Security is, as usual, a major concern for most businesses. More are turning to file (or even full-disk) encryption as a solution, but that can be cumbersome since most available applications require users to encrypt and decrypt files by hand. You encrypt a plain file, then decrypt it when you need to access the data again. That’s a nightmare in terms of workflow management. Also, the need for multiple steps makes it easy to leave unencrypted files lying around on disk.

PKWare to the rescue! The makers of PKzip and other well known tools have introduced an integrated solution that allows users to save files in encrypted format from within Microsoft Office. Their SecureZIP for Desktop (and other operating systems, including z/OS) installs itself into the MS Office suite and provides a direct method for managing encrypted files. The user just selects “Open ZIP file” to open a ZIP (encrypted or not) already on disk, or “Save as SecureZIP” to write the file directly into the encrypted ZIP format. That’s very cool, and it should save users a lot of time.

Even better, the integration extends to Outlook. Users can also “secure and compress emails and attachments” automatically in order to improve security while transmitting data to other internal users, customers, and others.

And this is just the Desktop version. The Enterprise edition also provides “contingency key” management to allow recovery of encrypted documents for which the original key hast been lost. There’s also a policy manager to allow IT managers to enforce corporate data protection standards. You can use certificates from numerous sources, and the software can “automatically locate, retrieve, and use certificates stored in common directories, such as Sun® iPlanet, Novell Netware®, and Microsoft Active Directory® using LDAP directory support.”

Easy management of encrypted documents, improved workflow, and apparently enormous flexibility…who could ask for more? A suite like this might make users stop complaining (as much) about encrypting documents. I’ll probably give it a try. I deal with sensitive material on a regular basis, and really could use an easier email encryption tool. Now if they’ll just extend it to use Thunderbird…

Even as one branch of Microsoft touts Vista and all its alleged features, another is pushing the (currently nothing but vaporware) Windows 7 as the be-all of operating systems. Not only is this bad for Vista, which continues to suffer from low acceptance and high dissatisfaction; it also indicates the company is being pulled in multiple directions from within. That’s not good.

It’s common for certain business units in a given company to push their own projects to the detriment of others. This is natural, especially in companies that allow internal business units or project teams to duke it out for resources and glory. However, it’s usually kept behind closed doors.

The last image a company wants to present is one of internal strife or a lack of direction. Competitors circle around scenes like these with shark-like precision, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see that happen in this case. Apple, the various Linux vendors, and others could use the Vista Stutters as an opportunity to play catch-up, or even leapfrog ahead of Microsoft in terms of features and reliability.

Windows 7’s alleged list of features sounds very tasty. But as the author of the above article notes, Microsoft “can tease us with innovations like baked in virtualization and—bless them—gesture-based multi-touch screen support—but a lot can happen in 24 months. Apple , obviously, won’t wait to trump Microsoft.”

That’s right, Windows 7 isn’t due for at least two years. Anyone who follows technological advances knows that’s a millennium in computing terms. Someone else could easily steal Redmond’s thunder while they’re trying to reorganize. So far, Windows has kept its lead due to its huge existing customer base (largely acquired during the 1990s, while Apple languished and Linux was in its infancy). The Vista Stumble could erase all or part of that lead now that Apple is back and Linux is mature.

Microsoft claims it’s working on a new Windows version that (gasp!) does away with the mouse altogether. Touch screen technology is the next big thing, so that familiar little rodent we all know and occasionally despise may disappear altogether at some point in the not too distant future.  Will we miss it?

Touch screen technology makes sense. The point of the mouse is to provide what proponents of user-centric design might call good “brain mapping” between the user’s senses and locations on the screen. Move the mouse up and left on its pad, and the on-screen pointer moves to the same location on the monitor. Down and right, left then down — they all map to “real world” motions. This makes the UI more intuitive and easier to learn for most people. It’s a far cry from keyboard-only input. Competing technologies like pen pads and external tablets just never took off.

The next step is to eliminate the mouse while preserving that brain mapping. If someone can just touch a window (maybe to highlight it) and move it to the other side of the screen, it makes the interface even more intuitive. It might also make life easier for certain folks. Despite the mouse’s advantages, some people have sensory or cognitive issues that prevent them from “seeing” the mapping between it and the screen. For them especially, eliminating it in favor of a direct one-to-one correlation is just a good idea.

Years ago cognitive scientist Don Norman wrote “The Psychology of Everyday Things.” In this now classic book, he described the difference between good and bad interface design and how to tell the difference. One of the reasons Windows and MacOS have taken over the world is that they created a good interface between the OS and the user — ironically enough, at least based on the earlier UNIX-based X-Windows system. They obeyed the rules of good design. Competing systems that did not simply died in the lab.

Now it’s time for the next iteration in the process. We probably won’t see anything as complex as the suspended-in-space windowing systems found in some movies — at least for a while — but I for one would be happy to banish the rodent from my desk.

I was talking with a friend recently regarding corporate IT policy and surveillance. He told me his company has enrolled itself with a service that will monitor any PC within its corporate firewall. Corporate personnel are notified immediately if any of these machines show signs of misuse. Yes, big brother is watching. And in this case, they have every right to do so.

Corporate machines are no different from any other resource. They’re owned by the company, and they have the right (not to mention an obligation) to regulate their use. Just as you can be fired or otherwise disciplined for misusing the copier, telephone, and office supplies, you can also face action for willfully abusing computer resources.

This said, the definition of “abuse” varies widely from one company to another. One development house I worked for actually encouraged employees to use its flagship product (a high end text processing/publishing package) if they were writing papers for school, producing newsletters for volunteer organizations, and so forth. Not only did this help them uncover bugs, but it made everyone in the company a near expert with the product. Other companies aren’t so enlightened and will crack down on the smallest offense. As always, your mileage may vary.

In many cases, this type of draconian behavior is mandatory for a given industry. Legal firms, for instance, have to be pretty paranoid about employee behavior. They can be audited at any time, and it’d be pretty bad if the auditors found porn or other questionable material on a partner’s machine. It’d be even worse if they found illegally obtained material there.

My friend told me that in one case he was notified one of his employees had spent an entire afternoon trading on Ebay and using AIM to talk to friends. He confronted the employee, who claimed he’d “just been on break for a while.” Then my buddy slapped a piece of paper on the guy’s desk, detailing the four straight hours of “break time” spent on non-work activities. Every keystroke and site visited was there in plain view. The employee was told to clean out his desk and leave.

Yes, this is legal. It’s easy to set up, and anything you do can be captured. What the company does with it is up to their legal team, and your manager. You might get away with it if you don’t abuse your privileges. Or you might not.

Following a seven year association with online giant Amazon.com, Borders Books has decided to jump back into online retailing. It’s cutting its Amazon ties and re-opening its own Web presence with a brand new store that’s supposed to mirror its bricks-and-mortar presence as closely as possible.

This will be an interesting test. The fact that the company has decided to go back into the online jungle on its own indicates dissatisfaction with their Amazon association. But can Borders compete against a rocket-launching giant like Jeff Bezos? There’s definitely enough room on the Web for multiple book vendors, but we’ll have to wait and see how the new venture turns out.

Their concept is interesting: they’re trying to re-create the feel of actually shopping in a real Borders store. One of the primary complaints I hear about online shopping is that finding things can be difficult. I also prefer shopping in a “real” bookstore. I frequent Borders above all others, even though it’s impossible to obtain anything but the most popular works without resorting to a special order.

One thing I like is that I can browse multiple genres by just walking down the aisle, and never know what I might happen across. Amazon can suggest items based on my previous purchase history, but they can’t predict the reaction you or I will have when walking past a rack filled with multiple genres of books. I might have walked into the store to buy a new science fiction book, but could end up grabbing something from Economics or History if it catches my eye.

Online retailers can’t, in other words, re-create either impulse or off-target purchases. Borders is trying to do that by rolling out online versions of its in-store “staff picks” and other features. Their “magic shelf” concept appears to be a new effort to pull shoppers in unexpected directions, probably in an attempt to re-create the feeling of random discovery while browsing through a bookstore. It’ll be interesting to see how well it works.

These days, everyone worries about viruses or other malware spreading through some sort of email-based infestation. There’s good reason to worry, as regular readers of this blog are well aware (or they’d better be by now). However, email isn’t the only possible vector for malware transmission. IM (Instant Messaging) technology is another potentially nasty means by which this stuff can be spread.

Consider this: you’re logged into AIM or some other IM client, when someone you may (or may not) know sends you a message with a file attachment. If you accept it, and unwittingly open the attachment, it might contain a virus. Some antivirus solutions today also monitor IM clients, so you may already be protected.

Scenario two is totally different, and involves no malware. Say you’re in a corporate environment and are talking with someone who’s outside the firewall. It’s possible that conversation is being monitored since few (if any) IM clients use encryption. This means someone might be eavesdropping while you’re telling your wife about the new contract you just scored, or are showing a colleague the great new algorithm you’ve invented.

Scenario three is just good old corporate data leakage. An employee knowingly discloses confidential data to outsiders via IM, which most companies don’t monitor or record. Many corporations filter and flag suspicious email, but don’t take the same precaution with IM clients.

Even worse, an employee could just install a non-standard client (presuming they have privileges to install software on their local machine) and transmit data at will over an unmonitored TCP/IP port. And some IM clients can run over standard ports, even the HTTP port (80) which no one blocks through corporate firewalls. That could render IM traffic untraceable.

Some corporations are deploying managed IM solutions rather than using public applications like AIM or IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Some managed solutions provide auditing and other security functions that could help bring this problem under control.

These days, allowing employees free rein over application traffic through corporate firewalls is just too dangerous. You’ve locked down your email traffic. IM should probably be next on your list.

If you’re like me, you probably have way too many passwords and other access codes to manage. At present I have multiple passwords for my Windows and Linux servers, my online banking password, and corporate firewall passwords by the dozen. Add to that several others for my DSL and ISP accounts, plus a half dozen email accounts that I use for various purposes. How do you manage all those codes?

The worst method, of course, involves writing them down. I knew one guy who kept a business card-sized piece of paper stashed in his wallet. All his login ID and password combinations were written on it in tiny print. You guessed it, he lost his wallet and all his passwords went with it.

Many office workers keep a Post-It note stuck to a monitor, under their keyboard, or in their center desk drawer. Often it’s stashed under one of those plastic paperclip organizers where they think no one will find it. Are you shocked that I knew your secret hiding place? You shouldn’t be. Yeah, we all know the top ten places and can find that list in a heartbeat. The janitor knows too, and has been using your account to surf for porn at night for the last five years.

One admin I knew wrote her password backwards on a piece of tape, then stuck it to the back of a picture frame in her office. She read too many detective novels and actually thought no one would look there. Sorry, that’s not going to work either (and it only worked for one password…how long do you think it’d take for someone to notice a weird thing like that?).

I know some people who use tools like KeyMan.  With this little utility, you can set up a repository of passwords stored in an encrypted file on your PC. In order to access them, you enter a master password that decrypts the list. It actually works pretty well overall, but has two weaknesses. What happens if you either (a) forget the master password, or (b) forget the password to the PC where the KeyMan database is stored? D’oh!

I’m lucky. I have a great memory for things like login/password combinations and telephone numbers, so I just carry them around in my head (I don’t use the phone book on my cell phone either).

How do you manage passwords? I hope the answer isn’t “they’re all the same, and I never change them.” That’s just looking for trouble.

In its latest bid to gain traction in the search market, Microsoft is reportedly offering “cash incentives” to people who buy from online vendors after using its Live Search engine. According to the report, users who register with Microsoft can get paid for buying from vendors who have signed on to this latest scheme.

This is the so-called “Plan C” in Redmond’s attempt to get serious in the search market, and was launched after Yahoo rejected a buyout bid (Plan B) last week. Plan A (Live Search) didn’t work, and Redmond is scrambling to find another road into this market.

There’s a good reason they’re so hot on the search market: it’s a huge cash cow, and everyone from Yahoo to Google has been eating Microsoft’s lunch in this space. Despite its successes in other areas (operating systems and desktop software) the company has never been a major player in online content or services.

Whatever the case, the article is correct in stating that a sea change is imminent in the search marketplace. The “pay per click” paradigm under which vendors pay search engines is showing signs of strain, probably because these companies are forking over large amounts of cash for activity that doesn’t actually generate revenue. So a user clicks on a site after finding it via a search engine…the important thing for a vendor is whether that click leads to a sale. We’ll probably see a change in which “advertisers shift from paying for click on links to paying for concrete actions, like completing a purchase.”

Effectively, Microsoft is paying people to use their search engine. Will it work? It might give them a small boost, but I suspect it won’t amount to much. If search results are biased in favor of companies that have signed on to the bribery program and they’re not what users are after, the whole thing could backfire.

What’s funny is that “Danny Sullivan, editor of the search news site SearchEngineLand.com, said in a recent interview that he recommended Microsoft pay people to use Live Search — as an April Fool’s joke.” Maybe the joke’s on Microsoft.

For years, broadband providers have been vying for customer attention (and dollars). After a speedy startup, during which it became the market leader, DSL fell prey to bad marketing and price gouging. This allowed cable to catch up, but it appears the tables may be turning yet again.

Today, 56 million US households have some form of broadband access and the numbers are still growing. They’ve slowed somewhat, but they’ll continue to grow as cable access spreads and phone companies expand their available fiber networks.

The question, though, is which is better? Cable companies want you to believe they have the right technology. Phone providers say exactly the same thing. Is there a real difference?

Personally, I like DSL at present. I’ve had excellent service from my provider, and my 3MB connection (the fastest I can get without going commercial and paying $1000/month) is extremely reliable. I actually switched over from Comcast about 4 years ago because, to be honest, their service was terrible and their customer support was even worse.

My modem started a habit of randomly rebooting itself (usually at the worst possible time, like when I was editing a remote file). By the time I called Comcast support it’d be back online. I’d explain it kept rebooting, but they’d say “it looks fine, and no we won’t replace it.” Strike one.

I had constant weather-related problems. A storm would come up, and my cable would die. Sometimes it’d be offline for up to a day, during which I was stuck with a 56k dial-up connection. “Sorry, we’ll rebate you a day’s worth of service.” Strike two.

Strike three was actually a function of Comcast’s advertising, which contained outright lies about the difference between cable and DSL. They also had a bad habit of dissing Satellite TV using outrageously rigged commercials describing its alleged unreliability.

One day I opened my phone bill to find they were having a special on DSL. It was cheaper and faster than my cable connection. That day I made the switch, and for good measure dumped my Comcast cable as well. Now we use Dish Network, and it’s great. The signal never dies, even during the worst storm. You’re out, Comcast.

The moral of the story: when it comes to networks, speed is definitely a factor. However, reliability is probably the best gauge. No amount of speed is worthwhile if the connection is unstable.

In my experience, the first utility to go down during bad weather is the cable system. The last is the phone network. Your mileage may vary. Shop around. Don’t listen to the ads. Ask your neighbors about their service, and you’ll probably get an earful.

An interesting article on Defense Industry Today mentions an impending invasion that the US (and probably every other) military will need to deal with soon. I’d call it “the attack of the Gen Y Commandos,” and it’s guaranteed to take them by storm. Senior officers, as usual, will have no idea how to deal with it. They might as well just surrender.

Generation Y is the term that’s being applied to people born after 1978, for whom the Internet (in some form) has always existed. They’re people who live online. They use Facebook, YouTube, and Plaxo as a matter of course, and couldn’t dream of living without it.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that senior officers (Majors and above, for you civilians) currently aren’t Gen Y. They’re Gen X or Baby Boom, and many don’t grok technology any more advanced than a CD player or VHS deck. This debate started due to a request “from senior officers who had been appalled to discover a number of junior officers using the still-permissible Facebook Web site for the purpose of organizing their squadrons. These senior officers were having difficulty with the concept of using a civilian social-networking site for military purposes. What would that mean for military security? How would it affect the control and vulnerability of squadrons in the field?”

One of the reasons for this study apparently involved some officers who set up online communities for their troops without asking permission. When senior officers found out about it, they got worried. Why? Because they simply don’t understand how the new generation works. In the military, SOP (standard operating procedure) is that information flows from above unless otherwise directed. Everything moves from the top down. However, Gen Y types “do not use the Internet merely to absorb information passively. They also insist on communicating – through text messages, handhelds, homemade videos, audio mixes, Weblogs, and personal pages.”

Absorbing this kind of generational change will take, well, a generation. Eventually the confused and worried senior officers will retire and the Gen Y juniors will take their place. They’ll have their own challenges - who knows what kind of technology will be available to Gen Z - and they’ll need to adapt to those changes as well.

Will soldiers in the future communicate instantly with one another, and their families, using implanted network connections that can transmit their thoughts and senses? Considering the rate of progress of technology today, that idea may not be as science fiction-esque as it seems.