wi-Fi Planet runs down transit-based Internet access around the world: There's a lot to choose to write about these days, as Internet access using Wi-Fi for end users and cellular data networks for...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://wifinetnews.com/images/weefi.jpg" align="right" border="0" hspace="5" /><a href="http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3739746"><strong>Wi-Fi Planet runs down transit-based Internet access around the world:</strong></a> There's a lot to choose to write about these days, as Internet access using Wi-Fi for end users and cellular data networks for backhaul abound. The article notes that commuter vehicle Wi-Fi can serve three purposes: access for passengers, intra-vehicle communication among systems, and remote surveillance in case of emergencies or security issues. The King County Metro System (called Metro by those of us here in King County) has Wi-Fi on a variety of buses, and seems to be gradually expanding service.</p>

<p><a href="http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/136153.asp"><strong>Microsoft expands its commuter bus system:</strong></a> The Wi-Fi equipped buses will grow to handle 4,600 riders a day from the current 1,800. A good friend will now have a 5-block walk from his Seattle home instead of a sort of impossible bus commute or a tedious daily drive. Microsoft was late to the game of offering free bus service to its employees, and thus their expansion must indicate that the increase in productivity and other goals are being met. The company told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that 2,500 of the 4,300 employees who have so far used the system for a total of 130,000 rides were single-occupant car drivers.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-Camera/26104/COOLPIX%20S52c.html"><strong>Nikon's new Coolpix S52c pairs 9 megapixel images, Flickr, Wi-Fi:</strong></a> The $300 camera, shipping in a few weeks, has a 9 MP sensor, 3x optical zoom, and vibration reduction and stabilization. The camera's internal Wi-Fi works with a local network, where it transfers photos to a computer, which then can upload them to their own online service, Picturetown, or it can "email" photos (sending low-resolution images that the companies tend to forgot to give you the specs on how low resolution) at hotspots. The camera comes with six months of T-Mobile service. Pictures can be transferred to Flickr and social-networking sites via a feature at Picturetown.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/wi-fi planet runs">wi-fi planet runs</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/wi-fi">wi-fi</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/internal wi-fi">internal wi-fi</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/system">system</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/commuter bus system">commuter bus system</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/service">service</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/online service">online service</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/commuter vehicle wi-fi">commuter vehicle wi-fi</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/free bus service">free bus service</category>
      <source url="http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008270.html">Wee-Fi: General Commuter-Fi, Microsoft Bus-Fi, Nikon S52c</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Virtualization and security - are we missing the wood for the trees?]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/9b32a4222f8ef6628f3995981d02a3db</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/9b32a4222f8ef6628f3995981d02a3db</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I've sat through a number of presentations and sessions about security and virtualization in recent times and can't help thinking that people are falling into the old trap of going after the possible...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I've sat through a number of presentations and sessions about security and virtualization in recent times and can't help thinking that people are falling into the old trap of going after the possible rather than the probable.</p>

<p>Most discussions I've seen around security and virtualization center around subtle threats to the hypervisor layer, and whether its possible to jump from one virtual machine to another. Then there are the circular discussions about whether its provably more secure to perform AV and intrusion inspection from inside the virtual machine, or have the host perform all the functions.</p>

<p>All pretty tedious if you ask me. I reckon we've some much bigger problems in a virtual world.</p>

<p>Isn't it more of a problem that in a virtual world its harder to keep track of what business activities happen where? Isn't the patch and vulnerability management process exponentially more complex when you're instantiating and destroying virtual machines left right and center? How do you determine what risks you're introducing if you move a virtual machine from one place to another? How do we track all this and demonstrate it to our friendly auditors when they come a-knocking?</p>

