Connect with us

Uncategorized

Perimeter Security Focus Leaves Strategic Business Assets Vulnerable To Cyberattack

Published

on

That nagging feeling of discomfort awakening you in the middle of the night won’t be resolved by fluffing your pillow. Not if your angst stems from the suspicion that the big bucks your organization has been spending on security may not be securing the right stuff.

However, that’s precisely the shocking conclusion of a 110-company survey, conducted by IDG Research’s CSO Custom Solutions Group and sponsored by Oracle ORCL -1.91%. “Most IT security resources in today’s enterprise are allocated to protecting network assets, even though the majority of enterprises believe a database security breach would be the greatest risk to their business,” according to the report.

What grabbed my attention isn’t any sort of charge that IT organizations are neglecting security. Far from it. The valuable service this report is providing is that it’s telling us to step back from our relentless efforts to enhance security, stop for a minute, and think about just what it is that we’re doing.

That pause for reflection spotlights the fact that the majority of everyone’s efforts for the past several years—or, at minimum, the public discussion—have centered on endpoint security. That’s completely understandable in light of the opening of BYOD floodgates.  Tablets, smartphones, sensors, and the Internet of Things (IoT) have created a kind of low-level panic about the need to secure corporate networks against those 50 billion devices that’ll be connected to the internet in a few years’ time.  As Oracle chief communications officer Bob Evans put it (I’m paraphrasing from this post): Will the explosion of devices transform your company, or kill it?

Flipping the Focus

Implementing “An Inside-Out Approach to Enterprise Security,” as the report is titled, is the way to embrace that transformation. Of course perimeter security is necessary. But, as it warns, in our zeal to plug virtual holes in the network dike, we sometimes lose focus on the importance of securing our business’s crown jewels. As in, securing the database. That’s where you keep your business’s most vital information—the information on your customers.

“The results of the survey show that the gap between the threat of severe damage to a database attack versus the resources allocated to protecting the database layer is significant, highlighting the disconnect in how organizations are securing their IT infrastructures,” Tom Schmidt, managing editor at CSO Custom Solutions Group, said in the press release spotlighting the report.

Schmidt’s quote illuminates whence the report’s focus—and title—arose. Inside-out security means protecting data at its source.  As the report puts it: “Security teams are leaving the enterprise vulnerable to attacks from inside and attack vectors that bypass the perimeter. As such, there’s a growing imperative…to rebalance security resources to protect corporate information from the inside out.

The stats within the report show that, while there’s cause for concern, there’s also some good news. For example, nearly 66 percent of those surveyed already apply an “inside-out” security strategy. And 75 percent have either a good or excellent understanding of what data needs to be protected and why.

On the down side, the report argues that security spending doesn’t align with the database-protection imperative. “Two-thirds of IT security resources—including budget and staff time—remain allocated to protecting the network layer, with the remaining third split among applications (15%), databases (15%), and middleware (3%),” the report notes.

Internal Bad Guys

More bad news: “More than 4 in 10 respondents believe database and application data are inherently safe because they lie deep within the perimeter and therefore are more difficult to reach.” This is a dangerous assumption, the report says, pointing out all the internal users, sysadmins, and developers who have access to such apps. (This point/counterpoint begs the socially salient question as to what kind of person steals from the very employer that’s helping to put food on his or her family’s table.)

So where does this leave us? “IT security has to focus attention on the most strategic assets,” Mary Ann Davidson, Oracle chief security officer, said in the press release. “Organizations have to get the fundamentals right—which are database security, application security and identity management.”

What’s the most effective way to do that? From the perspective of Oracle and its customers, protection is available via database security products (here), identity management middleware (here), and access management (here).

Philosophically and operationally, the report prescribes a three-step approach to inside-out security:

  • Align business strategy with security strategy.
  • Revamp processes and privileges.
  • Design for scale. (Inconsistency is the enemy of a comprehensive security policy.)

source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/oracle/2013/07/16/perimeter-security-focus-leaves-strategic-business-assets-vulnerable-to-cyberattack/2/

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile Platforms

IOS APPS ON MACS? GEE, THAT FEELS FAMILIAR…

Published

on

By

Well, gang, it’s official: Cross-platform convergence is now both magical and revolutionary.

