<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Comments for robnewby - HaloScan.com</title>
    <link>http://www.haloscan.com/</link>
    <description>Latest comments for robnewby. Syndicated by HaloScan</description>
    <generator>http://www.haloscan.com/</generator>
    
    <item>
      <title>Thread: 6021145921182633820. Post by Edwin</title>
      <link>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/6021145921182633820/?src=hsr#80226</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:55:46 +0000</pubDate>
      <comments>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/6021145921182633820/?src=hsrs#80226</comments>
      <guid>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/6021145921182633820/?src=hsrs#80226</guid>
      <description>Nice but prefer:
12:34:56 7/8/9

Dont say it three times though...</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thread: 360607551300746514. Post by julian</title>
      <link>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/360607551300746514/?src=hsr#80227</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:05:39 +0000</pubDate>
      <comments>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/360607551300746514/?src=hsrs#80227</comments>
      <guid>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/360607551300746514/?src=hsrs#80227</guid>
      <description>A good read. Well written.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thread: 7818601475851009046. Post by Rob Newby</title>
      <link>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsr#79455</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
      <comments>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79455</comments>
      <guid>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79455</guid>
      <description>I have to admit that I don't have practical experience of Voltage, it is Trend that has let me down in the past. 

With regards to what you are saying about &quot;pocket implementations&quot; - I would recommend looking at PGP again now, it has changed beyond recognition from what it was 2 years ago, and is now a fully fledged enterprise solution. 

As with all good security, it is seamlesss to the user</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thread: 7818601475851009046. Post by jason</title>
      <link>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsr#79454</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:37:27 +0000</pubDate>
      <comments>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79454</comments>
      <guid>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79454</guid>
      <description>I enjoyed reading with your post, but I would like to respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions. I was formerly (approx 2yrs ago) an architect for a rather large, global, financial services company. As a point of reference, we had about 15k users in about 70 locations in over a dozen countries. 

I had been down the ‘secure email’ path multiple times over the course of my career and at...</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thread: 7818601475851009046. Post by Rob Newby</title>
      <link>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsr#79452</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:06:30 +0000</pubDate>
      <comments>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79452</comments>
      <guid>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79452</guid>
      <description>Surely a more skewed perspective would come from the Global Product Manager of Trend Micro, Mark Bloom, rather than an independent consultant? 

You decide.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thread: 7818601475851009046. Post by Mark</title>
      <link>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsr#79451</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:28:50 +0000</pubDate>
      <comments>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79451</comments>
      <guid>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79451</guid>
      <description>Talk about a skewed perspective... did Rob not go through any of the complexities of PKI or the fact that is requires pre-existing cryptographic relationships? PGP is not more widely adopted because it is complex and costly. IBE reduces complexity and increases universal reach tremendously more than PGP or any PKI-based technology!</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thread: 7818601475851009046. Post by Rob Newby</title>
      <link>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsr#79423</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
      <comments>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79423</comments>
      <guid>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79423</guid>
      <description>I have no desire to get into an argument, just a point of view, but I have plenty of experience of both, John.

Let me guess, you have client software at both ends, and don't communicate with unknown 3rd parties? Like I said, too many mandatory requirements.

PGP is much more widespread than IBE, given that it is a standard. It isn't everywhere already for the same reason that IBE isn't everyw...</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thread: 7818601475851009046. Post by John Hayes</title>
      <link>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsr#79422</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
      <comments>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79422</comments>
      <guid>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/7818601475851009046/?src=hsrs#79422</guid>
      <description>Why isn't PGP bigger? Why isn't it everywhere already?

Good questions indeed that you totally fail to answer. You think IBE is impractical ? Well I'd say you demonstrate your lack of knowledge with the real TCO and complexity of maintaining a PGP system up and running in a large IT environment. 
We're using Trend's email encryption now for over 3 months and the deployment has been seamless and...</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thread: 8475988946952485170. Post by Andrew Yeomans</title>
      <link>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/8475988946952485170/?src=hsr#79203</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:46:58 +0000</pubDate>
      <comments>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/8475988946952485170/?src=hsrs#79203</comments>
      <guid>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/8475988946952485170/?src=hsrs#79203</guid>
      <description>As Daniel Dresner puts it (in http://www.nacr.cz/dlm/presentations/dresdner.pdf)

2008 - The year of lost data (UK)
2009 - The year of encryption
2010 - The year of lost encryption keys</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thread: 8116048459516605196. Post by pci compliance</title>
      <link>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/8116048459516605196/?src=hsr#78747</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 16:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
      <comments>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/8116048459516605196/?src=hsrs#78747</comments>
      <guid>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/robnewby/8116048459516605196/?src=hsrs#78747</guid>
      <description>This information is very helpful. It really helps me understand more about  PCI.  Keep posting. Will certainly try doing that myself. Your post/article really helped. Thanks a lot.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
