Reuters is reporting that IBM is stepping up activity in the growing Internet security market by applying its data analytics to help organizations fight cyberattacks.

IBM says its QRadar Security Intelligence Platform has allowed it to analyze real-time data feeds from more than 400 different sources, says Reuters. QRadar identifies abnormal activity by combining known threats and hackers’ methods with real-time analysis of the traffic on the corporate IT infrastructure, the company said.

For example, IBM said, it can detect when multiple failed logins to a database server are followed by a successful login and access to credit card information, followed by an upload to a questionable site.

So what makes this so different from other efforts at security?  For one thing, it looks at more than one thing.  It doesn’t just flag a single instance of unusual activity; it actually looks at what goes on afterwards–the actions that could help prove or disprove the criminal intent of those doing the accessing.

Intrusion detection is considered the cutting edge of security technology, but a system that follows an intrusion or unauthorized access through a series of maneuvers is clearer taking that one step beyond.  I have to say that I like this approach, because it doesn’t stop at letting users know there is something funny going on.

In a way, the IBM system is doing what a human investigator–should he or she be fortunate enough to encounter an unauthorized access attempt as it happens–might do, in terms of checking out where the culrpit goes and what happens next.  Such security, it would seem, is much more likely to prevent the bad guys from their nefarious acts, and isn’t that why we build and buy security systems?

Let’s see how this works as companies begin to adopt this approach from Big Blue.

If you’re a fan of sci-fi like your humble blogger, then you’re probably familiar with the Terminator series, in which future computers and machines become so advanced that they turn on their creators and threaten to wipe out humanity.

The one thing I always thought about such future visions is that–thank heaven–we haven’t developed the computing power to even make such a scenario possible.  And that is definitely true, but a new announcement makes me wonder if we are drawing closer.

ScienceDaily reports that, “The smallest transistor ever built — in fact, the smallest transistor that can be built — has been created using a single phosphorus atom by an international team of researchers at theUniversityofNew South Wales, Purdue University and the University of Melbourne.

“The single-atom device was described Sunday (Feb. 19) in a paper in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, says the report.  Michelle Simmons, group leader and director of the ARC Centre for Quantum Computation and Communication at the University of New South Wales, says the development is less about improving current technology than building future tech.

“Fifty years ago when the first transistor was developed, no one could have predicted the role that computers would play in our society today,” she continues.  “As we transition to atomic-scale devices, we are now entering a new paradigm where quantum mechanics promises a similar technological disruption. It is the promise of this future technology that makes this present development so exciting.”

Exciting, yes, but also scary.  While single-atom transistors are admittedly far from mass production, the mere possibility that they will be produced is chilling.  Because they will take up so much less physical space, they could conievably be used to construct computers many times more powerful than what we have today.  Such computers could do a lot of good, but they could also be used for nefarious purposes, such as easily cracking passwords and access codes.

What am I being so paranoid about?  To tell the truth, I don’t think we’re ready for computers that operate at such unbelievable speed and with such incredible power.  Is there any doubt that military uses and espionage will be among the first uses of such devices?   Turned into a weapon, such a machine could be the modern equivalent of the atomic bomb in 1945.

Probably the only saving grace is that no matter what happens with this nanotechnology, it will probably happen too fast for us to notice it.

But maybe I’m overreacting.  Someone out there talk some sense into me!

IT workers have been under economic seige since 2008, but it looks a bit more hopeful for 2012, at least for those who already have jobs. 

The Computer Economics 2012 IT Salary Report has found that that IT organizations are planning to hand out average raises of 2.8% this year–not a windfall, but certainly a step in the right direction.  Organizations at the 75th percentile are budgeting for only a 3.0% wage increase for employees. According to CE, however, that lags well behind the 3.4% rise in the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period through November 2011. 

