We make it simple in my organization, unless it is a malicious site or other security related category (e.g. anonymizers), HR owns who can surf what, as it is more of a time management issue than an IT issue.
Definitely check out WGU. I earned my M.S. in Information Security and Assurance, my wife earned her Post-Baccalaureate in Elementary Education, and my sister earned her B.S. in Marketing Management. I've had numerous employees enroll with WGU after having been made aware of it. They are non-profit costing the student only ~$3,000 per six-month term and is regionally accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, one of the major accrediting commissions recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Moreover, the College of Information Technology has "slip-streamed" industry certifications into their programs (pass the cert test, pass the class)... fantastic!
It is simple... users contribute simply by using... which increases demand. Without demand, there would be no product. Thus, by someone using an open-source product, they are contributing to the demand. The higher the demand, the more opportunity for said product to evolve.
Linux by itself is just the kernel. The distributors (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Gentoo, etc..) choose different software packages to include in their releases, but by no means does the Linux kernel block software developers from providing host based intrusion detection/prevention solutions, and even if it did.... developers have the ability to make kernel patches if necessary. The source code is released for the public to use and expand on.
As far as Apple's MacOS, they have a similar build to most distributions of Linux. The kernel is based on the Mach "drop-in" replacement for the traditional UNIX kernel, as well as BSD implementation of UNIX. After the kernel is developed, a lot of the "OS" is then built from popular *nix packages as well as many proprietary Apple software... call it a hybrid if you will.
With Microsoft, everything is closed source and behind locked doors. If they shut out software companies from providing host based security solutions to the general population, you can be sure that there will be a lawsuit. The vendors have no choice other than to work with MS on this (and I don't see how MS has a choice either), because "black hat" techniques would only break the software in the future, as MS releases patches to its OS to close these holes.
Providing Microsoft decides not to provide a better means for other software companies to run security products within Vista, I'm sure a large law suit will develop within the near future... in which case, MS will be handing over a good chunk of change... seems they always lose.
If they were smart, they would turn it into a way for them to make money. License the "technology" (for a "small" fee of course) to the software vendors so that they can attempt to provide a security solution.
I agree. The Mozilla project if I am not mistaken is funded by Netscape. With Firefox being big in the browser erra, why not put the money back into the Firefox project and continue improvements on it, rather than dumping money into another release of Netscape.
Slashdot Mirror
We make it simple in my organization, unless it is a malicious site or other security related category (e.g. anonymizers), HR owns who can surf what, as it is more of a time management issue than an IT issue.
Definitely check out WGU. I earned my M.S. in Information Security and Assurance, my wife earned her Post-Baccalaureate in Elementary Education, and my sister earned her B.S. in Marketing Management. I've had numerous employees enroll with WGU after having been made aware of it. They are non-profit costing the student only ~$3,000 per six-month term and is regionally accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, one of the major accrediting commissions recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Moreover, the College of Information Technology has "slip-streamed" industry certifications into their programs (pass the cert test, pass the class)... fantastic!
It is simple... users contribute simply by using... which increases demand. Without demand, there would be no product. Thus, by someone using an open-source product, they are contributing to the demand. The higher the demand, the more opportunity for said product to evolve.
Linux by itself is just the kernel. The distributors (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Gentoo, etc..) choose different software packages to include in their releases, but by no means does the Linux kernel block software developers from providing host based intrusion detection/prevention solutions, and even if it did.... developers have the ability to make kernel patches if necessary. The source code is released for the public to use and expand on.
As far as Apple's MacOS, they have a similar build to most distributions of Linux. The kernel is based on the Mach "drop-in" replacement for the traditional UNIX kernel, as well as BSD implementation of UNIX. After the kernel is developed, a lot of the "OS" is then built from popular *nix packages as well as many proprietary Apple software... call it a hybrid if you will.
With Microsoft, everything is closed source and behind locked doors. If they shut out software companies from providing host based security solutions to the general population, you can be sure that there will be a lawsuit. The vendors have no choice other than to work with MS on this (and I don't see how MS has a choice either), because "black hat" techniques would only break the software in the future, as MS releases patches to its OS to close these holes.
Providing Microsoft decides not to provide a better means for other software companies to run security products within Vista, I'm sure a large law suit will develop within the near future... in which case, MS will be handing over a good chunk of change... seems they always lose.
If they were smart, they would turn it into a way for them to make money. License the "technology" (for a "small" fee of course) to the software vendors so that they can attempt to provide a security solution.
agreed...
I agree. The Mozilla project if I am not mistaken is funded by Netscape. With Firefox being big in the browser erra, why not put the money back into the Firefox project and continue improvements on it, rather than dumping money into another release of Netscape.