Share This

Thursday, 7 April 2011

How to manage server workloads

Where to put them?
By Phil Mitchell




Broadcast 11am In our broadcast today, at 11:00BST, The Register's Tim Phillips is joined by Tony Lock, from Freeform Dynamics, and Ray Jones from IBM's mainframe division to discuss modern server workloads. You can join us here.

They'll be looking at how much of the early promise of virtualisation is being held back by operational management challenges, how the different workloads - transactions, BI, analytics, BPM, - effect these challenges, and how consolidation can play a massive part in future workload challenges, if done correctly.

The last two or three years have witnessed major shifts in the tectonics of server operations and management as “virtualisation” has begun to make inroads running corporate applications. But with the range of server platforms available on which to run applications and business services, where does it make sense to operate critical workloads?


Managing workloads of varying importance to the business across multiple platforms is not easy, even with the best management tools, and becomes almost impossible to undertake manually as the push for greater flexibility increases. This begs the question, are there any alternative solutions available to help manage workloads effectively in response to greater requirements for security, availability, performance and cost-effectiveness?

If you've been wondering about how to manage your workloads efficiently, you can join us for free right here.
If you can't make the live event, register with us today and we'll email you when the recorded version is available.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Who rates the raters ?

By Dominic Rushe guardian.co.uk


How do you rate the ratings agencies?

Their AAA ratings of dodgy securities helped create the financial crisis. Now, they're deciding the fate of nations. What a racket
    Standard & Poor's headquarters in New York
    Leading credit rating agency Standard & Poor's headquarters in New York. Photograph: Kurt Brady/Alamy
    Remember when your mum told you to stand up to bullies. Not always a good idea, it seems. With economies across Europe now facing meltdown, the credit rating agencies that did so much to help them get into this mess have, according to Reuters, warned the European Commission they may stop rating risky countries. Why? Because the EU has had the temerity to suggest they should be legally liable if their ratings prove to be wrong. This threat, which would leave weaker European countries struggling to raise cash, comes amid an escalating battle between European officials and the ratings agencies. But it could also mark a turning point for the credit agencies – still under fire for their role in the credit crisis, a moment when these behemoths may finally be called to account. Relations between the three main credit agencies and the EU hit a new low this week after Standard & Poor's downgraded Portugal and demoted Greece's credit status to below that of Egypt. Not so long ago, credit rating was a staid and not terrible interesting business – few cared what they thought of Greek bonds or Portuguese debt. It wasn't until the 1990s that the agencies started to rule the world. Riding on the back of globalisation and technology, the two grand forces of our age, credit agencies managed to establish themselves as the dominant independent arbiters of risk. Today, the market is dominated by Moody's and Standard & Poor's, with Fitch running third. The big three rate everything from corporate debt to pension funds to countries – and everybody listens. It's also big business: if you want a good loan, you need a good rating. Last year, Moody's sales topped $2bn. But as their business and influence have grown ever larger, more people are starting to ask who rates the raters? As the Greeks and Portuguese will testify, their influence is enormous. Far larger economies than theirs have been battered by the ratings agencies. In 2000, Moody's took on Japan, downgrading its credit and causing an international incident as the cost of borrowing in Japan shot up. Moody's concluded that the pace of economic reform was not going quickly enough in Japan. As it considered another downgrade in 2002, the Financial Times pointed out that Japan would soon be rated lower than Botswana, a country where "a third of the population is infected with HIV/Aids". Japan is still on watch, with more downgrades threatened. But where would you rather put your money, really? Time and again, the agencies have got it horribly wrong. They promoted Enron even as its management blew the company up; they promoted the subprime mortgage market as its foundations collapsed – and took the financial markets down with it. In the US, states and investors are lining up to sue over their role in the financial collapse, arguing these fools couldn't pass a pig without putting lipstick on it. This poses a big question: do they know what they are doing, or they are more interested in profits than making accurate forecasts? Former members of staff seem to think it's the latter. In testimony to the US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, former Moody's analyst Mark Froeba said the firm's management "used intimidation to create a docile population of analysts afraid to upset investment bankers and ready to cooperate to the maximum extent possible." Froeba left Moody's after 10 years' employment, in 2007. All this is not to say that there aren't real structural problems in Greece, Portugal, Japan, Ireland or the UK, for that matter. Moody's has even said it might downgrade the US, if it doesn't get its fiscal house in order. But where were the agencies in the runup to this fiasco? Nowhere to be seen. Are they selling accurate information or "a feeling of confidence in the future", as Warwick University credit agency expert Timothy J Sinclair has it. When they were minor players, it wasn't a big issue, but now unelected executives with, at best, a spotty track record are shaping the future of nations, sailing through storms which they helped to create on the way to ever greater profits. Those who have the temerity to stand up to them better watch out. But if you were going to rate the raters, they would have to get an F.

Monday, 4 April 2011

Businesses fall prey to cyberthieves' cunning


Among the growing ranks of consumers, business owners and others being lured by the convenience of online banking are legions of cybercrooks who have found the technology a convenient way to steal from unsuspecting victims.


