SteveJ-restore-test

There's an 800-lb Gorilla in Internet Security that nobody discusses or acknowledges: If Governments decide to apply their Technical and Military Intelligence skills to the Internet, not only won't we know, we won't be able to do anything about it. Talking to a friend recently, off the top of my head I outlined 4 levels of Internet attackers/exploits (highest level/most competent at the top): [4] National Military and Commercial Intelligence: surveillance, espionage, counter-espionage, targeted cyber-attack. [3] Commercial Espionage and "Exploit as a business": Exploits and SPAM as a Service, botnets, Credit Card and Identity trading. [2] small-scale, "hobbyist" and semi-professional technical creators. Some sales to level [3]. [1] script-kiddies, Internet "graffiti"/vanity attackers, customers of level [3]. These levels may or may not be "official" and may not be complete. But they are roughly right. 2004 was a watershed year: The Ha...

A new Internet Security report for July-Dec 2011 from M86 is out: " New M86 Security Labs Report Reveals Spread of Malware Growing via Social Media, Targeted Attacks and Exploit Kits " [ PDF ] It triggered a thought that first occurred to me during the "No Internet Censorship" campaign: The perfect place for those wanting to hide illegal activities is "within the network", to work as Admins for Internet Providers. They can monitor, avoid and intercept Law Enforcement etc. requests and respond in many subtle ways. This thought arose after two rather disconcerting incidents for me: A TV documentary on Internet Porn mentioned the officers have to view these images and that it can lead to desensitisation over time, and an unprovoked personal attack within an Admin's forum by a "security professional" upon an individual. Sexually explicit language was used and that the language went unremarked by the entire forum was gob-smacking for me.  We als...

In 2006 I looked at the Microsoft Annual Report and thought "I've seen this before, their market is being taken by newer 'substitutes'. They'll hit a 'financial pothole' within 5 years, give or take." Well, that hasn't happened, so my prediction was wrong . [Update 17-Feb 2012: Forbes has a piece on Microsoft's aliments, "The Wal-Mart disease". Very few companies [7%] recover after a "growth stall" and 70% lose more than half their (share) value. It isn't "game over" for Microsoft, but they are in deep trouble without any sign of effective corrective action by Management or the Board. Kodak management destroyed $31B in value in just 15 years, will Microsoft beat that?] What's happened is that despite massive attempts to the contrary, the Microsoft share price has languished for a decade or more. Sales and Revenues continue to grow, but not strongly and due to the 2007/8 Global Financial Crisis, they even w...

Another interesting piece from Business Insider: " Apple's iPhone Business Alone Is Now Bigger Than All Of Microsoft ". Steve Ballmer can't be a happy man... His competitor that almost died, but they helped save, looks like it's "done an end-run" around their business and is trouncing him convincingly. Microsoft has in the past used a "last to Market, then beat the leaders" approach [think of the abandonment Microsoft Network and the Internet turn-around, where Internet Explorer was purchased and bundled "for free"]. That's worked for the PC market, but I can't see it working in the smartphone/consumer product market. MSFT invented and owned the smart-phone market for nearly a decade with Windows-CE. HP produced their Win-CE device which morphed over time into a phone. First to beat Win-CE was Blackberry. Within 5 years iPhone has not only reduced Win-CE/descendants to irrelevance (modulo the Win-8/Nokia deal), a complete out...