The TNS Group is a leading technology services company located in Stamford, CT committed to delivering IT innovation and excellence!
Friday, May 9, 2014
Meet The Man Who Invented The Browser Tab
Joseph Bernstein | BuzzFeed
Adam Stiles recalls 'the first tab' and how he came to create the atomic unit of internet navigation.
In the summer of 1997, a 25-year-old Pasadena software developer named Adam Stiles started working on a new web browser in his spare time. On January 4 of the following year, when Stiles published SimulBrowse, the first users would have noticed a peculiar feature at the bottom of the browser window: small grey boxes, each corresponding to a different webpage, which could be toggled between by clicking.
Those boxes were the first browser tabs, the now-standard unit of internet navigation.
SimulBrowse - which Stiles would soon change to NetCaptor and run until 2005 - was the first tabbed web browser in the contemporary sense. And it wasn't an evolutionary hiccup; it was directly responsible for the incorporation of the tabbed browsing standard into Mozilla in 2002; after that, the time of the tab was nigh.
The tab has had a profound influence on the way we experience the web. Its creation has directly contributed to the internet's collective attention problem and obsession with multi-tasking. Not only has the tab changed the way humans experience and organize the internet, it has changed the vernacular. The tab has rendered the term "webpage" quaint and, in some circles, has acquired its own loaded meaning (not to mention its own newsletter) as a unit of thoroughly dispensable and or aggravating content. BuzzFeed asked Stiles, now the CTO of the mobile commerce startup Tap Theory, about his role as the Father of the Tab.
Did you have an "aha!" moment, when you realized that tabbed browsing would be a good thing to put in NetCaptor?
Adam Stiles: NetCaptor (originally SimulBrowse) was built from the beginning to be a tabbed browser. The HTML editor I was using at the time (HomeSite) had tabs, so I was used to flipping between a bunch of HTML documents. I wanted the same thing in my browser, so I built it. At first it was just an experiment to see if I could do it.
Were there any major technical challenges inherent to adding tab functionality? Can you, in layman's terms, explain the process of adding tabs to a web browser?
Technically I didn't add tabs to a web browser - I built a web browser with tabs that embedded the Microsoft HTML rendering engine on each tab. There's no way a single developer could do this part-time if Microsoft hadn’t made it easy to embed the rendering engine from their browser in other applications. I focused most of my time on the user experience and "chrome" like toolbars, menus, tabs, and didn’t have to think much about how to render HTML. Things only got really complicated when I was implementing ad blocking, popup blocking, phishing detection, etc.
Do you remember what the first two tabs were?
I have no idea which the first two tabs would have been, though I was a big Slashdot.org fan, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was one of them.
Did you have any inkling when you made the tabbed browser that the feature would become so ubiquitous?
I don't think I did. I also didn't have any idea that it would become my full-time job from 1999 to 2004, and that it would fund my next startup.
Did you have a moment when you realized that the feature you invented was in fact becoming a standard?
I don't remember a specific moment, because it took many years (1997 through 2005 or so). There were IE-shells like NetCaptor, then Mozilla/Firefox, followed by Opera, Safari and IE.
Do you see any downsides to tabbed browsing, particularly the way we use it today? Other than the obvious, how do you think tabbed browsing has changed the way we use the internet?
I think tabbed browsing gets out of control when users don't have good bookmarking systems. I have friends who end up with 50 tabs open at a time. They want to return to a given page at some later date, but don't have a good method of saving those for later or remembering to return. On mobile, that's solved reasonably well with apps like Instapaper and Pocket. But on desktop, that problem doesn't seem to be solved. Bookmarking systems can feel to heavy or permanent. And if you have been around a while, you know bookmarking apps tend to come and go (ie Delicious and Kippt).
I wonder if you feel any sense of responsibility or ownership, good or bad, about the culture of tab proliferation that you described? Do you have any personal feelings about it?
I feel entirely neutral about it. Tabbed browsers are just tools. You can use them well, or you can use them poorly. Chrome is now my favorite browser, and I have a reasonable number of tabs open. I don’t have a personal problem with tab proliferation. If I did, maybe I'd try to solve that too.
Are you aware of the use of 'tab' as a slang for a disposable unit of internet content? Like, an annoying article or piece of grist for the discussion mill?
I've never heard it used that way - but I guess it makes sense. But the idea of disposable content makes sense - people want to keep tabs open so they can remember to visit or take action later, but not to go so far as to bookmark a site. And so for many, tabs are used as ephemeral containers of pages they may need later.
Do you wish you'd gotten more credit for the creation of tabbed browsing?
If you'd asked me ten years ago, I probably would have been sad that I didn't get more credit for it, or that I didn’t make more money off the idea. But now, so many years later, I realize that if I hadn't done it, someone else would have built a tabbed browser, probably around the same time. So "tabbed browsing" is a fun part of my story, but I have no regrets.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Will Investors Regret Target's CEO Ouster? Compare to Sears, JCP
Forbes | Adam Hartung
There was much press this week about Target's CEO and Chairman, Gregg Steinhafel, being forced out. Blame reached the top job after the successful cyber attack on Target last year. But investors, and customers, may regret this somewhat Board level over-reaction to a mounting global problem. Cyber security is a problem for every company.