Apple, in case you haven’t heard, is taking a serious step toward bringing its mobile and desktop platforms together: At its annual Worldwide Developers Conference adjective-shouting extravaganza this week, the company announced a plan to let developers bring iOS apps onto MacOSstarting next year. So, yes: That means the Apple faithful will soon be able to run iPhone-like software on their regular ol’ keyboard-packin’ computers.

Pretty spiffy idea, right? Mobile software, on the desktop! Just think of the possibilities. But wait: Why does something about this seem so eerily familiar?

Oh, right — because it’s exactly what we’ve been watching take shape with Android and Chrome OS over the past several years.

Now, before you grab the nearest suit of armor and novelty foam sword, hang on: I’m not here to play a game of “Who Did It First?” Let’s be honest: That kind of talk is pretty tired at this point. Some years, Apple borrows heavily from Google; some years, Google borrows heavily from Apple. Sometimes, the inspiration-lifting is for the better, and sometimes, it’s for the worse. I’m not an intellectual rights attorney (thank goodness) — and from a normal user’s perspective, the arguments over who copied whom are equal parts boring and irrelevant.

What I do want to discuss is how much Apple’s move validates the approach Google’s been pursuing for some time now — and, at the same time, how its implementation of the idea is both similar and simultaneously different.

Let’s jump in, shall we?

Apple, Google, and the tale of converging platforms

We’ll start with Google. The move to bring Android apps to Chrome OS began in earnest in 2016. (Yes, the work technically started two years earlier, with the beta-wearing “App Runtime” project — but that was basically just a test, with significant limitations and nothing even close to a polished or mainstream-ready experience.)

For Google, the notion of bringing two platforms together was nothing short of transformational. Chromebooks had traditionally been cloud-centric computers — a model that provided some enticing advantagesover traditional PCs but required you to rely mostly on web-based software like Google Docs and Office Online. Realistically, that sort of setup was more than sufficient for the vast majority of modern-day computer users, but it also left a fair number of gaps in what a Chromebook was able to do.

By allowing anyone to install and run almost any Android app while still maintaining Chrome OS’s security, simplicity, and speed-related advantages, Google accomplished several significant things: First, it redefined a Chromebook’s possibilities and limitations, making the devices more compelling and feature-complete for an even broader array of users. (On a smaller and much more specifically targeted scale, the current move to allow Linux apps on Chrome OS serves a similar purpose.)

Beyond that, it essentially created a whole new category of device — the Chromebook/Android mashup. That’s something we’ve seen progress considerably over the past couple years, as the hardware has slowly caught up with the software and convertible Chromebooks have effectively become the new Android tablets.

And last but not least, it created an ecosystem like no other. Developers could build and publish a single app and have it be available to the world’s largest mobile platform and the world’s increasingly dominant desktop computing environment. As long as the apps are built with responsive design and with a handful of form-specific optimizations in mind, it’s a single, streamlined process with minimal extra effort involved.

Significant as those first two points may be, we can’t underestimate the value of that last one — the ecosystem expansion. Remember, Chromebooks are hugely popular, particularly in schools. And developers tend to go where the users are. For the first time, Google could actually overcome its chicken-and-egg problem and have an existing audience that’d entice developers to craft large-screen-optimized apps — apps that, by their very definition, would straddle the lines of two overlapping ecosystems and benefit Android and Chrome OS alike.

Apple’s approach is a bit different. Unlike Chromebooks, Macs already run traditional desktop software. Unlike Google, Apple already has a successful tablet platform. And unlike Google, Apple doesn’t currently offer touch-enabled Macs — another one of those classic “it doesn’t work” declarations from Steve Jobs, way back when — and even if the company does eventually come around to rethinking that stance, it doesn’t seem likely that it’d look to phase out or de-emphasize the iPad anytime soon.

What Apple does share with Google, however, is the ecosystem part of the equation. Apple is all about the ecosystem, in fact, and it has been for a very long time. Google is the relative newcomer to that kind of focus.

So Apple, like Google, stands to benefit by aligning its platforms (a familiar phrase, no?) and making them more similar from a user’s perspective. It’s no secret that people adore their iPhones and the apps associated with them. Making MacOS follow iOS’s lead in some ways and allowing users to run familiar mobile apps within it will make the Mac feel more consistent and connected with the iPhone — and thus could make it more appealing both to current users and also perhaps to those who don’t presently own a traditional laptop or desktop computer.

