Showing posts with label technology law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology law. Show all posts

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Keep Your laptop data safe,now fix it.

Follow InfoWorld's encryption-based data-protection plan, which can safeguard your most at-risk PCs .
The largest single type of security breach is the stolen or lost laptop, according to the Open Security Foundation, yet these computers are among the least protected of all IT assets. The costs of a data breach can be huge, including the loss of trade secrets, marketing plans, and other competitive information that could have long-term business damage, plus the immediate costs of having to notify people if their personal information was possibly at risk from the breach. Particularly in a recession, enterprise management can't afford to take these risks lightly.

There is a way for IT to protect those laptops and the confidential information they contain: encryption. Without the combination of password security and encryption, any halfway-competent hacker has no problem siphoning hard drive contents and putting it to nefarious use.
[ Stay up to date on key security issues and solutions in InfoWorld's Security Adviser blog. Keep abreast of the latest mobile developments in the Mobile Pulse blog. ]
Perhaps the most important advantage of full disk encryption, though -- beyond the peace of mind it gives your business's lawyers -- is the "safe harbor" immunity that accrues under many data privacy regulations. For example, credit card disclosure rules don't apply to encrypted data, and even California's strict data-disclosure statute makes an exception for encrypted records -- provided you can prove they're encrypted. That's trivial with full disk encryption but not so easy with partial encryption techniques, which depend on user education for safe operation.
A key challenge for IT in deploying encryption on its laptops is the sheer number of encryption options available. Some Windows Vista editions, as well as the forthcoming Windows 7, support Microsoft's built-in BitLocker encryption, and numerous third-party encryption products cover the range of mobile operating systems from XP through Windows 7, Linux, and Mac OS X. Encryption granularity is widely variable as well, ranging from protecting individual files to encrypting virtual disks to deploying fully armored, hardware-based full disk encryption. Prices range from free to moderately expensive.
If you've put off laptop data security due to perceived technical shortcomings or high costs, you need to take another look at the field -- before you lose another laptop.

The maximum encryption protection possible: TPMIdeally, you'll deploy the full-metal-jacket approach to laptop data protection: full disk encryption using the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) technology. If you can afford the cost, waste no time with inferior methods. All you need is a laptop containing a TPM security coprocessor and, optionally, an encryption-enabled hard drive from one of the major hard drive manufacturers.
The TPM is a chip soldered on to the laptop's motherboard, providing hardware-based device authentication, tamper detection, and encryption key storage. The TPM generates encryption keys, keeping half of the key information to itself, making it impossible to recover data from an encrypted hard drive apart from the computer in which it was originally installed. Even if an attacker gets the user's part of the encryption key or disk password, the TPM-protected drive's contents can't be read when connected to another computer. Further, the TPM generates a unique digital signature from the motherboard in which it's embedded, foiling attempts to move the TPM chip itself to another machine.

TPM-enabled full disk encryption, especially hardware-based implementations of it, provides one other key benefit to enterprises: data erasure upon laptop decommissioning or repurposing. A common bugaboo in the enterprise is the accidental disclosure of data when seemingly worthless outdated laptops are discarded or sold, or transferred to another employee. Erasing sensitive information in such situations is not trivial, and even removing and physically mangling a laptop's hard drive is no guarantee against disclosure. However, because TPM has absolute control over the encryption keys -- remember, half of the key information is stored with the TPM itself -- you can simply tell TPM to forget its keys, and the hard drive is instantly reformatted and effectively rendered nonrecoverable. Disk sectors aren't zeroed, but no computationally feasible method exists today to decrypt the residue.