Richard Clark is probably the USA's foremost authority on cyber attacks. He was on America's National Security Council, and headed the counter-terrorism section. Since leaving government he has increasingly focused on cyber attacks, and advised corporations.
In early 2013 I met Mr. Clark after hearing him speak at a National Association of Corporate Directors meeting. He was surprisingly candid in his comments at the meeting, and after. He pointed out that EVERY company in America was being randomly targeted by cyber criminals, and that EVERY company would have an intrusion. He said it was impossible to do business without working on-line, and simultaneously it was impossible to think any company - of any size - could stop an attack from successfully getting into the company. The only questions one should focus on answering were "How fast can you discover the attack? How well can you contain it? What can you learn to at least stop that from happening again?"
Target was a crime victim, as can happen to any company. So, while the Target attack was large, and not discovered as early as anyone would like, to think that Target is in some way wildly poor at security or protecting its customers is simply naive. Several other large retailers have also had attacks, include Nieman Marcus and Michael's, and it was probably bad luck that Target was the first to have such a big problem happen, and at such a bad time, than anything particularly weak about Target.
We now know that all retailers are trying to learn from this, and every corporation is raising its awareness and actions to improve cyber security. But some company will be next. Target wasn't the first, and won't be the last. Companies everywhere, working with law enforcement, are all reacting to this new form of crime. So firing the CEO, 2 months after firing the CIO (Chief Information Officer), makes for good press, but it is more symbolic than meaningful. It won’t stop the hackers.
Investors and customers have a lot to lose given Target's competitive performance. Where this decision does have great importance is to shareholders and customers. Target has been a decent company for its constituents under this CEO, and done far better than some of its competitors. The share price has doubled in the last 5 years, and Target has proven a capable competitor to Wal-Mart while other retailers have been going out of business (Filene’s Basement, Circuit City, Linens & Things, Dots, etc.) or losing all relevancy (like Abercrombie and Fitch and Best Buy.) And Target has been at least holding its own while some chains have been closing stores like crazy (Radio Shack 1,100 stores, Family Dollar 370 stores, Office Depot 400 stores, etc.)
Just compare Target's performance to JCPenney, who's CEO was fired after screwing up the business far worse than the cyber attack hurt Target. And he was a former hero running Apple's retail stores.
Or, look at Sears Holdings. CEO Ed Lampert was heralded as a hero 6 years ago, but since then the company he leads has had 28 straight quarters of declining sales, and closed 305 stores since 2010. The Kmart division has become a complete non-competitor in discounting, and Sears has lost all relevancy as a chain as it has been outflanked on all sides. CEO Lampert has constantly whittled away at the company's value, and just this week told shareholders that they can simply plan on more store closings in the future.
And vaunted Wal-Mart is undergoing a federal investigation for bribing government officials in Mexico to prop up its business. Wal-Mart is constantly under attack by its employees for shady business practices, and this year lost a National Labor Relations Board case regarding its hours and pay practices. And Wal-Mart remains a lightning rod for controversy as it fights with big cities like Chicago and Washington, DC about its ability to open stores, while Target has flourished in communities large and small with work practices considered acceptable.
Finding a good replacement for Steinhafel will not be easy. CEO's and Boards of Directors, across the nation have been seriously addressing cyber security for the last couple of years. Awareness and protective measures, are up considerable. But there will be future attacks, and some will succeed. It is unclear blaming the CEO for these problems makes any sense - unless there is egregious incompetence.
Now finding a CEO that can grow a business like Target, in a tough retail market, is not easy.
The TNS Group
How Can I protect my business?
Contact The TNS Group to determine where your network is vulnerable to attack and we will recommend the best solution for your business.
Contact TNS today!
There was much press this week about Target's CEO and Chairman, Gregg Steinhafel, being forced out. Blame reached the top job after the successful cyber attack on Target last year. But investors, and customers, may regret this somewhat Board level over-reaction to a mounting global problem. Cyber security is a problem for every company.
Richard Clark is probably the USA's foremost authority on cyber attacks. He was on America's National Security Council, and headed the counter-terrorism section. Since leaving government he has increasingly focused on cyber attacks, and advised corporations.
In early 2013 I met Mr. Clark after hearing him speak at a National Association of Corporate Directors meeting. He was surprisingly candid in his comments at the meeting, and after. He pointed out that EVERY company in America was being randomly targeted by cyber criminals, and that EVERY company would have an intrusion. He said it was impossible to do business without working on-line, and simultaneously it was impossible to think any company - of any size - could stop an attack from successfully getting into the company. The only questions one should focus on answering were "How fast can you discover the attack? How well can you contain it? What can you learn to at least stop that from happening again?"
Target was a crime victim, as can happen to any company. So, while the Target attack was large, and not discovered as early as anyone would like, to think that Target is in some way wildly poor at security or protecting its customers is simply naive. Several other large retailers have also had attacks, include Nieman Marcus and Michael's, and it was probably bad luck that Target was the first to have such a big problem happen, and at such a bad time, than anything particularly weak about Target.
We now know that all retailers are trying to learn from this, and every corporation is raising its awareness and actions to improve cyber security. But some company will be next. Target wasn't the first, and won't be the last. Companies everywhere, working with law enforcement, are all reacting to this new form of crime. So firing the CEO, 2 months after firing the CIO (Chief Information Officer), makes for good press, but it is more symbolic than meaningful. It won’t stop the hackers.
Investors and customers have a lot to lose given Target's competitive performance. Where this decision does have great importance is to shareholders and customers. Target has been a decent company for its constituents under this CEO, and done far better than some of its competitors. The share price has doubled in the last 5 years, and Target has proven a capable competitor to Wal-Mart while other retailers have been going out of business (Filene’s Basement, Circuit City, Linens & Things, Dots, etc.) or losing all relevancy (like Abercrombie and Fitch and Best Buy.) And Target has been at least holding its own while some chains have been closing stores like crazy (Radio Shack 1,100 stores, Family Dollar 370 stores, Office Depot 400 stores, etc.)
Just compare Target's performance to JCPenney, who's CEO was fired after screwing up the business far worse than the cyber attack hurt Target. And he was a former hero running Apple's retail stores.
Or, look at Sears Holdings. CEO Ed Lampert was heralded as a hero 6 years ago, but since then the company he leads has had 28 straight quarters of declining sales, and closed 305 stores since 2010. The Kmart division has become a complete non-competitor in discounting, and Sears has lost all relevancy as a chain as it has been outflanked on all sides. CEO Lampert has constantly whittled away at the company's value, and just this week told shareholders that they can simply plan on more store closings in the future.
And vaunted Wal-Mart is undergoing a federal investigation for bribing government officials in Mexico to prop up its business. Wal-Mart is constantly under attack by its employees for shady business practices, and this year lost a National Labor Relations Board case regarding its hours and pay practices. And Wal-Mart remains a lightning rod for controversy as it fights with big cities like Chicago and Washington, DC about its ability to open stores, while Target has flourished in communities large and small with work practices considered acceptable.
Finding a good replacement for Steinhafel will not be easy. CEO's and Boards of Directors, across the nation have been seriously addressing cyber security for the last couple of years. Awareness and protective measures, are up considerable. But there will be future attacks, and some will succeed. It is unclear blaming the CEO for these problems makes any sense - unless there is egregious incompetence.
Now finding a CEO that can grow a business like Target, in a tough retail market, is not easy.
The TNS Group
How Can I protect my business?
Contact The TNS Group to determine where your network is vulnerable to attack and we will recommend the best solution for your business.
Contact TNS today!
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
What To Do About Windows XP And The IE Browser Flaw
By Roger Kay | forbes.com
Last week, I noted that the timing of the discovery of a major flaw in Microsoft Internet Explorer coming, as it did, three weeks after the company formally withdrew support for Windows XP (XP), the 13-year-old operating system (OS) that still runs on an estimated 300 million PCs worldwide - would likely drive a wave of upgrades.
Today, I am laying out the choice landscape for Windows users and recommending various alternatives based on different scenarios.
For those people stuck with XP - for economic, corporate policy, or other reasons - the best thing to do is switch to another browser, either Google Chrome or Mozilla's Firefox. I personally use Chrome.
Microsoft did issue an XP patch for the flaw, primarily because it is major (conferring admin rights on enterprising hackers), its effect is widespread (affecting the approximately 55% of the browser market that uses IE on all platforms), and exploits have occurred in the wild, notably the mysteriously named Operation Clandestine Fox, which seems to be targeting defense and financial organizations to gather "broad-spectrum" intelligence.
However, no one expects Microsoft to continue nursing Windows XP for much longer. Using stupid math, 55% of 300 million (XP users who browse with IE) represents 165 million highly vulnerable systems. So, the real choice for XP/IE users is get off IE or get off XP, with the former being a free, quick fix and the latter being a better long-term solution that costs money, potentially an entirely new system.
For those who can afford it, upgrading from XP to Windows 7 (Win7) or Windows 8 (Win8) is the right move, particularly if the user wants to keep using IE. Win7 is familiar, looking and acting a lot like XP. Win8 is better for systems with touchscreens. In general, Win7 is the right choice for commercial users, while Win8 may be better for consumers.
Whatever else they decide to do, people who use IE should download the patch, which is simple enough. Use Windows Update, which can be invoked from the Control Panel if it is not set to download and install patches automatically. By now, most users should have received a notification that the new bits are available. Once in Update, check everything that says Internet Explorer on it and follow the instructions.
Some users might want to take this moment to move from XP to an entirely different platform. Doing a zero-based assessment could yield a non-Microsoft recommendation. After all, if the upgrade involves buying new hardware, it's worth looking at the entire field. For example, if an individual or company can do all right with Google Docs, a switch to a Chromebook might be a good move. Chrome OS users store their data and do most of their computing in the cloud. Alternatively, Apple's ecosystem holds appeal for many, particularly consumers. Mac OS is robust, and Safari has not been plagued by the level of intrusion visited upon IE.
