Showing posts from March, 2007

Death to Security Companies

Well, that's what Art Coviello from RSA would have us believe . To quote Art, "With the exception of a few exceptional start-ups, there will be no standalone security businesses within three years." There's no way he's just making this comment because RSA has joined forces (read: been absorbed) by EMC, the network storage giant. That is not to say that I disagree with all Art says. He comments that the security industry is too focussed on its own problems, and not enough on trying to perfect security. I wholeheartedly agree. Having worked with and for a number of pure security players, I can safely say that they are focussed on the "business" of security and not the "ideal" of security. Does that make them wrong? No, but it isn't encouraging, either. This particular problem, however, doesn't go away because security vendor "A" has now been purchased by larger corporation "Z". Now, EMC has a cute little securit


"Too Much Information" No, not another "Shave the Cheerleader, Shave the World" kind of post, rather it is a comment about the current headline over at the website . The interesting part begins with "So, what happens when...someting is amiss? First, our local WMD coordinator (there's one in each of our 56 field offices)..." and so on. Really, it's an interesting read on how the government will react should, say, a bunch of birds fall dead in Austin . Now, I'm not one to normally advocate " Security by Obscurity ", but doesn't there come a point in time when we decide to not tip the enemy's hands on exactly what we would do during a crisis? "The key for us is that conference call..." Great. If I'm attacking, I now know to take out the local field office (or at least disrupt the local the WMD coordinator). Just because of who I am, I have two theories about this article: 1. It's all PR to make peop