<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:clearspace="http://www.jivesoftware.com/xmlns/clearspace/rss" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:opensearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Ralph DeFrangesco</title>
    <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco</link>
    <description>Comment Feed for Ralph DeFrangesco</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:51:31 GMT</pubDate>
    <generator>Clearspace 2.5.5 (http://jivesoftware.com/products/clearspace/)</generator>
    <dc:date>2009-12-01T03:51:31Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Monday Could Be a Black Day for the Cloud</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/monday-could-be-a-black-day-for-the-cloud/?cs=37754#comment-34313</link>
      <description>User1675409, &amp;nbsp; I guess if you have a myopic view of life, you would come to your assumption. However, I will share something with you, and you can keep this just between us...applications run in the cloud and are prone to these attacks. This</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:59:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>RalphDeFrangesco</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/monday-could-be-a-black-day-for-the-cloud/?cs=37754#comment-34313</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-30T19:59:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Monday Could Be a Black Day for the Cloud</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/monday-could-be-a-black-day-for-the-cloud/?cs=37754#comment-34311</link>
      <description>Your story doesn't back up your headline one bit. You say Black Monday could be a "Black Day for the Cloud" and then mention two vulnerabilities that are completely unrelated to the cloud. XSS is a vulnerability in the application code. That code will</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:32:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>User1675409</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/monday-could-be-a-black-day-for-the-cloud/?cs=37754#comment-34311</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-30T17:32:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;The Netbook Is Dead</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/the-netbook-is-dead/?cs=37686#comment-34310</link>
      <description>I use a netbook that runs Ubuntu(linux).&amp;nbsp; Much faster that windows, definitely more secure, and it has what a netbook needs in terms of apps.&amp;nbsp; The solid state drive is small but doesn't need to be any larger given the lean OS and cloud focused</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:32:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>netbook user</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/the-netbook-is-dead/?cs=37686#comment-34310</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-30T17:32:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Improving Mobile Device Security</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/improving-mobile-device-security/?cs=36044#comment-34263</link>
      <description>just happened on to this web site as i was searching for some magic to "un" encrypt my flash drive (although if it's easier enough for novice yo-yos like me to find, well, then how good IS that security, huh?) .... anyway, i had some slide presentations</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:48:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Lee</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/improving-mobile-device-security/?cs=36044#comment-34263</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-25T20:48:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Online Security: Free Wi-Fi Isn't Really Free</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34141</link>
      <description>User1439574, &amp;nbsp; You bring up a great point...is the hardware at these hot spots setup properly? How do we know what they have turned on or turned off? What protocols are they running? Frankly, I just would not want my employees connecting to them</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:42:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>RalphDeFrangesco</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34141</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-19T19:42:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Online Security: Free Wi-Fi Isn't Really Free</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34138</link>
      <description>I believe the WiFi tech is secure enough if you have the right Access Points (APs) and right setting. If you use WPA between AP and user's computer, setup AP to isolate each user's computer, the risk will be smaller than online itself.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:49:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>user1439574</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34138</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-19T13:49:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Online Security: Free Wi-Fi Isn't Really Free</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34130</link>
      <description>user1528738, &amp;nbsp; I know if I was going to look for new malware, etc I would include public hot spots as one place to look. They can work anonymously and never appear on the radar. &amp;nbsp; Thank you for your thoughts, -Ralph</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:22:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>RalphDeFrangesco</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34130</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-19T03:22:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Online Security: Free Wi-Fi Isn't Really Free</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34129</link>
      <description>Steve, &amp;nbsp; In my opinion yes. I think the larger carriers have the resources to monitor their networks. In contrast, the "hot spots" at public places (i.e. coffee houses, hotels) are a major concern since they really don't care. Providing</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:16:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>RalphDeFrangesco</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34129</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-19T03:16:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Online Security: Free Wi-Fi Isn't Really Free</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34127</link>
      <description>If your work place can be infected by a malware virus that isn't recognized by the top vendors: TrendMicro, Norton, McAfee, AVG, ... then someone at those companies isn't doing their job right.&amp;nbsp; Obviously they should be sending people or asking</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:49:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>user1528738</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34127</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-18T20:49:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Online Security: Free Wi-Fi Isn't Really Free</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34125</link>
      <description>Are the major carriers' networks (Sprint, AT&amp;amp;T, etc.) any more secure, in your opinion/experience?&amp;nbsp; Thank you.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:56:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Steve</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34125</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-18T19:56:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Online Security: Free Wi-Fi Isn't Really Free</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34124</link>