More than 72 million households now manage their money online - up from about 12 million a decade ago, according to the financial services firm Fiserv. It's unclear how many of them have been targeted by crooks, but the FBI and a consortium of other government agencies reported in October that "thousands of businesses, small and large, have reportedly fallen victims to this type of fraud" with municipalities and nonprofit organizations increasingly coming under attack. And unlike individuals, they lack legal protections for their losses.

Ann Talbot learned of the danger four years ago when nearly $21,000 was taken from the bank account of her general contracting firm, Golden State Bridge. Then in May last year, cybercrooks struck her Martinez, Calif., company again, making off with about $100,000 from another account.

By then, Golden State had taken out an online-theft insurance policy, which limited its liability to about $10,000, according to Talbot, the company's chief financial officer. Even so, she is wary of the outlaws preying increasingly on those who bank via the Web.

"It's a huge problem," she said, adding that many people "have no idea of the threat out there."

It's just not lay people, either. FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Commonwealth Club of California in 2009 that he stopped online banking after getting an email that appeared to be from his bank, but that he realized was bogus after answering a couple of its questions.

After that, Mueller said, his wife told him, "no more Internet banking for you."

-In September last year, federal prosecutors in New York announced criminal charges against 37 people in a global online scheme that allegedly netted the crooks more than $3 million, including $130,000 from an unidentified hospital's California bank account.


-In October 2009, lawbreakers tried to abscond with $87,000 from a Danville, Calif., church, according to the Washington Post. Luckily, the transfers were blocked by the church's bank. Last August, the Catholic Diocese in Des Moines, Iowa lost several hundred thousand dollars in an online banking breach.

-In April last year, Aleksey Volynskiy was sentenced to 37 months in prison for plotting with hackers in the U.S. and Russia to loot individual Charles Schwab brokerage accounts.

Sarah Bulgatz, a spokeswoman for Charles Schwab, said the accounts were accessed through the victims' computers and not those of her company, adding that Schwab reimburses individuals for such losses. Under the federal Electronic Fund Transfers law, the liability of consumers who report an online bank loss within two days of discovering it is limited to $50 and only after 60 days are they liable for the entire amount.

But the law doesn't protect commercial, governmental or nonprofit enterprises. And the sizable sums those entities often maintain in their financial accounts make them attractive quarry for criminals. Of 504 small and medium-size businesses recently surveyed by Guardian Analytics, which helps banks and credit unions prevent theft, 32 percent said they had experienced an online-banking scam during the previous year.

While some banks have taken steps to prevent such larceny, many others have left themselves easy prey to hackers, who are becoming highly organized and using increasingly sophisticated tactics, said Guardian CEO Terry Austin. With more and more people banking online, he added, "the banking industry in general needs to step up to provide a higher level of security."

Some people - including Talbot of Golden State Bridge - also are urging lawmakers to give commercial ventures the same reimbursements afforded individuals. They have formed an online organization - Cyber Looting Awareness & Security Project - to lobby for the change.

That worries the American Bankers Association. It fears that if a company was shielded from liability the way a consumer is, "the business would be less inclined to take the protection measures necessary to protect their online accounts," which might prompt banks to stop offering online services, said the group's spokesman Doug Johnson.

He added that banks are working with law enforcement authorities to try to limit such crimes but that the problem is increasing because more people are banking online.

Still, many others are reluctant to send their financial information across the Internet. Of the more than 3,000 respondents to a survey by German security software firm Avira in November, 31 percent - nearly one out of three - said they avoid online banking entirely for fear of being ripped off.

Even a security expert can get hoodwinked, said Larry Ponemon of the Ponemon Institute, a data-protection research outfit in Michigan. After recently receiving an email that seemed to be from his bank, "I came really close to doing something silly" that might have compromised his finances, he said. "The bad guys are getting really smart."

One of the crooks' methods is to send a person a "spear phishing" email containing a malicious attachment. Once the person opens it, their computer is infected with malware that snaps up their bank-account login information, allowing the thief to masquerade as the person and steal their money.

Another common scam is to create websites that look just like those of real banks. When people mistakenly give the sites their financial information, criminals use it to make withdrawals.

The increasing numbers of people who bank via their cell phones face another threat, according to a report in November by viaForensics, a Chicago information security firm. It discovered that some phones stored the owner's financial data, making the information vulnerable if the phone is lost. Bogus banking applications for phones also have been designed to steal money from anyone using them.

Although banks are working to fix some of the phone vulnerabilities, "it's still pretty bad out there," said Andrew Hoag, viaForensics' chief investigative officer.

Unfortunately, by the time many people realize their savings have been hijacked, there's little they can do to get it back, said David Johnston, whose Modesto, Calif., electric sign business, Sign Designs, lost about $20,000 two years ago when thieves broke into its online account and transferred the money overseas.

"I was very angry," he said. "Your money should be safe in the bank."

(c) 2011, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Newscribe : get free news in real time