Zerify Inc (ZRFY)

[Cartmontster]

Spot on... no "Executive" took this survey. Top Executives at big companies don't even read their own email much less take a survey.

Unless their Senior IT Executives were with a company of say... 10 end-users. I managed four companies with about 200 users and I would never think of taking time from my day for a BS survey like this.

[dukeb]

I'm more baffled by the fact that 1,000 senior IT executives took the time away from their day to take a vanilla survey like this. I get solicitations regularly offering me an Amazon, Starbucks, Subway gift card in return for proving my opinion about industry trends, my impressions of a specific manufacturer or product, etc.

I've never taken one of those surveys and I'd be very suspicious of anyone who does have the time to do so.

[surfkast]

What a pile of horse shit.
Give Kay the big DUH award!
If an upper level IT professional is not concerned about enterprise wide security, only video conferencing, they had better start looking for a new job.

The results of this survey indicates broad awareness of Zero Trust cybersecurity among IT professionals,

To address external security threats, big companies deploy and regularly update basic measures such as two-factor authentication, firewalls and antimalware solutions. They also go further by implementing more advanced strategies such as Trusted Platform Module (TPM) capabilities and adopting Zero Trust architecture.

https://www.endpointprotector.com/blog/5-ways-big-companies-protect-their-data/

[AveragePenny]

$ZRFY Zerify Survey indicates video conferencing security is a growing concern amid increasing cyber threats and fear of nation-state attacks

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/09/07/2511437/0/en/Zerify-Survey-indicates-video-conferencing-security-is-a-growing-concern-amid-increasing-cyber-threats-and-fear-of-nation-state-attacks.html

EDISON, N.J., Sept. 07, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Zerify, Inc., (OTCQB: ZRFY), the 21-year-old cyber security company focused on secure video conferencing solutions, today announced the findings of a survey that indicate that IT professionals are becoming increasingly concerned about the growing number of cyber threats and foreign attacks capable of impacting video conferencing. The survey, commissioned by Zerify and executed by market research firm Propeller Insights in July of 2022, involved 1,000 IT professionals - most of whom are at the director or C-Level (83.8%).

With the White House’s executive order on improving the nation’s cybersecurity, video conferencing still has not been given the specific, individualized focus it deserves despite a notable increase in virtual meetings among remote and hybrid workers across critical industries. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) developed guidelines to ensure security in video conferencing that are in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) recommendations.

NIST developed a framework for Zero Trust architecture that should be considered for video conferencing. This is something that’s especially important to George Waller, EVP and co-founder of Zerify, who explains that Zero Trust in video conferencing involves important steps to elevate security, such as locking down microphones and speakers, and authorizing and authenticating every single user prior to entering a specific conference. His own early concerns and forethought about video conferencing security - and his desire to implement specific preventative measures - were mirrored by 97% of survey respondents who said they would want to know about a solution for enhanced video conferencing security.

Highlights of the survey include:

97% of respondents said they were concerned about protecting privacy and video conferencing data
92% reported that they are aware of security vulnerabilities in video conferencing platforms
Nation-state cyber threats have increased at most (81.8%) companies
The majority of IT professionals (89%) are concerned about foreign attacks as they see a rise in threats
79% of respondents reported that they were very knowledgeable about the concept and framework of Zero Trust cybersecurity, with 86% stating that their company had Zero Trust cybersecurity policies. Zero Trust is a “strategic approach to cybersecurity that secures an organization by eliminating implicit trust and continuously validating every stage of a digital interaction.”
69% believe cyber attackers could breach their video conferencing platforms and 84% stated that if they were breached, they believed attackers could steal intellectual property, sensitive company data and trade secrets.
“The results of this survey indicates broad awareness of Zero Trust cybersecurity among IT professionals, and underscore the need for video conferencing platforms to guarantee that same level of privacy and protection of proprietary data,” said Waller. “Collaborative communications is an area of heightened vulnerability as more work is conducted remotely. Video conferencing threats are increasing and decision-makers are concerned about nation-state threats as these platforms can be compromised by attackers trying to steal IP information and other valuable data. The increase in foreign attacks exacerbates security concerns for IT professionals, illustrating why it’s so important to authenticate and authorize every single video conference participant prior to their admittance into a meeting. Individualized authentication is essential to ensuring Zero Trust for the most secure types of video conferences.”

[surfkast]

Two to one sells to buys. After 10:30 a few small buys* and then all sells!

* an interesting buy at 12:30 of 380,000

[dounome]

not trying. You see what you see. Old friend.

[surfkast]

Nice try.