But let’s hang on for a minute.  The last time I checked (about 2 minutes ago), the U.S. unemployment rate was still 8.3 percent, according to a government that wants to report this figure as low as possible.  However, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) suggests that a better measure of the real jobless rate -the U-6 – stands at 15.6 percent, according to International Business Times.  “The AEI’s rate includes those individuals who would like a job and have been looking for employment for the last twelve months and not just the last four weeks. The agency believes therefore the number of Americans hurt by the bad economy is almost twice what the official number would suggest,” says this source. 

So if you not only have a job, but you’re going to get an (admittedly modest) increase, do you really have a lot to complain about?  I wonder what the folks who have been tossed out on their assets over the past four years would say.  My bet is that they would change places with you in a heartbeat. 

CE adds that, “On a positive note, most IT workers will get some measure of increase: even organizations at the 25th percentile are increasing salaries for existing employees by 1.8%, which is an improvement over the no-raise policy that prevailed last year in the bottom quartile. Still, typical raises planned for 2012 are somewhat compressed across all quartiles and show little variation by job function or level.” 

I certainly hope no one is whining about this.  Plenty of talented and hard working Americans have seen their jobs vanish or travel overseas, and despite what the current Administraton would like to tell you (in order to be re-elected), the economy still stinks like month-old Limburger Cheese. 

In fact, CE notes that “our research indicates hiring by IT organizations across all sectors will remain weak in 2012, especially among large organizations.”  Wouldn’t it be great if some of that extra IT dough could be used to hire back some displaced IT workers?  Crazy, I know.   

With so many portable technology devices being literally thrown at us by power-hungry vendors, one could easily become overwhelmed–wondering what all this means in the grand scheme of life.  While the answer most probably is “very little,” I did see some interesting figures in the Feb. 13  issue of InformationWeek. 

The publication’s 2011 Mobile Device Managment and Security Survey reveals that among the 323 business tech pros polled, a whopping 72 percent answered “10 percent or less” to the question: What percentage of your employees use tablets for business?  In the same issue, the publication’s 2012 Outlook Survey of 605 business tech pros had 23 percent agreeing that tablets would be a “nonevent” for them, while another 20 percent “had no idea” what their tablet policy should be. 

Confusion and uncertainty, it is apparent, are the watchwords of the day when it comes to tablets.  In fact, I have seen several tech analysts predicting that the smartphone–not the tablet–will be the dominant technology of the future.  So which will we choose, on balance? 

When I was just a wee lad, I can remember that the big news was the transistor–a new device that would enable bulky portable radios to become tiny devices that could fit in your shirt pocket, right next to your pen holder.  That was cool, until the 1970s hit and we all wanted to take BIG music with us anywhere–and that meant BIG devices–aka boom boxes.  That was cool, too, until we realized that we could get big sound (on a personal level) through stereo headphones attached to our now smaller and more convenient to carry devices. 

So it has gone.  First the big portable was fashionable, then the small, then the big again, then the small again.  So what was the critical factor?  Quite simply, what determined the most popular form factor was how “cool” that factor was deemed to be at the time. 

Coming back to our modern portable devices with screens, we now have to consider the big versus the small in screen sizes.  Small devices with tiny screens are cool–we can also fit them in a shirt pocket or the drink holder on a backpack.  But tiny screens are hard to read, and streaming video–whether business or entertainment or both–is not impressive at a very small size.  That’s why home theater and humongous wide-screen televisions are so popular. 

My gut tells me that tablets, with their larger, easier to read displays, will be more popular with most of us over 40 who need reading glasses to see anything tiny clearly.  Smaller smartphone devices, on the other hand, will score big with younger, sharper-eyed users who are OK watching a big screen epic on a postage stamp display.  They will get their comeuppance, however, when their eyes eventually go south with the passage of time.  Or maybe some new form of eye surgery will make this point moot. 

In any case, tablets and smaller devices are both cool, but when it comes to choosing one for business, the, uh, eyes have it!

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology recently approved two important bills that coordinate and prioritize federal research expenditures.  One bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to coordinate with the National Academy of Sciences to comprehensively assess scientific and technical research on gasoline blends with 15 percent ethanol, commonly referred to as E15, before such fuels may be approved for consumer use.