<p>I reckon we need to elevate the level of conversation to talk about the real risk consequences of virtualization, and what it does to the security business model. </p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, we do need to consider these more subtle virtualization threats, but rather than talking about them in isolation, we can incorporate them into wider conversation. This can then include the slew of new deployment, implementationm and licensing options virtualization introduces for security services, and devise a more business oriented way to establish who does what, where, and when for optimal security and cost.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:05:40 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security">security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/virtualization">virtualization</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security business model">security business model</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/options virtualization introduces">options virtualization introduces</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/subtle virtualization threats">subtle virtualization threats</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/business">business</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security services">security services</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/virtual machine">virtual machine</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/virtualization center">virtualization center</category>
      <source url="http://blogs.forrester.com/srm/2008/03/virtualization.html">Virtualization and security - are we missing the wood for the trees?</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[WCU server "hacked several times" since 2006]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/0392ea590b4558ead40890faf5a96af5</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/0392ea590b4558ead40890faf5a96af5</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Technorati Tag: Security Breach

Date Reported
3/23/08

Organization
Western Carolina University

Contractor/Consultant/Branch
Department of Business Computer Information Systems and Economics
...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[Technorati Tag: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/security+breach" rel="tag">Security Breach</a><br><br>
<img src="http://breachblog.com/images/95781-88451/wcu.jpg" align="right" height="73" width="192"><font size="2"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Date Reported: </span><br>3/23/08<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Organization: </span><br><a href="http://www.wcu.edu/">Western Carolina University</a> <br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Contractor/Consultant/Branch:</span><br>Department of Business Computer Information Systems and Economics<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Victims:</span><br>Graduates<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Number Affected:</span><br>555<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Types of Data:</span><br>Social Security numbers and other personally identifiable data<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Breach Description:</span><br>"Someone had hacked into a computer and had access to the Social Security numbers of 555 graduates of Western Carolina University who had signed up for a newsletter."<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Reference URL:</span><br><a href="http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080323/NEWS01/80322062">Asheville Citizen-Times</a> <br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Report Credit:</span><br>Carol Motsinger, Asheville Citizen-Times<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Response:</span><br>From the online source cited above:<br><br>Someone had hacked into a computer and had access to the Social Security numbers of 555 graduates of Western Carolina University who had signed up for a newsletter.<br><span style="font-style: italic;">[Evan] What?&nbsp; Give me your Social Security number, and I'll give you a newsletter?</span><br><br>WCU officials discovered the breach while trying to track down and eliminate private information on unsecure computer servers<br><span style="font-style: italic;">[Evan] WCU deserves some credit for going through their systems like this.&nbsp; This is something that should be done semi-annually, and never less than annually.</span><br><br>The compromised information was on a computer server managed by the Department of Business Computer Information Systems and Economics. And it was hacked several times, as long ago as 2006, said Bil Stahl, chief information officer at WCU.<br><span style="font-style: italic;">[Evan] Ouch!&nbsp; Several times since 2006 is bad news.&nbsp; See my note above.</span><br><br>"We know the data was taken off the server, but we don’t have any evidence that their data was used," he said.<br><br>Social Security numbers were included in the stolen information because up until last fall, campuses in the University of North Carolina system could use those digits as student identification numbers. While the practice was stopped then, old data on servers remains vulnerable.<br><br>The private information was immediately removed from the compromised server and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is now handling the case.<br><br>Letters informing effected alumni of the security breach were also sent quickly, Stahl said.<br><br>Despite the breach, Stahl said WCU has "very robust security."<br><span style="font-style: italic;">[Evan] Really?&nbsp; I guess it depends on your definition of "very robust security".&nbsp; How does a server get hacked several times over the course of a year or so and not get detected?&nbsp; I think intrusion detection, logging, log management, penetration testing, and audits should all be added to the "very robust security" program (among other things).</span><br><br>"We haven’t had any problems on our secure servers," he said. The compromised information was stored on an unsecure server that is normally used for sharing class notes and assignments.