At this point, it is worth noting that all browsers are vulnerable, and that the main reason IE has been targeted more often is that most of the valuable data moving around the Internet is still coming from Windows systems with IE. That having been said, developers who work in all environments have noted that IE is more complex and brittle than other browsers, creating plenty of opportunities for exploiters.
To summarize, then, first off, install the patch; second, get off XP if possible; if not, get off IE; finally, while contemplating an upgrade, look at all the alternatives.
Last week, I noted that the timing of the discovery of a major flaw in Microsoft Internet Explorer coming, as it did, three weeks after the company formally withdrew support for Windows XP (XP), the 13-year-old operating system (OS) that still runs on an estimated 300 million PCs worldwide - would likely drive a wave of upgrades.
Today, I am laying out the choice landscape for Windows users and recommending various alternatives based on different scenarios.
For those people stuck with XP - for economic, corporate policy, or other reasons - the best thing to do is switch to another browser, either Google Chrome or Mozilla's Firefox. I personally use Chrome.
Microsoft did issue an XP patch for the flaw, primarily because it is major (conferring admin rights on enterprising hackers), its effect is widespread (affecting the approximately 55% of the browser market that uses IE on all platforms), and exploits have occurred in the wild, notably the mysteriously named Operation Clandestine Fox, which seems to be targeting defense and financial organizations to gather "broad-spectrum" intelligence.
However, no one expects Microsoft to continue nursing Windows XP for much longer. Using stupid math, 55% of 300 million (XP users who browse with IE) represents 165 million highly vulnerable systems. So, the real choice for XP/IE users is get off IE or get off XP, with the former being a free, quick fix and the latter being a better long-term solution that costs money, potentially an entirely new system.
For those who can afford it, upgrading from XP to Windows 7 (Win7) or Windows 8 (Win8) is the right move, particularly if the user wants to keep using IE. Win7 is familiar, looking and acting a lot like XP. Win8 is better for systems with touchscreens. In general, Win7 is the right choice for commercial users, while Win8 may be better for consumers.
Whatever else they decide to do, people who use IE should download the patch, which is simple enough. Use Windows Update, which can be invoked from the Control Panel if it is not set to download and install patches automatically. By now, most users should have received a notification that the new bits are available. Once in Update, check everything that says Internet Explorer on it and follow the instructions.
Some users might want to take this moment to move from XP to an entirely different platform. Doing a zero-based assessment could yield a non-Microsoft recommendation. After all, if the upgrade involves buying new hardware, it's worth looking at the entire field. For example, if an individual or company can do all right with Google Docs, a switch to a Chromebook might be a good move. Chrome OS users store their data and do most of their computing in the cloud. Alternatively, Apple's ecosystem holds appeal for many, particularly consumers. Mac OS is robust, and Safari has not been plagued by the level of intrusion visited upon IE.
At this point, it is worth noting that all browsers are vulnerable, and that the main reason IE has been targeted more often is that most of the valuable data moving around the Internet is still coming from Windows systems with IE. That having been said, developers who work in all environments have noted that IE is more complex and brittle than other browsers, creating plenty of opportunities for exploiters.
To summarize, then, first off, install the patch; second, get off XP if possible; if not, get off IE; finally, while contemplating an upgrade, look at all the alternatives.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
ATM malware, controlled by a text message, spews cash
The malware can cause a cash machine to start churning out bills
By Jeremy Kirk, IDG News Service
networkworld.com
IDG News Service - A group of enterprising cybercriminals have figured out how to get cash from a certain type of ATM -- by text message.
The latest development was spotted by security vendor Symantec, which has periodically written about a type of malicious software it calls "Ploutus" that first appeared in Mexico.
The malware is engineered to plunder a certain type of standalone ATM, which Symantec has not identified. The company obtained one of the ATMs to carry out a test of how Ploutus works, but it doesn't show a brand name.
Ploutus isn't the easiest piece of malware to install, as cybercriminals need to have access to the machine. That's probably why cybercriminals are targeting standalone ATMs, as it is easy to get access to all parts of the machine.
Early versions of Ploutus allowed it to be controlled via the numerical interface on an ATM or by an attached keyboard. But the latest version shows a remarkable new development: it is now controllable remotely via text message.
In this variation, the attackers manage to open up an ATM and attach a mobile phone, which acts as a controller, to a USB port inside the machine. The ATM also has to be infected with Ploutus.
"When the phone detects a new message under the required format, the mobile device will convert the message into a network packet and will forward it to the ATM through the USB cable," wrote Daniel Regalado, a Symantec malware analyst, in a blog post on Monday.
Ploutus has a network packet monitor that watches all traffic coming into the ATM, he wrote. When it detects a valid TCP or UDP packet from the phone, the module searches "for the number "5449610000583686 at a specific offset within the packet in order to process the whole package of data," he wrote.
It then reads the next 16 digits and uses that to generate a command line to control Ploutus.
So, why do this? Regalado wrote that it is more discrete and works nearly instantly. The past version of Ploutus required someone to either use a keyboard or enter a sequences of digits into the ATM keypad to fire up Ploutus. Both of those methods increase the amount of time someone spends in front of the machine, increasing the risk of detection.