 “I am pleased that the Committee voted today to put science before politics,” said the Committee’s Vice Chairman, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI).  “When it comes to a decision of this magnitude that would impact every American who owns a car, boat, or lawnmower, we must base our decisions on sound science, not political expediency.  The Administration has fast tracked E15 without considering that increasing the percentage of ethanol in our gasoline will cause premature engine failure, lower fuel efficiency, and void vehicle warranties.  In small engines, E15 is downright dangerous and the EPA has no credible plan to stop mis-fueling.  If ethanol is going to be the ‘fuel of the future,’ then there should be no problem conducting independent, comprehensive scientific analysis of its effect on American drivers.”

Indeed, if the claims above are true, these blended fuels could become an insurance issue, especially in small engines.  I haven’t heard glowing reports about ethanol as it now stands, but when I did some digging I found an interesting comparison of gasoline vs. E85 (85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) in a Chevy Tahoe.  While the ethanol level was much higher here, the results are fascinating.  Accoding to Edmunds.com, “The fuel economy of our Tahoe on E85, under these conditions, was 26.5 percent worse than it was when running on gas.” 

So why would anyone want to run on ethanol at lower miles-per-gallon?  The apparent answer is to “save the environment” by reducing air pollution.  The Edmunds study, however, revealed that, “our gasoline round trip produced 706.5 pounds of carbon dioxide. On E85, the CO₂ emissions came to 703.1 pounds. The difference came out in E85′s favor, but only by a scant 0.5 percent. Call it a tie. This is certainly not the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions we had been led to expect.” 

So there you have it.  Ethanol is not much of a performer on any front, and the insurance community should consider how it might respond if ethanol levels are boosted. 

By the way, the Senate Committee adds that, ”A diverse group of 31 organizations ranging from Friends of the Earth to the American Petroleum Institute to the Milk Producers Council signed a letter in support of H.R. 3199, urging further study of E15 before EPA permits its use.”

A press release from Key Lime Interactive has reported that the ability to submit bill payments, view detailed policy information, and enter detailed accident information including photos, scene details, date, etc. are the elements that mobile auto insurance property users rank most critical. “Acquisition of a price quote without the need to submit sensitive personal information is also preferred,” said the release. “Companies who exhibited these features in a visually appealing, intuitive and highly useable way received the best overall scores in a recent report.” 

These results, along with additional details, were announced by Key Lime Interactive (KLI) after the completion of a second iteration of their competitive review of the leading U.S. Auto Insurance companies. In this November 2011 release of the study, State Farm took first place for Best Mobile Website, while in the Best Mobile App portion of the study USAA came in first. 

This is very useful information for both the marketing and technology departments of insurers, but I find it odd that some aspects of customer service–including human-to-human interaction via webcam, chat or telephone–are ignored.  I find myself being pulled two ways here.  As a tech guy, I want to use available technologies to their logical limits to help with my particular insurance claim.  As a human, however, I want to be assured that my claim has been recognized by another living being, hopefully someone who actually cares about my personal pain and will do everything they can to alleviate it. 

You see, I am a Baby-Boomer and, as such, I am part of what remains the largest marketing block in our nation.  We think technology is cool, just like everyone else, but we also think that personal service is cool.  Is there some reason why we can’t get both?  Will insurers–in the name of cost savings–simply do away with human responders in favor of the cheaper, automated kind?  It should be interesting to see how this develops. 

With Facebook filing for an IPO recently, even cautious insurers and financial services companies have to wonder whether or not it might be a good social media investment in the future for their particular companies. 

One amazing fact that supports more Facebook involvement is that its membership is starting to creep up on one billion–that’s about 14 percent of the world’s population!  According to Computerworld, the social networking site passed the 100 million user mark in 2008 and now has 845 million users. The site had 483 million daily active users on average in December, compared to 327 million in December 2010, the company told the SEC. 