Apple, like Google, could also benefit from energizing its desktop software ecosystem and giving developers added incentive to focus on that form. It may not be entirely comparable to Google’s Chrome OS situation, but the idea that development on the desktop side of Apple’s ecosystem is stagnating compared to the mobile side is a pretty common theme of discussion these days. Bringing iOS-like apps onto Macs could go a long way in reversing that view.

Perhaps most critically, aligning the ecosystems provides yet another piece of ammo for the famous “lock-in” weapon: You’ve got the environment you know and love and the apps you know and love on your iPhone and/or iPad — and now on your Mac, too. Just like Google is aiming to accomplish with Android phones and Chromebooks, our investments in these ecosystems are more expansive than ever — which, of course, means we’re more likely than ever to stick with whichever ecosystem we choose and continue to buy its associated products year after year.

Interestingly, Apple and Google also share the same persistent view from pundits that “the two platforms must be combined!” — a view that no level of adamant denial or ongoing evidence to the contrary seems able to extinguish.

Converging platforms, diverging paths

One thing the two companies don’t fully share is the specific approach to bringing mobile apps onto the desktop. Google, fitting with its general ethos, has established a bit of a free-for-all with Android apps on Chrome OS: By default (unless a developer explicitly disallows it or an app is inherently incompatible due to hardware requirements), most any Android app can be installed on a Chromebook. The Play Store you get on a Chromebook is quite literally the same Play Store you get on a phone.

So everyone is in, more or less — and it’s then up to each developer to optimize an app and make it excel in the large-screen, keyboard-and-trackpad-using form. Or not. Most apps work well enough on a Chromebook out of the box, and in some scenarios, it’s clear a developer went the extra mile to really make the experience shine. Either way, you can find plenty of useful titles that add meaningful value to the Chrome OS environment.

But you can also find plenty of apps that clearly weren’t made to run on that type of hardware — where even the most minimal amount of effort is painfully lacking — and those apps, while technically compatible with a Chromebook, are incredibly awkward and unpleasant to use. (Hi, Instagram!)

From the sounds of it, Apple is taking the exact opposite approach: The door will be closed by default — and the MacOS-iOS collection will consist only of apps optimized for the traditional computer form. That’s why Apple is releasing only its own iOS apps for the Mac to start and will be working with developers to optimize their apps for the desktop over the months ahead.

“There are millions of iOS apps out there, and some of them would be great on the Mac,” Apple Chief Shirt Unbuttoner Craig Federighi noted during yesterday’s announcement. The emphasis there is mine, but the message is clear: The entire App Store won’t — and, in Apple’s view, shouldn’t — be coming to the desktop.

Apples and oranges

So which approach is better — Apple’s or Google’s? The reality is that each seems to have its own set of pros and cons, and it’s tough to label either one as a definitive “winner.” Google’s implementation brings a massive number of new applications into the desktop environment and then puts the onus on the developers to make the experiences shine. The result, as we’ve established, is a bit of a mixed bag: You have tons of possibilities, many of which are valuable (with or sometimes even without form-specific optimizations) — but you also have apps that are just plain clumsy and out of place.

Apple appears poised to offer a more strictly curated selection of apps, allowing only those with form-specific optimizations into the mix. That should create a more consistent level of quality and experience, which is obviously a good thing, but it’ll also mean some apps that might be more mobile-specific and not likely to be optimized probably won’t become available.

Who cares? Well, consider one example: Apps like Netflix and YouTube are readily available via the web and don’t seem like the types of titles that’d receive the full desktop optimization effort or the Apple stamp of “great on the Mac” approval. But running the mobile apps on the desktop gives you the unique advantage of being able to download videos from those respective services for offline viewing — a handy little loophole crafty Chromebook users have certainly come to appreciate.

When you stop and think about it, the differences here are very much analogous to the differences in the two companies’ broader approaches to mobile app distribution: With Apple, you get a more closely controlled selection, which forces developers to comply more closely with guidelines and (in theory, at least) creates a more consistent experience. With Android, the less closely controlled gates mean more variance in the level of experience within — but that also means the door is open to more advanced and interesting types of creations that wouldn’t make their way past Apple’s gatekeepers.