Now, the ATM can be remotely triggered to dispense cash, allowing a "money mule," or someone hired to do the risky job of stopping by to pick up the cash, to swiftly grab their gains. It also deprives the money mule of information that could allow them to skim some cash off the top, Regalado wrote.
"The master criminal knows exactly how much the money mule will be getting," he wrote.
Symantec warned that about 95 percent of ATMs are still running Windows XP, Microsoft's 13-year-old OS. Microsoft is ending regular support for Windows XP on April 8, but is offering extended support for Windows XP embedded systems, used for point-of-sale devices and ATMs, through January 2016.
Still, Symantec warned that "the banking industry is facing a serious risk of cyberattacks aimed at their ATM fleet."
The IDG News Service is a Network World affiliate.
By Jeremy Kirk, IDG News Service
networkworld.com
IDG News Service - A group of enterprising cybercriminals have figured out how to get cash from a certain type of ATM -- by text message.
The latest development was spotted by security vendor Symantec, which has periodically written about a type of malicious software it calls "Ploutus" that first appeared in Mexico.
The malware is engineered to plunder a certain type of standalone ATM, which Symantec has not identified. The company obtained one of the ATMs to carry out a test of how Ploutus works, but it doesn't show a brand name.
Ploutus isn't the easiest piece of malware to install, as cybercriminals need to have access to the machine. That's probably why cybercriminals are targeting standalone ATMs, as it is easy to get access to all parts of the machine.
Early versions of Ploutus allowed it to be controlled via the numerical interface on an ATM or by an attached keyboard. But the latest version shows a remarkable new development: it is now controllable remotely via text message.
In this variation, the attackers manage to open up an ATM and attach a mobile phone, which acts as a controller, to a USB port inside the machine. The ATM also has to be infected with Ploutus.
"When the phone detects a new message under the required format, the mobile device will convert the message into a network packet and will forward it to the ATM through the USB cable," wrote Daniel Regalado, a Symantec malware analyst, in a blog post on Monday.
Ploutus has a network packet monitor that watches all traffic coming into the ATM, he wrote. When it detects a valid TCP or UDP packet from the phone, the module searches "for the number "5449610000583686 at a specific offset within the packet in order to process the whole package of data," he wrote.
It then reads the next 16 digits and uses that to generate a command line to control Ploutus.
So, why do this? Regalado wrote that it is more discrete and works nearly instantly. The past version of Ploutus required someone to either use a keyboard or enter a sequences of digits into the ATM keypad to fire up Ploutus. Both of those methods increase the amount of time someone spends in front of the machine, increasing the risk of detection.
Now, the ATM can be remotely triggered to dispense cash, allowing a "money mule," or someone hired to do the risky job of stopping by to pick up the cash, to swiftly grab their gains. It also deprives the money mule of information that could allow them to skim some cash off the top, Regalado wrote.
"The master criminal knows exactly how much the money mule will be getting," he wrote.
Symantec warned that about 95 percent of ATMs are still running Windows XP, Microsoft's 13-year-old OS. Microsoft is ending regular support for Windows XP on April 8, but is offering extended support for Windows XP embedded systems, used for point-of-sale devices and ATMs, through January 2016.
Still, Symantec warned that "the banking industry is facing a serious risk of cyberattacks aimed at their ATM fleet."
The IDG News Service is a Network World affiliate.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Google Encrypts All Gmail Connections
by Dennis Fisher | Threatpost.com
Perhaps no company has been as vocal with its feelings about the revelations about the NSA's collection methods as Google has, and the company has been making a series of changes to its infrastructure in recent months to make it more difficult for adversaries to snoop on users' sessions. The biggest of those changes landed Thursday when the company switched its Gmail service to HTTPS only, enforcing SSL encryption on all Gmail connections.
The change is a significant one, especially given the fact that Google also has encrypted all of the links between its data centers. Those two modifications mean that Gmail messages are encrypted from the time they leave a user's machine to the time they leave Google's infrastructure. This makes life much more difficult for anyone-including the NSA-who is trying to snoop on those Gmail sessions.
"Starting today, Gmail will always use an encrypted HTTPS connection when you check or send email. Gmail has supported HTTPS since the day it launched, and in 2010 we made HTTPS the default. Today's change means that no one can listen in on your messages as they go back and forth between you and Gmail's servers-no matter if you are using public WiFi or logging in from your computer, phone or tablet," Nicolas Lidzborski, Gmail Security Engineering Lead, wrote in a blog post.
"In addition, every single email message you send or receive-100 percent of them-is encrypted while moving internally. This ensures that your messages are safe not only when they move between you and Gmail's servers, but also as they move between Google's data centers-something we made a top priority after last summer's revelations."
Google was in the process of encrypting the links between its data centers last year before the news broke that the NSA had the ability to tap those links and gather email messages and other data. That revelation enraged Google security engineers, and the company accelerated its plans to encrypt the links between data centers.
Gmail users have had the option to enable HTTPS only as the default connection option for more than four years. But the typical user may not have known that option was available. Now, users don't need to think about it; they're connections to Gmail will always be encrypted by default.
