Bradner's column: Ivy-covered bits?
It seems that there will soon be no need for the hallowed halls of academe.
It seems that there will soon be no need for the hallowed halls of academe.
A dozen years ago, IBM's corporate data network was hit with a computer virus that might have been the direct ancestor of the Melissa micro virus that is now providing managers of corporate data networks with a bit of diversion. It does not seem like there has been much learning in the intervening years.
Sony earlier this month uttered the magic word "network" to transform itself from a yesterday company into a tomorrow one.
That did not take long. Only a few weeks after the brouhaha over Intel's addition of a serial number to the Pentium III processor, along comes the disclosure that Microsoft has been inserting unique serial numbers of its own in files created with its Office suite of programs.
France is giving up, Deep Crack strikes again and the Feds seem to partially get it. Encryption is in the news again, and the implication is that many organisations should review their data security policies.
If you own a Web search engine and associate Playboy with sex, it could get you sued.
It is an old maxim that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This assumption has long guided the understanding of computer and network security. But this and a number of long-held assumptions are challenged by a recent publication issued at the behest of the US government.
Intel claimed it was just trying to enable electronic commerce. But what the company did was only marginally useful for e-commerce, scared the bejeezus out of privacy advocates, and got Intel headlined dead centre at the top of The New York Times' front page.
France is giving up, Deep Crack strikes again and the Feds seem to partially get it. Encryption is in the news again, and the implication is that many organisations should review their data security policies.
The past few weeks have presented a mixed view on the maturity of and general thinking about the Internet.
If I were Bill Gates, I'd sure be leery of one aspect of modern technology. And if I were the president or a major officer in just about any major corporation, I'd also be leery.
I've noticed a disturbing trend: the emergence of papers by scholars who think they know more about how the Internet works than they actually do.
I'm writing this column in a bright pink hotel near Walt Disney World on the Sunday between the 43rd Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting and the International Telecommunication Union technical standards group's (ITU-T) IP Telecom meeting.
Fellow Network World columnist Mark Gibbs knows what he is talking about most of the time, but that's not the case in his column on the ICANN.
Jim Isaak wrote an article for the December issue of Computer, the IEEE computer society magazine, titled "The role of government in IT standards". I'm somewhat puzzled by much of the article and quite worried about some of its recommendations.