A great many enterprise-class laptops manufactured in the last two to three years shipped with embedded TPM chips; Apple's Macs are a key exception, as none since 2006 include a TPM chip. But the TPM chips must be explicitly enabled to use them as the authentication mechanism for encryption.
If your laptops have a TPM chip, don't try enabling it without carefully following the vendor's instructions -- otherwise, you could accidentally wipe out the laptop's hard drive. Before enabling the TPM chip in a laptop, you must first take ownership of it, a process that establishes user and management-level passwords and generates the initial set of encryption keys. The management password lets IT administration monitor the inventory of TPM devices, recover lost user passwords, and keep track of usage.
A TPM works with the laptop's resident operating system to encrypt either the entire hard drive or most of it, depending on the OS encryption implementation. (Microsoft's BitLocker, for example, requires a small, unencrypted initial-boot partition). Alternatively, a TPM can interoperate with encryption-enabled hard drives to perform encryption entirely outside of, and transparent to, the operating system.
The TPM technology isn't perfect, but it provides very solid protection in the most common incident, where a laptop is lost or stolen and the user has not left it logged in. If the laptop is powered off, TPM protection is absolute. Most implementations use 256-bit AES encryption, which is considered uncrackable for the foreseeable future. Powering up the device requires entering pre-boot credentials in the form of a password, a PIN, a smartcard, biometric data, a one-time-password token, or any combination of these. If the lost laptop is powered on (but not logged in), or just powered off, an attacker would have to use extraordinary procedures to recover the encryption keys from live memory.
However, if a lost device is powered up and logged in, a TPM provides zero protection. An interloper can simply dump the data off the hard drive in the clear using ordinary file copies. Thus, it's essential that TPM-protected systems have noncircumventable log-in timeouts using administrator-protected settings.

To achieve the ultimate in full disk encryption protection requires hardware-enabled encryption on board the hard drive. Drive-based encryption closes all of TPM's loopholes, since the encryption key is no longer stored in OS-accessible memory. Hardware-based full disk encryption also eliminates the performance penalty incurred by software-based full disk encryption, although with today's fast, processors, that software encryption overhead is not noticeable to most users.

The cost for TPM protection starts at zero for Microsoft's BitLocker, which is built into Vista Enterprise and Ultimate, Windows Server 2008, and the forthcoming Windows 7. Major laptop manufacturers also sell software bundles that enable TPM in any Windows version, including XP, such as Wave's Embassy Trust Suite and McAfee's SafeBoot. The advantage of bundled software is sole-source support and pre-tested configurations.
You can also roll your own software protection using stand-alone packages such as PGP Whole Disk Encryption.
All these products support a wide range of enterprise-class management tools that let you enforce uniform policies and centrally store encryption keys, including special data-recovery keys that solve the problem of lost passwords and prevent employees from locking employers out of their hard drives.

If you can't do TPM, here's your plan B for encryptionAlthough the deployment of TPM-based full description is ideal, you may count the cost of full disk encryption and come up short-funded, especially if you just refreshed your enterprise laptops with non-TPM models. Forklifting your entire laptop population is an undeniably expensive proposition, as is replacing the non-TPM laptops if your company has a mix of TPM and non-TPM laptops. If you can't go all TPM, there's a plan B that can give you much of the encryption benefits you need.
You might think that plan B involves partial disk encryption, typically deployed by designating specific folders on a laptop as encrypted; as files are moved into that folder, they are automatically encrypted. Apple and Microsoft have long offered this form of encryption, via FileVault on the Mac and the Encrypted File System tools in Windows XP and Vista. But this approach has a major flaw: It depends on users to properly store sensitive data only in encrypted form.

A variation of folder-level encryption is virtual disk encryption (VDE), in which a single disk file contains a virtual disk image that the user can mount when needed; this virtual disk collects all sensitive files in one location. Microsoft's BitLocker offers this feature in all Vista editions, as well as in Windows Server 2008 and Windows XP. Third-party products such as PGPDisk and even free open source software programs such as TrueCrypt have VDE capabilities. Many of these third-party utilities are easier to use than BitLocker, so they can save you some implementation expense.
Another form of partial disk encryption is to apply encryption to specific files, typically those residing on corporate servers that users want to open locally. In this approach, users must enter a password every time they open a protected file. IT not only is on the hook to ensure that all sensitive files get encrypted but also has no way to stop users from simply saving the opened file as an unencrypted copy. Still, this protection is better than nothing and is widely available via free disk utilities. But key management can be a problem, and these file-level encryption tools generally don't support multifactor authentication.

But the best plan B to TPM-enabled full disk encryption isn't any of these partial disk methods. The best plan is software-only full disk encryption, in which either the operating system or a third-party program performs the same encryption as with TPM but uses another method to store the encryption keys, such as a thumb drive or a smart card.