Perhaps no company has been as vocal with its feelings about the revelations about the NSA's collection methods as Google has, and the company has been making a series of changes to its infrastructure in recent months to make it more difficult for adversaries to snoop on users' sessions. The biggest of those changes landed Thursday when the company switched its Gmail service to HTTPS only, enforcing SSL encryption on all Gmail connections.
The change is a significant one, especially given the fact that Google also has encrypted all of the links between its data centers. Those two modifications mean that Gmail messages are encrypted from the time they leave a user's machine to the time they leave Google's infrastructure. This makes life much more difficult for anyone-including the NSA-who is trying to snoop on those Gmail sessions.
"Starting today, Gmail will always use an encrypted HTTPS connection when you check or send email. Gmail has supported HTTPS since the day it launched, and in 2010 we made HTTPS the default. Today's change means that no one can listen in on your messages as they go back and forth between you and Gmail's servers-no matter if you are using public WiFi or logging in from your computer, phone or tablet," Nicolas Lidzborski, Gmail Security Engineering Lead, wrote in a blog post.
"In addition, every single email message you send or receive-100 percent of them-is encrypted while moving internally. This ensures that your messages are safe not only when they move between you and Gmail's servers, but also as they move between Google's data centers-something we made a top priority after last summer's revelations."
Google was in the process of encrypting the links between its data centers last year before the news broke that the NSA had the ability to tap those links and gather email messages and other data. That revelation enraged Google security engineers, and the company accelerated its plans to encrypt the links between data centers.
Gmail users have had the option to enable HTTPS only as the default connection option for more than four years. But the typical user may not have known that option was available. Now, users don't need to think about it; they're connections to Gmail will always be encrypted by default.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
XP End of Life is Coming...Is Your Business Prepared?
Microsoft is about to take Windows XP off Life Support
By Adrian Covert NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
On April 8, Windows XP's life is coming to an end. On that day, Microsoft will stop issuing security updates to the 12-year-old operating system, and it will end nearly all technical support as well.
You wouldn't think that killing off an operating system that debuted in the first year of the Bush administration would ruffle too many feathers. But an amazing 29% of computers across the globe are still running Windows XP, according to NetMarketShare. That makes it the world's second most widely used operating system, just behind Windows 7.
Microsoft's plan to end support for XP doesn't mean that a third of the world's PCs will just stop functioning on April 8. But there are some very real consequences of continuing to use the operating system.
After April 8, Windows XP computers will be more susceptible to malware and viruses beginning, since Microsoft will no longer address major holes in the software. Although antivirus software will continue to fend off some malicious attacks, Microsoft's security updates provide an essential line of defense.
For Windows XP users, the best course of action is to bite the bullet and buy a copy of Windows 8. The problem is that most older computers won't be able to upgrade to Windows 8. Many of those consumers will have to buy a new PC. Microsoft has an upgrade assistant allows people to determine whether their computers are compatible with the latest version of Windows.
For those who are able to upgrade but aren't ready to make the jump to the fully redesigned Windows 8, Windows 7 is an option. It's still on sale, offers a more familiar PC experience and will be supported until 2020.
The Windows XP impact will be felt more by companies than by consumers. Forrester Research estimates that 20% of North American and European corporate computers are still running Windows XP. But that will soon change: Forrester forecasts that only 6% of those companies' PCs will be running Windows XP by April.
That remaining 6% will predominately be small and medium-sized companies and government agencies, where budget restraints may pose a problem, according to Scott Dowling, a Microsoft software consultant for En Pointe Technologies. The vast majority of large Western businesses have already upgraded to Windows 7 or Windows 8, but small businesses have been slower at catching up.
In China, however, XP-related problems will likely be much more pronounced. About three-quarters of Chinese PCs are running XP, according to NetMarketShare.
Thousands of ATMs will also potentially be exposed after Microsoft ends Windows XP's life support. A recent Bloomberg Businessweek story revealed that 95% of ATMs in the US are still running Windows XP, and only about 15% of them will be upgraded before April 8.
ATMs have already proven vulnerable to malware attacks, and without Microsoft around to patch things up, it's going to be a slow, costly endeavor for ATM companies to get their machines updated or replaced. (It's worth noting that Microsoft has been warning them of this deadline for years.)
So why is Microsoft killing off Windows XP? The operating system has lasted far longer than Windows versions of the past, and patching the ancient-by-tech-standards OS is exhausting valuable Microsoft resources. Microsoft has pushed back the death date of XP for several years after initially planning to kill it off by 2010.
To soften the blow for its corporate and ATM customers, Microsoft will sell custom support that will allow companies to receive additional security patches. But Dowling have heard reports from customers that the cost of custom support is prohibitive.
For the rest of the world, it's time to get updating.
The TNS Group
What Other Options are Available for my Business?
Get current with Windows and Office and protect the operations and security of your business. This means updating your current system. Contact The TNS Group to learn how to eliminate risk and keep your business running efficiently.
Contact TNS today!