Such meteoric growth in numbers cannot be ignored, yet another recent trend may give investors pause as they consider their future with Facebook.  To wit, according to jezebel.com, a Pew survey from last July reports that teenagers are increasingly turning to Twitter, rather than Facebook.  (Thanks to RushLimbaugh for tipping all of us off to this one.)  The survey said that 16 percent of kids ages 12 to 17 used Twitter. “Two years before that, only eight percent did. Part of the reason they’ve converted to Twitter is because they’re like so totally over Facebook. Why? For the same reason we all are: we’re friends with our mom,” the report said. 

Here we have a perfect example of the obvious fact that social networking sites are a moving target.  What looks like a haven for upcoming generations can quickly become yesterday’s news.  So if your reason for investing time and resources in marketing through Facebook is that you want to reach “the younger generation,” you may be disappointed.  If you want a good example of how that can happen, consider how the popularity of MySpace has risen and fallen. 

In the end, any social networking outlet is likely to be a risky short-term investment.  And as we have said many times, we don’t like risk. 

A recent posting at ScienceDaily reports new hope for security of data in the cloud, thanks to quantum computing, but adds that realization of that hope is still some way off.   

According to the posting, researchers have succeeded in combining the power of quantum computing with the security of quantum cryptography and have shown that perfectly secure cloud computing can be achieved using the principles of quantum mechanics. They have performed an experimental demonstration of quantum computation in which the input, the data processing, and the output remain unknown to the quantum computer.

Quantum computers are expected to play an important role in future information processing since they can outperform classical computers at many tasks, says ScienceDaily. Considering the challenges inherent in building quantum devices, however, future quantum computing capabilities will likely exist only in a few specialized facilities around the world–like today’s supercomputers. Users would have to interact with those specialized facilities in order to outsource their quantum computations.

Certainly the development of this capability is good news for insurance, financial services and other industries who seek the storage and cost benefits of the cloud in order to minimize their in-house data storage costs.  The real question is how soon we can expect to be able to at least purchase this capability from some sophisticated quantum comuting facility–and how much that will cost.  These are key business questions that will determine whether or not this new “safe” technology is eventually adopted. 

We will be watching developments on this front closely.

CIO is reporting that after more than two years of wrangling, hand-wringing and rewrites, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is preparing to schedule a floor debate for a bill that would overhaul the country’s cybersecurity framework.

The bill should come up for debate in three or four weeks, the report notes.  The proposed bill spans numerous committee jurisdictions and raises a tangle of technical, logistical and civil-liberties questions.

So that means we are at last ready to have some kind of definitive policy on cybersecurity at the federal level, right?  But nooooo–not so fast!  According to a Reid senior aide, what comes up for debate is intended only as a “first draft,” with further debate likely over amendments, says CIO. 

“We’re not going to get it right with the legislation we bring to the floor with our base bill,” the aide said, adding that some key aspects of cybersecurity policy will by necessity be left out of the final bill. “We call it a comprehensive cybersecurity bill. It’s not comprehensive. It’s not going to touch on a lot of really important elements of cybersecurity because you can’t do it all in one bill.” 

This would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.  The one thing we know about threats to Internet security is that they change every day and that new threats are developed literally every second.  So here we have the Senate cogitating as only politicians can do for over two years, and still there is a seemingly endless debate scrum ahead.  So even when the debates are finally done, what are the chances that the final product will protect us from the latest threats?  Make that slim to none. 

Your tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen. 

At this year’s IASA Educational Conference and Business Show, your humble blogger will be moderating a panel discussion on “The State of Data Security in Insurance.”  Of course, I’ll have the usual pundits and experts talking about our current situation, the problems that beset us, and the outlook for the future–as well as suggestions for improving the protection of our enterprises and the confidential data contained therein. 

It occurred to me, however, that our readers may have some opinions and/or stories to relate when it comes to security.  So, dear readers, you are hereby invited to submit your views on our current state in regards to security–including what you think is right, what you think is wrong, and what needs to be done!

Feel free to post your comments here–or contact me confidentially at ara@aratremblytechnology.com.  Your comments and opinions could be a vital part of our presentation in June in San Diego.  Thanks!