I'm type-O, drink beer, have been known to not wear socks, I almost NEVER get bitten. People around me get eaten alive and I almost never have to swat. It isn't soap, cologne or laundry detergent, its something else.
They blew us off. We had been (what we thought as) high profile customers ever since it was Security Dynamics (15 years?) and RSA took FOREVER to tell us if soft tokens were impacted. After reading Coviello's response. I'm glad we moved to another solution.
Why would you allow someone to store their data on your machine? On top of that its encrypted?
A) You have no idea what they are storing in your house.
B) You have no idea where your data is being stored and if it got accessed.
...then the intersections and cameras would be labeled with giant signs saying "Red Light Camera HERE!!". Instead the cameras (at least in MD) are in nondescript boxes.
Clearly the goal is to maximize revenue and deter (not stop) red light runners.
You are missing the point. It isn't the cost of the disk (which is ridiculously cheap), it is the cost of the data. If you don't allow people to put their files on a server, the data isn't going to stop existing. Users are going to keep it local and last I checked, most organizations do not backup local machines.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm type-O, drink beer, have been known to not wear socks, I almost NEVER get bitten. People around me get eaten alive and I almost never have to swat. It isn't soap, cologne or laundry detergent, its something else.
Yes, and it was classified. The mind boggles. What other deep secrets are they hiding? A good recipe for Pud Thai?
it says right in the footer "UNCLASSIFIED"
They blew us off. We had been (what we thought as) high profile customers ever since it was Security Dynamics (15 years?) and RSA took FOREVER to tell us if soft tokens were impacted. After reading Coviello's response. I'm glad we moved to another solution.
I agree. Your network doesn't need to talk to the world and more importantly, you don't need the world to talk to your network.
Why would you allow someone to store their data on your machine? On top of that its encrypted? A) You have no idea what they are storing in your house. B) You have no idea where your data is being stored and if it got accessed.
http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp
...then the intersections and cameras would be labeled with giant signs saying "Red Light Camera HERE!!". Instead the cameras (at least in MD) are in nondescript boxes. Clearly the goal is to maximize revenue and deter (not stop) red light runners.
You are missing the point. It isn't the cost of the disk (which is ridiculously cheap), it is the cost of the data. If you don't allow people to put their files on a server, the data isn't going to stop existing. Users are going to keep it local and last I checked, most organizations do not backup local machines.
www.grandchallenge.org will have live tracking (dots moving on the screen) all day tomorrow, they will not be hosting any live video.
He was a DAREDEVIL!! [emphasis required]