By Adrian Covert NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
On April 8, Windows XP's life is coming to an end. On that day, Microsoft will stop issuing security updates to the 12-year-old operating system, and it will end nearly all technical support as well.
You wouldn't think that killing off an operating system that debuted in the first year of the Bush administration would ruffle too many feathers. But an amazing 29% of computers across the globe are still running Windows XP, according to NetMarketShare. That makes it the world's second most widely used operating system, just behind Windows 7.
Microsoft's plan to end support for XP doesn't mean that a third of the world's PCs will just stop functioning on April 8. But there are some very real consequences of continuing to use the operating system.
After April 8, Windows XP computers will be more susceptible to malware and viruses beginning, since Microsoft will no longer address major holes in the software. Although antivirus software will continue to fend off some malicious attacks, Microsoft's security updates provide an essential line of defense.
For Windows XP users, the best course of action is to bite the bullet and buy a copy of Windows 8. The problem is that most older computers won't be able to upgrade to Windows 8. Many of those consumers will have to buy a new PC. Microsoft has an upgrade assistant allows people to determine whether their computers are compatible with the latest version of Windows.
For those who are able to upgrade but aren't ready to make the jump to the fully redesigned Windows 8, Windows 7 is an option. It's still on sale, offers a more familiar PC experience and will be supported until 2020.
The Windows XP impact will be felt more by companies than by consumers. Forrester Research estimates that 20% of North American and European corporate computers are still running Windows XP. But that will soon change: Forrester forecasts that only 6% of those companies' PCs will be running Windows XP by April.
That remaining 6% will predominately be small and medium-sized companies and government agencies, where budget restraints may pose a problem, according to Scott Dowling, a Microsoft software consultant for En Pointe Technologies. The vast majority of large Western businesses have already upgraded to Windows 7 or Windows 8, but small businesses have been slower at catching up.
In China, however, XP-related problems will likely be much more pronounced. About three-quarters of Chinese PCs are running XP, according to NetMarketShare.
Thousands of ATMs will also potentially be exposed after Microsoft ends Windows XP's life support. A recent Bloomberg Businessweek story revealed that 95% of ATMs in the US are still running Windows XP, and only about 15% of them will be upgraded before April 8.
ATMs have already proven vulnerable to malware attacks, and without Microsoft around to patch things up, it's going to be a slow, costly endeavor for ATM companies to get their machines updated or replaced. (It's worth noting that Microsoft has been warning them of this deadline for years.)
So why is Microsoft killing off Windows XP? The operating system has lasted far longer than Windows versions of the past, and patching the ancient-by-tech-standards OS is exhausting valuable Microsoft resources. Microsoft has pushed back the death date of XP for several years after initially planning to kill it off by 2010.
To soften the blow for its corporate and ATM customers, Microsoft will sell custom support that will allow companies to receive additional security patches. But Dowling have heard reports from customers that the cost of custom support is prohibitive.
For the rest of the world, it's time to get updating.
The TNS Group
What Other Options are Available for my Business?
Get current with Windows and Office and protect the operations and security of your business. This means updating your current system. Contact The TNS Group to learn how to eliminate risk and keep your business running efficiently.
Contact TNS today!
Thursday, March 6, 2014
How Technology Stole the Show at the Oscars
news.com.au March 14, 2014
Technology managed to weave itself into the storyline of the Oscars this year Oscars awards and became a star in the process.
THE 2014 Oscars was not only about awards, A-list movie stars, glamorous dresses and lots of shiny teeth. This year we saw technology steal the show.
If you did not notice, the integration of technology into this year's star-studded bash was as subtle as Leonardo Di Caprio performing a cameo in an am-dram play. But Hollywood does not do subtle. Despite a selfie being as much a talking point as the winning movies and actors, in many ways technology gave the night that little bit more dazzle.
From the first moments the movie stars hit the red carpet there was a 360-degree camera called Fashion Turn waiting for them to snap what they were wearing and instantly upload to Vine, the video clip sharing app on Twitter.
There was a mini cam (or, Mani Cam) for stars to show off their manicures and then there was blimp cam. This was a controlled, hovering craft fitted with a camera to give the worldwide audience a view of the red carpet.
If only the television network followed in the technological footsteps of cricket and brought out a heat-sensing camera too, then we really would have seen who was nervous.
A panel of presenters from entertainment channel E! were sat behind a perfectly-placed array of Samsung Galaxy tablets where Kelly Osbourne conveniently claimed her dad (Ozzy) was crazy about Samsung and only has Samsung stuff in their house. Hmm, really?
We seem to recall an episode of the Osbournes reality show where he could not even operate a kitchen drawer.
The tech-laden coverage continued as Oscar reporters haranguing stars as they filtered in constantly spoke of the multi-cast app and website so those not near a TV could watch the live event.
But the tech did not stop outside. It played a starring role in the whole awards show.
In years past we would have seen Billy Crystal stand at the pulpit, crack a few one-liners, shimmy out a segue and introduce people to the stage. With Ellen DeGeneres being this MC this year, she was interactive and slinging social media.