[dounome]

Eliminating the Jargon: An Alternative Proposal for Section 101 Reform
On August 3, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022, S.4734, which would amend the U.S. Patent Act to clarify the patent eligibility of certain technologies under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. Few would disagree that the current state of eligibility jurisprudence is in “abysmal shambles”, and recognizing that U.S. eligibility law needs changing comes from both side of the aisle, as Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) has long questioned the court-made exceptions to patent eligibility….. I have extensively followed the developments of 101 jurisprudence in the courts and the efforts of those in Congress to enact statutory changes to Section 101. In so doing, I have contemplated how Section 101 could be improved, and thus my proposal regarding how to revise the statutory language follows.

[Cartmontster]

That's brutal! I almost hopped onboard about 10 years ago. So glad I didn't.

[dounome]

.. I have extensively followed the developments of 101 jurisprudence in the courts and the efforts of those in Congress to enact statutory changes to Section 101. In so doing, I have contemplated how Section 101 could be improved, and thus my proposal regarding how to revise the statutory language follows.

[surfkast]

Since Kay lied to my face twice, I made it my mission to watch and then call out his scam!

[surfkast]

LOL. I lost $10,000 when I believed Pinocchio.

[surfkast]

LOL. I lost $10,000 when I believed Pinocchio.

[dukeb]

I listened to Kay blabber in the recent video. If I'm not mistaken, Zerify Meet allows the meeting organizer to assign an individual username (email address??) and unique password for each invitee. Those credentials need to be typed in by an attendee before they can join a meeting. If someone passes their unique credentials to someone who then "bombs" the meeting, there would be a way to trace the "bomber" back to the invitee's.

On the flip side, conducting virtual meetings can be clumsy enough as it is. Requiring that each attendee type in their ID/password will only make the process even more fraught with potential failure.

[Cartmontster]

Cracks me up how the pumpers still pump this. Well, they're only pumping to try and get the price up so they don't lose so much.

[surfkast]

Just look at the PPS of the "new" great company! Same ol!

[Cartmontster]

Agree 100%

[surfkast]

There is nothing stopping someone from giving out the code. Once inside, even if discovered it may be too late.

And as I stated, they can take a picture of something on the screen or even record the meeting.

Kay as usual is FOS!

[Cartmontster]

There is one way and one way only, to fully protect your computer 100%... and that is to NOT connect it to the Internet. Leave it in the box! :o)

You are correct, your two IT VPs are correct. Every and anything attached to the Internet can be hacked.

[Cartmontster]

Thanks for clarifying

[dukeb]

What I saw was a recording of the interview. There was no indication that others could watch/listen live and there certainly weren't any "callers" who were invited to ask questions. Do you believe otherwise?

Because if it was just a one-on-one being recorded for posting on a web site then there is no reason that Zerify Meet could not have been used for the interview.

[surfkast]

They all have Zoom or another well-known platforms.

Which is excellent. Plus my discussions with two IT VP's revealed they already have enterprise wide safety measures. Not just for video conferencing.

They both agreed that no matter how good any system is, someone can always take a picture of the screen!

ZOOM

Encryption: Protecting your event content by encrypting the session’s video, audio, and screen sharing. This content is protected during transit with 256-bit Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) using a one-time key for that specific session when all participants use a Zoom client.

End-to-end Encryption, when enabled, ensures that communication between all meeting participants in a given meeting is encrypted using cryptographic keys known only to the devices of those participants. This ensures that no third party -- including Zoom -- has access to the meeting’s private keys.

Advanced Chat Encryption, when enabled, allows for a secured communication where only the intended recipient can read the secured message. Zoom uses both asymmetric and symmetric algorithms to encrypt the chat session. Private keys are generated on the device and not shared. This ensures that the session cannot be eavesdropped on or tampered with.

Zoom Phone Voicemail recordings are processed and stored in Zoom’s cloud and can be managed through the secured Zoom client.

Recordings can be stored on the host’s local device with the local recording option or on Zoom’s cloud with the Cloud Recording option (available to paying customers).

Local Recording Storage: Recordings stored locally on the host’s device can be encrypted if desired using various free or commercially available tools.
Cloud Recording Storage: Cloud recordings are processed and stored in Zoom’s cloud after the meeting has ended; account owners control whether these recordings are passcode-protected. The recordings are stored in both video/audio format and audio only format.
If a meeting host enables cloud recording and audio transcripts, both will be stored encrypted. The account owner and people and apps they approve can access encrypted content stored in ZoomCloud (and Zoom can access stored content for troubleshooting if requested by the account owner).
If a meeting host enables file transfer through in-meeting chat, those shared files will be stored encrypted and will be deleted within 31 days of the meeting.
Audio Signature embeds a user's personal information into the audio as an inaudible watermark if they record during a meeting. If the audio file is shared without permission, Zoom can help identify which participant recorded the meeting.

Watermark Screenshot superimposes an image, consisting of a portion of a meeting participant’s own email address, onto the shared content they are viewing and the video of the person who is sharing their screen.

[Cartmontster]

Not to be defending Kay.... he can't use his own product because all the others who want to see the interview, or whatever it was, don't have it. They all have Zoom or another well-known platform.