      <description>Tom, &amp;nbsp; In reality, the risk are not any less. I think that many users feel though that when you pay for something that there is an expected level of security. However, we both know that this is not always true. &amp;nbsp; -Ralph</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:33:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>RalphDeFrangesco</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34124</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-18T19:33:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Online Security: Free Wi-Fi Isn't Really Free</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34120</link>
      <description>How are the risks any greater for FREE than they are for paying $8.95 for an hour?</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:36:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Tom Crane</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/online-security-free-wi-fi-isnt-really-free/?cs=37416#comment-34120</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-18T18:36:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Thoughts on Windows 7</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/thoughts-on-windows-7/?cs=37109#comment-33960</link>
      <description>My gut tells me that businesses will be migrating to the Windows 7 world sooner than later.&amp;nbsp; Eventually support for XP will take a nose dive.&amp;nbsp; In my experience as well as that of my peers, I can say that Windows 7 is a solid OS.&amp;nbsp; All</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:17:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>User1763083</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/thoughts-on-windows-7/?cs=37109#comment-33960</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-06T13:17:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Chief Information Security Officer: A New Spin on an Old Job</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/chief-information-security-officer-a-new-spin-on-an-old-job/?cs=37172#comment-33885</link>
      <description>As IT budgets shrink in other areas such as with app development personnel, due to outsourcing, and server hardware, due to the adoption of virtual and the cloud, and we this is compounded with a shrinking economy, businesses are being hit with a</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:16:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Jeff Goldman</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/chief-information-security-officer-a-new-spin-on-an-old-job/?cs=37172#comment-33885</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-03T13:16:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Chief Information Security Officer: A New Spin on an Old Job</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/chief-information-security-officer-a-new-spin-on-an-old-job/?cs=37172#comment-33873</link>
      <description>"Organizations are saying that security is a corporate concern..."&amp;nbsp; Love that! Everyone: every department, every business unit, has an impact on how secure or not an organization is - at the end of the day it affects every individual in the</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:41:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>The Garland Group</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/chief-information-security-officer-a-new-spin-on-an-old-job/?cs=37172#comment-33873</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-11-02T20:41:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Which Data Is Important?</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/which-data-is-important/?cs=36727#comment-33706</link>
      <description>If a user requires the use of a backup, then I would have to say that all data being backed up is important. If the data were truly frivolous, then it wouldn't require a backup in the first place. Criticism of a backup provider is well warranted in the</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:41:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>MarcKuntz</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/which-data-is-important/?cs=36727#comment-33706</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-10-21T20:41:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Don't Forget to Create Good Security Policies</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/dont-forget-to-create-good-security-policies/?cs=36801#comment-33698</link>
      <description>One thing I'm starting to recommend as best practice is that there be a specific sub-set of your security policies dedicated to minimizing the risk of data loss - a 'Data Security Policy' if you will. This includes things like guidance on not</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:14:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Michael Argast</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/dont-forget-to-create-good-security-policies/?cs=36801#comment-33698</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-10-21T16:14:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Which Data Is Important?</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/which-data-is-important/?cs=36727#comment-33688</link>
      <description>This announcement by MS appears to be a big lie. In addition to destroying the existing Danger infrastructure during their efforts to switch it all over to Microsoft hardware, they are now telling some whoppers in the press. This "data is recovered"</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:52:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Ed Itorial</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/which-data-is-important/?cs=36727#comment-33688</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-10-20T20:52:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Security Strategy Survey's Key Findings Positive</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/security-strategy-surveys-key-findings-positive/?cs=36601#comment-33623</link>
      <description>We're also seeing a similar interest in data leakage from our customers - the shift in the last few years from protecting against simple infections and the productivity costs, to fighting back against the criminal element and focusing on protecting the</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:19:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Michael Argast</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/security-strategy-surveys-key-findings-positive/?cs=36601#comment-33623</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-10-15T16:19:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE:&amp;nbsp;Low-Tech Attacks Still Get the Job Done</title>
      <link>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/low-tech-attacks-still-get-the-job-done/?cs=34124#comment-33613</link>
      <description>I'm surprised he was able to do this. I mean, didn't anyone at all think it was strange for a security guard to be going from computer to computer instead of watching his post?</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:25:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>XP Drivers</author>
      <guid>http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/defrangesco/low-tech-attacks-still-get-the-job-done/?cs=34124#comment-33613</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-10-14T22:25:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

