Network security tops federal IT execs’ concerns, survey says; Interop panel: Is network management irrelevant?; Can you cut it as an IT consultant?; Data-intense, design-simple graphics; Don’t blame VoIP for Vonage’s belly-flop
Needed: less more-of-the-same
Regarding “Network security tops federal IT execs’ concerns, survey says”: We continue to watch new security products evolve as enhancements for intrusion detection, spyware, viruses and access control. We can secure data transfers, we can provide intrusion detection, and we can control accesses, but what do we do to secure content for its entire lifecycle? I’m not talking about tracking data lifecycle but actually controlling the security aspects of content through to its demise.
We, as an industry, find ourselves in a perpetual cycle of “more of the same” security enhancements that continue to address the same five problems: access control, intrusion, spyware, viruses and hacking. Little or no enhanced solutions address major issues such as insider trust and what happens to the content after it is decrypted. Also, what about the growing administrative cost and complexity associated with network security caused by the increase in the number of users, different types of content and increased volumes of data? In order to address these questions, we need a paradigm shift.
Before we talk about a paradigm shift, why is the industry stuck in this cycle of more-of-the-same enhancements? My answer is that we are stuck in the “status quo” approach where nothing new is tried outside the boundaries of standards groups and that the standards groups lag technology by as much as five years.
This applies to network-centric security and centralized security controls, but how would security be affected if the content becomes “smart” and self-governing? This is just what Network Data Security (NDS) is doing. NDS modifies all forms of content to contain and execute on its own security controls and these security controls include logical behavior elements. The result of NDS’s security methodologies is “content-centric” security, where the content self-governs its use and self-authenticates both the source and the user. In addition, the content knows who, how, where, and when it is to be used (behaviors).
This means that the content controls who can view it, who can sign it, who can save it, who can copy it, and how it is to be archived or destroyed (self-destructs). Because the industry has no standards for NDS’s self-governing content-centric security, NDS will become the leader to form a standard. In the meantime, NDS is spinning out specific companies to target high-value applications under exclusive licenses.
R. Ellington Smith
Seattle
Remote monitoring is key to future
Regarding “Interop panel: Is network management irrelevant?”: The equipment and software vendors must work together with the companies that provide the monitoring and management tools. Maybe it takes a smart, young company to teach the old dog new tricks. SilverBack is actively involved in working with our partners, end users and more importantly many leading industry vendors in changing the way devices are monitored and managed. We will be announcing an industry-changing program in the next couple of weeks that will revolutionize the managed services industry.
SilverBack has experience in actively working with our managed services partners who manage over 4,000 end-user IT and security infrastructures and we see the problem of runaway network management every day. Vendors must make a concentrated effort to change they way the design and build products. Vendors must understand that remote monitoring and remediation is the way of the future; if their devices cannot be serviced remotely, they will not survive in the new world.
Jim Hare
Vice president of business development
SilverBack Technologies
Billerica, Mass.
Happy consultant
Regarding “Can you cut it as an IT consultant?”: I left corporate IT three months ago. I really like being an IT consultant, but as the article says, there is a whole new set of challenges, such as bringing in new clients. But it’s all well worth it, and there are financial rewards that were not possible in corporate IT.
Val Clark
IT consultant
The CFO Group
Reno, Nev.
Vision quest
Regarding Mark Gibbs’ Gearhead column, “Data-intense, design-simple graphics”, in which he discusses sparklines: Cool isn’t always best. Before everyone goes off charging down this path, consider the demographics of the audience your material is targeted at. There is an aging population whose eyesight isn’t the best, and then of course people with other disabilities regardless of age. I’d like to hear from some people specializing in the needs of those with disabilities, especially vision and cognitive problems, before deciding sparklines is the way to go.
For those considering sparklines for businesses, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and World Wide Web Consortium guidelines should be considered.
Laurie Bride
Fall City, Wash.
Vonage fan
Regarding Johna Till Johnson’s column, “Don’t blame VoIP for Vonage’s belly-flop” : I have been an extremely satisfied Vonage customer for more than two years. As usual with any corporate customer support group, you have to get through several layers of script-reading support personnel, then you can actually talk with someone who knows the technology. Outside of two calls in those two years, the phone service and quality has been outstanding. The calls are as clear as my company’s VoIP and I have had no connectivity problems outside of an occasional ISP issue (those were forwarded as expected to my cell). It would be nice to have reviewers actually try the service before using others’ name-calling techniques.
Kevin Smith
Colorado Springs, Colo.