[surfkast]

I sat in that conference room years ago when Kay said no R/S. Then after the R/S I sat there again and he said no R/S.
The fly would hear lies!

Pinocchio was in the office along with a tech in the server room which was not impressive at all.

Not using his own product is very telling.

[Huggy Bear]

YUP.

[Cartmontster]

Hey WBC, how you been?

Yup, same old same old here. And, over on the Yahoo board too.
There are a few hardcore pumpers there. One of them makes you think he's actually Kay!

[WBCTrader]

Wow, I see SFOR has tried a rebranding.....

I also see that it is still a money stealing scheme from investors, and see some of the same ole pumpers here.....


The gift that keeps on, scamming

[dukeb]

Oh, to be a fly on the wall of that conference room.

I think it's doubtful that Kay or Waller even leave their respective homes on any given work day. When they do meet the hot topic of conversation is what restaurant will provide lunch (paid by the company, of course).

I forgot to mention that the recent remote interview that Kay did was NOT done over Zerify Meet. You might that Mark would insist on using the company's own product for that interview.

[dukeb]

And that's the point. The spots have nothing to do with drumming up sales. It has to do with Kay and Waller showing potential stockholders that they are pulling out all the stops to boost revenue.

Never mind that those ads ran at 1:30am when no one will see them. The boys won't mention that part.

That's when all their "spots" run!!! No way in the world they could ever afford Prime-Time.

[surfkast]

What a joke!

Zerify's galactic headquarters in New Jersey



And a reminder:

The paid-for-TV programming platforms...

The Street's syndicated and sponsored TV networks, Newsmax TV, Fox Business Network, and Bloomberg TV

How much will this cost investors?

https://sports.yahoo.com/street-tv-signs-12-part-133000714.html

[Cartmontster]

That's when all their "spots" run!!! No way in the world they could ever afford Prime-Time.

[dukeb]

You are damn close.

From this link: https://newtothestreet.com/upcoming-airings

New to the Street appears on...

Fox Business Network Every Monday and Tuesday at 1030 PM PST | Bloomberg every other Saturday at 6 PM

Translating to Eastern Time (which sync with Zerify's galactic headquarters in New Jersey) the broadcast on FBN will be Tuesdays and Wednesday at 1:30am and on Bloomberg Saturday evening (no indication if the 6pm is also Pacific time or some other time zone.

This is Kay and Waller just trying to show that they are doing SOMETHING to justify their 6 figure salaries.

[surfkast]

NBC-ABC-CBS?????
The paid-for-TV programming platforms...

The Street's syndicated and sponsored TV networks, Newsmax TV, Fox Business Network, and Bloomberg TV

How much will this cost investors?

https://sports.yahoo.com/street-tv-signs-12-part-133000714.html

[Cartmontster]

Probably at 1AM Eastern.

[carusso]

Would anyone here please join me in requesting iHub Admin to post ZRFY NEWS on the News tab for this board, instead of the old SFOR message board? I have asked 4 times, and they say “all set”, but it isn’t.

[dounome]

Time on NBC-ABC-CBS-FOX-BLOOM B- AND OTHERS.

[surfkast]

Three to one sells to buys! Kay and krew must have a big party planned for the three day weekend.

[dounome]

Here it comes, Surfkast.

[surfkast]

Not happening with this dilution machine.

[jimmirehman]

There is no reason to buy any stock. In the end you are in it to just make a profit and sell it.

[surfkast]

Because there is no reason to buy this failure of a company!

[jimmirehman]

Why don’t we just run this to $1?

[carusso]

Like to see this back at .08-.10.

The Good Ole Days...

[brooklyn13]

Indeed, it was more of a rhetorical question. These guys are shameless thieves of shareholder value. They borrow the money, pay themselves, and we pay off the debt.

[maronti1]

Do not listen this bozo

[maronti1]

Funny

[dukeb]

Where did the money actually go? Again.

Easy one to answer: paychecks and benefits for Kay and his band of thieves.

[brooklyn13]

Wow, they signed on to repaying $7.5M, plus future royalties, as repayment for a $1.5M loan?

ZRFY has no incentive to actually litigate this, other than giving it lip service, since the money is repaid "only in the event that the company achieves recoveries.....". I seem to remember another $1M loan to pursue patent litigation a few years ago, but maybe it was this one and I misremember the amount.

Regardless, having to repay 5X + on a loan is sheer desperation and the terms indicate an implicit unwillingness to act in good faith by the company. Which should surprise no one who follows this company and makes one wonder how the lenders could possibly have made the loan.

Back then, in 2017, BlankRome was representing SFOR on contingency. Ropes & Gray did charge for the miserable job they did at Appeals Court, but there's no way it came to $1.5M. Where did the money actually go? Again.

[Canna-Biz-Invest]

Hard to watch this stock at these prices.

[carusso]

Cannot disagree with you...