<br><span style="font-style: italic;">[Evan] Are the "secure servers" and the "unsecure" servers using the same security domain and centralized authentication (i.e. Windows domain)?&nbsp; If so, then the "secure servers" are likely "unsecure" too.</span><br><br>The biggest challenge facing WCU is not keeping computer criminals out: It’s finding all the Social Security numbers that are stored in documents on unsecured servers.<br>&nbsp;<br>"Most servers are secure," Stahl said. "We manage more than 150 servers, but they are secure."<br><span style="font-style: italic;">[Evan] 150 servers is not too many to run them all as "secure servers".</span><br><br>WCU is currently mounting a twofold attack. It is combing computers for Social Security numbers used for student identification. If the school doesn’t need the numbers, they are deleted. If the numbers are needed, they are placed on a secure server, Stahl said.<br><br>The school is using software that finds nine-digit numbers in documents.<br><br>However, "there is no easy way to determine whether it’s a Social Security number or not," Stahl said. "You literally have to look at every nine-digit number."<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Remarks from an affected alumnus, Wesley Todd</span><br>"The process is just tedious, having to take time out to verify that everything is still OK from my end and that my identity has not been stolen,"<br><br>"It’s just something that people worry about enough without the university creating more concern for us by not protecting our secured information." So far, Todd has "not found any credit issues,"<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Remarks from an alumnus, Tom Fisher</span><br>"the most important thing any company, school or government entity can do after a security breach and/or data leak is notify the victims and potential victims."<br><br>"not at all surprised that the event actually occurred."<br><br>"Data breaches like this are like car accidents - you might not see one every day, but they are happening many times a day all across the country. All you can do is wear your seatbelt and hope it doesn’t happen to you."<br><span style="font-style: italic;">[Evan] Sad, but true.&nbsp; The analogy seems to fit.&nbsp; Just like road fatalities we know that we can't completely eliminate them, but we never stop trying to make the roads safer.&nbsp; Understanding this, our job is to reduce the frequency and number of incidents as much as possible.&nbsp; Today there are still WAY TOO MANY breaches affecting WAY TOO MANY people.&nbsp; Many of these breaches could/should have been easily avoided.</span><br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Commentary:</span><br>The fact that a server was compromised several times without detection is hard to explain away.&nbsp; Some people may claim that the compromise was detected, but in my opinion it was not.&nbsp; Stumbling upon a breach is not the same as detection.<br><br>I understand the challenge that WCU faces in trying to find Social Security numbers (and other confidential information) in all of the data they possess.&nbsp; This is a challenge facing thousands of companies and organizations throughout the world.&nbsp; Too many of these companies ignore that fact that data management is an issue and just continue to "throw more disk" at the problem rather than organize, manage, and secure.&nbsp; The longer the problem exists without attention, the worse the problem gets. <br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Past Breaches:</span><br>Unknown</font><br><br>
<script src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Es/breachblog?i=http://breachblog.com/2008/03/25/wcu.aspx" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></script>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:54:16 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/server">server</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/servers remains vulnerable">servers remains vulnerable</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/servers">servers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/secure servers">secure servers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/computer server">computer server</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/wcu">wcu</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/social security">social security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/unsecure server">unsecure server</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/times">times</category>
      <source url="http://breachblog.com/2008/03/26/wcu.aspx">WCU server "hacked several times" since 2006</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Pay attention to the basics]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/bb7e05dd8e0d8e415926e6c0cf53ca2b</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/bb7e05dd8e0d8e415926e6c0cf53ca2b</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[The basics are not always sexy and they are often viewed as mundane and tedious. But they are essential components in a strong network...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[The basics are not always sexy and they are often viewed as mundane and tedious.  But they are essential components in a strong network defense.]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:42:58 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/strong network defense">strong network defense</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/essential components">essential components</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/basics">basics</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/mundane">mundane</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tedious">tedious</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/sexy">sexy</category>
      <source url="http://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/security/adventures/archives/pay-attention-to-the-basics-22508">Pay attention to the basics</source>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