The good news is that virtually all-TPM full disk encryption suppliers' offerings, including BitLocker, can operate in this software-only mode, which relies on a removable hardware token so that you can use this approach for your non-TPM devices while having a consistent encryption method to manage across all your laptops.
It's true that software-based full disk encryption is less secure than if you have a TPM-equipped laptop: The entire drive can still be encrypted, but a determined hacker will have more opportunities to gain access through compromised keys. For example, if the key-storage token is left with the notebook computer (how likely is that?), the hacker may be able to simply plug the token in and gain access to the drive contents. Even multifactor authentication in this scenario is subject to attack by inspection, since the key token is not tightly bound to the system motherboard.
Still, when TPM-enabled encryption is not an option, pure software full disk encryption can still give you considerable peace of mind, as well as provide the "safe harbor" benefits afforded encrypted systems in data-privacy regulations. Software full disk encryption solutions have also been around long enough that they're available for most mobile computing platforms, including Linux and Mac OS X.
TPM technology changes to comeAlthough TPM full disk encryption with hardware-based encryption in the hard drive is the best you can do for data protection today, security researchers are constantly testing TPM's mettle and devising improvements to it.
One potential vulnerability of today's separate TPM chip implementation is that keys must be transported across conductors in the motherboard to the CPU for software-based full disk encryption, or to the hard drive for hardware-based full disk encryption. That could provide an entry point for a hacker. That's why a major vendor trend is to move all TPM-oriented data manipulation on to the CPU chip set in the form of customized silicon. Intel has advertised its vPro solution, which is part of the upcoming Danbury processor and Eaglelake chip set. This feature will perform all encryption and decryption for SATA and eSATA drives without involving the CPU, OS device drivers, or even the hard drive itself.

Such an approach could make TPM even more secure. But there's no reason to wait until such chips are standard in laptops. With today's TPM-equipped laptops, and with the software-based fallback option for non-TPM laptops, you have a platform for a consistent, manageable, secure deployment strategy.




Monday, October 1, 2007

Technology War.- Law and order.-


No doubt the worlds Technology Market is going to trimendous up.. with the so the global leader of administration should more concious about the constructive technology , SLOGAN IS WE WANT CONSTRUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY VOID DESTRUCTIVE
We need updated law for technology governance
Apple Users Talking Class-Action Lawsuit Over iPhone Locking
You bought the iPhone, you paid for it, but now Apple is telling you how you have to use it, and if you don't do things they way they say, they're going to lock it. Turn it into a useless "brick." Is this any way to treat a customer? Apparently, it's the Steve Jobs way. But some iPhone users are mad as heck, and they're not going to take it anymore.

In a Saturday post on Apple's own iPhone discussion forums, a user who goes by the handled of "myndex" has posted the provocatively entitled message "iPhone Class Action Lawsuit." Despite its title, it's not notice of an actual lawsuit. Rather, myndex is seeking comments from other forum users on what they think of suing Apple over its refusal to service users who've unlocked their iPhones or loaded them up with "unauthorized" applications. [Update, Sun 1:40 pm. As commenter "Poli," below, notes, myndex's entry on Apple's discussions.apple.com forums appears to have been removed by Apple some three hours after this Wolfe's Den post appeared. For that reason, at the end of this entry I've added screen captures of mydex's mirror post from the macrumor board.]

Here's an summary of the post:

"To: iPhone Owners denied warranty service. Seeking respondents for possible class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. relating to refusal to service iPhones and related accessories under warranty...There are three potential classes in this case: 1) Persons who own an iPhone and used software to access the available flash drive space on the iPhone [iPhoneDrive]; 2) Persons who installed 3rd party software on the iPhone for the purpose of expanding its functionality; 3) Persons who unlocked their iPhone to allow for its use on networks other than AT&T (NYSE: T)."
Should Apple be worried? Perhaps more for the groundswell myndex could create than an immediate legal action.

A quick search indicates that "myndex" likely isn't a lawyer. More probably he's a Mac guy. You get this from his Web site--mydex.com—which is something called Myndex Technologies. "We are a research and devlopment organization," the site says. A WhoIs search reports the site is registered out of Carson City, Nevada.

The other, more troubling, reason his suit might not fly is that some respondents on the site seem to be suffering from Apple-induced Stockholm syndrome. Writes one: "I would love to tinker with my iPhone, but it's not worth bricking it or voiding my warranty. Anyone who turns his shiny new phone into an iBrick by messing with the firmware AFTER he was warned and demands compensation... well... I have no sympathy."

Here's another: "I'm not saying what this new [Apple] update did was right but then again neither was modifying the phone to do what it was not intended to do no matter how useful the modifications were."

Personally, I'm with this poster, who shows some backbone:

"I'm afraid I'm not with Apple on this one. Seems to me that Apple's usage terms are onerous and unreasonable (can't put a file on your iphone which is as much a handheld computer as it is a telephone or an ipod?) What, we live in the digital equivalent of the iron curtain?"
I'm not averse to Myndex succeeding, because Apple's stance really bothers me. It seems like Jobs has turned the famous "Pottery Barn" rule on its ear. In the iPhone world according to Apple, it's "You bought it, we [might] break it."

The sheer hypocrisy of it all rankles. Here's a company whose CEO has railed again the inclusion of digital-rights management (DRM) encryption software on competitors' music files. Many people supported Jobs in his stance, assuming it was, at least in part, a philosophic nod in favor of consumer's rights. However, in light of the latest iPhone fiasco, a sober observer would say that was probably just a cynical business move to get onboard where he figured consumers were heading with or without Apple. (That's on top of the first iPhone mess: Jobs's precipitous early price cut, which blew a big raspberry at early adopters.)

Here's some background on what specifically Apple is doing. As InformationWeek reported on Sept. 24:

"Apple warned that unlocking programs used to connect the iPhone to cellular networks other than AT&T's causes 'irreparable damage' that would likely result in the modified device becoming inoperable when this week's Apple-supplied software update is released."
Sadly, as The New York Times noted on Saturday, Sept. 29, in its story Altered iPhones Freeze Up, this has indeed come to pass:

"Joel Robison, a systems network engineer near Seattle, said his phone stopped working immediately after he installed the upgrade. He said that when he took it to an Apple store, he was accused of having unlocked the phone. But he said that with the exception of one aborted attempt to install a piece of outside software, he had made no modifications to the phone. 'Their accusation was very damaging to my opinion of Apple’s service,' Mr. Robison said."
Damaging to his opinion? Heck yeah! What additional message do consumers need that Apple's iPhone arrogance has run amuck?

Still, one has to admit that Apple's stance is not unexpected. Nor is the corporate speak emanating from Cupertino in response to consumer concerns. This quote, in the Times' story from Apple spokeswoman Jennifer Bowcock, is priceless:

"If the damage was due to use of an unauthorized software application, voiding their warranty, they should purchase a new iPhone."
You can't buy this kind of publicity, can you?

In light of myndex's threatened suit, it's relevant to examine whether Apple's position that it totally controls the iPhone after a customer has bought it, opens Apple up to any legal action. An iPhone isn't software, so Apple can't hide behind a EULA or the position that customers are only "renting" or licensing the device and don't really own it. Or can they?

AT&T, the only wireless carrier offering the iPhone, has volleyed the issue back into Apple's court. An AT&T customer document entitled "Essential information before you buy," contains this gem: "iPhone is covered by the Apple Warranty. There is no eligibility for the wireless phone insurance program." The iPhone box says an AT&T contract is required for use and activation of all features of the phone, which makes for something of a round-robin situation here.

The iPhone manual (download, here) has this: "Apple is not responsible for damage arising from failure to follow instructions relating to the product’s use."

I'm not a lawyer, so don't know whether all this stuff puts Apple in a completely defensible position. To a layperson, it seems like there's a difference between damage that's out of Apple's control and Apple going out of its way to mess up your phone.

However, at least one lawyer doesn't agree with me. Here's Noah Funderburg, an assistant dean at the University of Alabama School of Law, quoted in the Times' story. "Anyone who hacks must know that they are taking certain risks," Funderburg told the paper. "If they aren’t willing to assume the risks upfront--like a brick iPhone--then maybe they should not hack the device."

There's been at least one prior iPhone suit, but it was about the fact that consumers can't get at the battery. Myndex's missive seems to be the first chatter about a "brick" suit.

What's next? Will Mr. Jobs tell iPhone users who they can and can't call, and when.
Hey, here's an idea, which comes by way of analogy with the way Apple treats iPhone hackers: If anyone messes around with stock-options, then their job turns into a "brick."

Back STORY
Hackers Get their iPhones (Back)
Annie Oakley (played by Steve Jobs): Anything you can hack, I can lock better. I can code anything better than you.
Frank Butler (played by a chorus of anonymous hackers): No you can’t!
Oakley: Yes I can!….
So it stretches the brain to think of Ethel Merman wearing a black turtleneck and jeans. Then again, “There’s No Business Like Show Business” could just as well have been written for Mr. Jobs.
In any case, there is certainly a battle of the egos between Apple and the hacking community over the iPhone. And this weekend, some sharpshooting coders have been able to restore at least some of the modifications to their iPhones that Apple had wiped away.
To recap the story: Last Thursday Apple released an upgrade to the iPhone firmware (the code that controls the phone operations). Users that had installed unauthorized software, found their new programs unusable. Those who had unlocked their phones to use networks other than AT&T—in violation of their agreement with apple-could not use their phones at all. In other words, their iPhones had been bricked.
Then, a user of the Hackintosh Forum who goes by the screen name KMAC1985 discovered a rather peculiar maneuver: If you hold down the power button and the home button on the phone for 10 seconds, then release the power button, the phone will enter a state that will allow it to restore the 1.0.2 software from a connected computer. (The details are here. For the visual, here is a music video tutorial.)
Users are reporting in forum comments that this can take several hours, and that it works for some phones but not others. (See coverage from The Unofficial Apple Weblog and Gizmodo.)
The forums seem to indicate that by downgrading the firmware to the previous version, iPhones can again use third-party applications. If a phone had been frozen by Apple’s firmware update, this procedure will allow it again to operate as music and video players and connect to a Wi-Fi network. The restoring the 1.0.2 firmware alone will let a phone connect to AT&T or any other cellular network.
Jesus Diaz, a reporter for Gizmodo, reports that he has been able to make calls again from his previously bricked iPhone. This involves, among other steps, using a modified SIM chip called a Turbo SIM. Commenters here seem to think this is a difficult solution.
Meanwhile the IPhone Dev Team, a loose collection of hackers organized through this Web site, says it is hard at work creating new hacks that will make it easier to install unauthorized applications, fix bricked iPhones, and continue to unlock iPhones.
The comment sections to our previous posts on the iPhone upgrade (here, here and here) have seen active debate over the legitimacy of modifying iPhones. Some argue that the hackers are simply defending their rights to use the hardware they bought. Others say that since Apple made clear that the iPhone could be used only on the AT&T network and only with its official software, the hackers simply shouldn’t have bought one expecting an open device.
From a literal point of view, I see the point of the latter argument. I’d have a hard time arguing that Apple misled iPhone buyers.
Even so, I’m not sure that Apple needs to be playing so tough. Apple’s policy is that if your iPhone has been turned into a brick, buy a new one. But couldn’t the company, at least, release software that restores iPhones to their original subservient state?
More important, I’m not sure it is a tenable position in the long term to maintain such an adversarial role with a group of customers. The iPhone captures people’s imagination because it offers a flexible interface on a small device, and there have been dozens of nifty applications developed for it so far.
If Apple doesn’t create a way for developers to create new applications, this war will get uglier. But we’ve seen this musical before

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Happy Birthday Google 9th


HAPPYbirth day google.
With love with emotion we from LHC- Mysapace and earth celebrate the birthday .
We are feel happy and enjoyous for the birth of google . Is their any doubt that in web or internet google is not only a company or corporation they are serving in the universe as a gift of GOD.
we wish heartly coordialy with all our positive emotions and love the long life of google. GOD bless the inovators and creators of Google.
"i feel emotional in this day '
we wish more than best for google.
Md moshiur Rahman
Sanjida Afroz
Musarrat jeba ( RODOSHI )
@
Rafeila Rahman ( ROCHELI )