Throughout her hosting she constantly paraded around a bright white Samsung Galaxy Note 3, snapping selfies with stars as they sat. Then, with the now-very-obvious handset, she took a superstar selfie with Bradley Cooper, Meryl Streep, Brad Pit, Angelina Jolie, and Jennifer Lawrence. So many famous faces they could not all fit in. Ellen wanted to break the world record for the most retweets ever and when she uploaded it, it took the site down from the amount of people logging on to see it.
Needless to say she made history with the tweet and amassed more than two million retweets within hours, eclipsing the previous record holder, which as President Obama's victory speech image.
Cue the internet and within minutes there were memes-a-plenty of this selfie. Nicholas Cage faces Grumpy Cat, sports stars and awkward references to the failed Liza Minnelli photobomb attempt. We became so preoccupied with the flood of internet funnies we almost forgot about the show still going.
So social media was a star turn, but the award-winning movies themselves also waved the flag for technology.
Gravity is one of the biggest, most award-heavy movies this year. Its depiction of Sandra Bullock's survival against a space catastrophe was made doable thanks to the incredible CGI effects, which is why it took home the gong for best visual effects.
NASA was so excited about the inevitable flood of awards it posted 'real-life' Gravity-style pictures from the International Space Station on its Twitter feed throughout the day.
The award for best original screenplay went to Spike Jonze for Her - a story about a man falling in love with his operating system, which highlighted the assimilation human and machines could face in the future.
Google is just one tech company currently working on making the computing experience for humans and with the likes of the mobile phone personal assistant Siri and wearable tech slowly advancing onto our bodies, it's too far-fetched. Especially if it's voiced by Scarlett Johansson.
We've got another year to see how the tech stakes can be raised for the next Oscar awards.
Technology managed to weave itself into the storyline of the Oscars this year Oscars awards and became a star in the process.
THE 2014 Oscars was not only about awards, A-list movie stars, glamorous dresses and lots of shiny teeth. This year we saw technology steal the show.
If you did not notice, the integration of technology into this year's star-studded bash was as subtle as Leonardo Di Caprio performing a cameo in an am-dram play. But Hollywood does not do subtle. Despite a selfie being as much a talking point as the winning movies and actors, in many ways technology gave the night that little bit more dazzle.
From the first moments the movie stars hit the red carpet there was a 360-degree camera called Fashion Turn waiting for them to snap what they were wearing and instantly upload to Vine, the video clip sharing app on Twitter.
There was a mini cam (or, Mani Cam) for stars to show off their manicures and then there was blimp cam. This was a controlled, hovering craft fitted with a camera to give the worldwide audience a view of the red carpet.
If only the television network followed in the technological footsteps of cricket and brought out a heat-sensing camera too, then we really would have seen who was nervous.
A panel of presenters from entertainment channel E! were sat behind a perfectly-placed array of Samsung Galaxy tablets where Kelly Osbourne conveniently claimed her dad (Ozzy) was crazy about Samsung and only has Samsung stuff in their house. Hmm, really?
We seem to recall an episode of the Osbournes reality show where he could not even operate a kitchen drawer.
The tech-laden coverage continued as Oscar reporters haranguing stars as they filtered in constantly spoke of the multi-cast app and website so those not near a TV could watch the live event.
But the tech did not stop outside. It played a starring role in the whole awards show.
In years past we would have seen Billy Crystal stand at the pulpit, crack a few one-liners, shimmy out a segue and introduce people to the stage. With Ellen DeGeneres being this MC this year, she was interactive and slinging social media.
Throughout her hosting she constantly paraded around a bright white Samsung Galaxy Note 3, snapping selfies with stars as they sat. Then, with the now-very-obvious handset, she took a superstar selfie with Bradley Cooper, Meryl Streep, Brad Pit, Angelina Jolie, and Jennifer Lawrence. So many famous faces they could not all fit in. Ellen wanted to break the world record for the most retweets ever and when she uploaded it, it took the site down from the amount of people logging on to see it.
Needless to say she made history with the tweet and amassed more than two million retweets within hours, eclipsing the previous record holder, which as President Obama's victory speech image.
Cue the internet and within minutes there were memes-a-plenty of this selfie. Nicholas Cage faces Grumpy Cat, sports stars and awkward references to the failed Liza Minnelli photobomb attempt. We became so preoccupied with the flood of internet funnies we almost forgot about the show still going.
So social media was a star turn, but the award-winning movies themselves also waved the flag for technology.
Gravity is one of the biggest, most award-heavy movies this year. Its depiction of Sandra Bullock's survival against a space catastrophe was made doable thanks to the incredible CGI effects, which is why it took home the gong for best visual effects.
NASA was so excited about the inevitable flood of awards it posted 'real-life' Gravity-style pictures from the International Space Station on its Twitter feed throughout the day.
The award for best original screenplay went to Spike Jonze for Her - a story about a man falling in love with his operating system, which highlighted the assimilation human and machines could face in the future.
Google is just one tech company currently working on making the computing experience for humans and with the likes of the mobile phone personal assistant Siri and wearable tech slowly advancing onto our bodies, it's too far-fetched. Especially if it's voiced by Scarlett Johansson.
We've got another year to see how the tech stakes can be raised for the next Oscar awards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)