I think most reasonable people would agree that Google could stand to gain some of Apple’s quality control and ability to get developers to follow its lead, while Apple could stand to loosen things up at least a little and allow some different types of tools into its closely walled garden.

Neither scenario is perfect, but both serve to accomplish the same goal — one that, in this wild new cross-platform world, seems both sensible and inevitable, regardless of which ecosystem you prefer.

 

 

 

 

Source: Computer World

Continue Reading

CEO's

WHY THESE 9 CEOS BELONG ON THE WORLD’S GREATEST LEADERS LIST

Published

on

In our current culture, CEOs arguably command more power than respect. You can blame that in part on the light-speed exchange of information in the digital era. As Fortune‘s Geoff Colvin writes in the introduction to this year’s World’s Greatest Leaders list, “Easier access to information for customers, competitors, and others causes industry dominance to change more quickly, corporate life spans to decline, and executive tenures to shorten.” What’s more, unflattering news goes viral in an instant.

Nonetheless, year after year there are chief executives whose impact, not just on their own companies but on the world around them, is so significant that they deserve to rank among the greats. Our annual leader list spans politics, the arts, activism, sports and the nonprofit world, but each year, many business figures shine in this particular galaxy. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is one of only two people who have made all four editions of our list. (The other is Pope Francis.)

Here are nine private-sector CEOs who made Fortune‘s 2017 list. (For the rest of the list, click here.)

Continue Reading

Tech News

JOSE MOURINHO DISMISSES CONCERNS OVER MARCUS RASHFORD’S DEVELOPMENT

Published

on

Jose Mourinho has played down concerns over Marcus Rashford’s lack of game-time at Manchester United as the World Cup approaches.

Rashford has not started a league match for United, who face Crystal Palace on MNF, live on Sky Sports Premier League, since Boxing Day and has found his first-team opportunities limited following the arrival of Alexis Sanchez.

However, Mourinho insists Rashford remains firmly part of his plans at Old Trafford and he expects the 20-year-old to be part of Gareth Southgate’s squad in Russia.

“No, I don’t reassure anyone,” Mourinho said. “The main reassurance for him is that he is always selected.

Mourinho insists Rashford is a key part of his squad at Old Trafford
Mourinho insists Rashford is a key part of his squad at Old Trafford
“There is not one single match when Marcus is not selected to start or to be on the bench. When I see you sometimes put in doubt if he is going to be selected for the World Cup or not be selected.

“You know, if the national coach trusts him, he selects him. It doesn’t matter if he plays or doesn’t play.

“There are many examples of players who don’t play for their clubs at all and they go to the national teams.

Gary Neville insists Marcus Rashford is firmly in Jose Mourinho’s plans at Man Utd and that it is normal for a young player to come in and out of the side.
“You have the example of (Sergio) Romero, who is the second goalkeeper at Manchester United and the first goalkeeper for such an amazing football country like Argentina.

“In your own country, you have examples of players who play even without scoring a goal in the Premier League.

“So, it’s up to Gareth Southgate. If he trusts him, he selects him. It doesn’t matter if he plays or if he doesn’t play for Manchester United.”

Rashford burst onto the scene with a series of crucial goals during the 2015-16 season under Louis van Gaal, and the England international cemented his place in the United first-team with a solid campaign last season in which he scored 11 goals for the club.

“At his age, what he’s doing is more than enough and the experience he’s getting at every level is more than enough for us to be happy with what we think is going to be his future,” Mourinho said. “It’s as simple as that.

“But because he had such an impact at the beginning, probably people expect him to play even more than he does and score even more than he does and perform even more than what he does but it is not so simple.

The 20-year-old is expected to be part of England’s squad for the upcoming World Cup in Russia
The 20-year-old is expected to be part of England’s squad for the upcoming World Cup in Russia
“What I see makes me really happy, to see the same boy. When you ask me about (Scott) McTominay, I spoke about McTominay as a boy before he was a player and Marcus is the same.

“What will keep them in the right direction, what will make them have that stability to improve is what they are as boys. And Marcus is a fantastic boy,b also very grounded.

“For sure, we love him, and we believe in him, and he’s going to have the chances.”

 

 

Source: http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/11276870/jose-mourinho-dismisses-concerns-over-marcus-rashfords-development

 

 

Continue Reading

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 675 other subscribers

Advertisement

Trending

%d bloggers like this: