Software Consulting, Software Product Development and Web Development Company providing Application Develpment, Enterprise Application Development, Technology Practics, Application Management, Business Practics, Consulting Services, CMS Service, Workflow Solutions, SEO services and ERP Solutions across the globe. Technology touches Excellence
Post by Dipti Ranjan Nayak:
Post by Dipti Ranjan Nayak:
Posted in Technology Research on February 14, 2013
While changes (fine-tuning) to a heuristic system often have unpredictable consequences, additions to URL filtering are absolutely predictable – it will block one spam campaign and nothing else. For example, consider a legitimate newsletter from drugstore.com (a legitimate retailer) that advertises various health products and perhaps has “free” offers. Many heuristic systems will have trouble accepting this as a legitimate email due to “spam-like” content. Because SpamStopsHere almost completely ignores normal content, this email would not be blocked.
Now consider a spammer that takes the drugstore.com newsletter and changes all URL links from drugstore.com to drugstorerx.com (assuming this is the spammer’s domain and website), and then sends this to a huge email list. This would be a heuristic system’s nightmare. First the spammer’s newsletter would likely not be blocked; then after many user reported the spam, the legitimate newsletter would also be blocked in the future.
With URL filtering, only the drugstorerx.com domain needs to be added to the blocking database. If not already in the blocking database, the SpamStopsHere technology would likely add it automatically and then have its 24/7 staff confirm it.
With URL filtering, the legitimate drugstore.com newsletter will never be blocked while the spammer’s newsletter (with nearly identical content) will be blocked 100%. Also, with URL filtering, the anti-spam vendor can determine precisely what will be blocked by policy. For example, the vendor can decide to block all emails that link to pornographic, casino and betting sites. Without blocking even vulgar personal emails, or discussions about casinos.
Posted in Technology Research on February 10, 2013
Advanced, built-in security protection and remote auditing help your organization comply with industry security standards, including Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), HIPAA, Basel II, and SOX, in a cost-effective way—without requiring multiple appliances, application changes, or rewrites. BIG-IP ASM reports previously unknown threats, such as layer 7 denial-of-service (DoS) and SQL injection attacks, and it mitigates web application threats to shield the organization from data breaches. All reports are GUI-driven and provide drill-down options with a click.
With PCI reporting, BIG-IP ASM lists security measures required by PCI DSS 1.2, determines if compliance is being met, and details steps required to become compliant if not.
Geolocation reporting informs you of the country where threats originate in addition to attack type, violation, URL, IP address, severity, and more. You can also schedule reports to be sent to a designated email address automatically for up-to-date reporting.
Easy-to-read format for remote auditing
BIG-IP ASM makes security compliance easier and saves valuable IT time by exporting policies in human readable format. The flat, readable XML file format enables auditors to view the policies off site. Auditors working remotely can view, select, review, and test policies without requiring time and support from the web application security administrator.
Posted in Technology Research on January 22, 2013
In this model, we assume OCF (OpenCard Framework) and the smartX engine are initially installed and configured on the target terminal. As explained in the previous section, the terminal application consists in two blocks: the application process and the application protocol. The application process that encapsulates the logic of the application is compiled into a Java applet signed by a trusted entity. The application protocol is described inside an SML dictionary and is card-specific. Once the Java applet is downloaded, the smartX engine identifies the smart card inserted in the terminal. A simple identification consists in verifying the historical bytes of the card ATR (Answer To Reset). After correct identification, the smartX engine dynamically downloads the SML dictionary that contains the application protocol for the card inserted inside the terminal. With this dynamic mechanism, you minimize the loading time since you only download the dictionary relevant to the card inside the terminal.
In the OCF model, you had to download with the applet all the CardService implementations. With smartX, a terminal is also not limited to a predefined set of smart cards. As long as you provide the correct SML dictionary, a terminal can dynamically accept a new smart card that was not originally supported by the application. All these advantages make smartX a platform of choice for developing and deploying smart card applications on the Internet.
Posted in Technology Research on January 20, 2013
Each shared resource has a priority ceiling that is defined as the priority of the highest-priority task that can ever access that shared resource. The protocol is defined as follows,
- A task runs at its original (sometimes called its base) priority when it is outside a critical section.
- A task can lock a shared resource only if its priority is strictly higher than the priority ceilings of all shared resources currently
locked by other tasks. Otherwise, the task must block, and the task which has locked the shared resource with the highest priority ceiling inherits the priority of task.
An interesting consequence of the above protocol is that a task may block trying to lock a shared resource, even though the resource is not locked. The priority ceiling protocol has the interesting and very useful property that no task can be blocked for longer than the duration of the longest critical section of any lower-priority task.
Priority Ceiling Protocol Emulation
The priority ceiling of a shared resource is defined, as before, to be the priority of the highest-priority task that can ever access that resource. A task executes at a priority equal to (or higher than) the priority ceiling of a shared resource as soon as it enters a critical section associated with that resource. Applying the Priority Ceiling Protocol Emulation to the Priority Ceiling Protocol example results in the following sequence: