Buy PM's
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
In this ocean of posts,
So The article author mentions "dilution" and the guy next door thinks SFOR is a little crappy Pink sheet and one would only lose money in.
Both obviously have not studied SFOR in-depth, the author knowing part of the story and having written on it in the past, is still far from knowing in-depth Knowlege or would have mention a lot more postives.
And given 4SD's reply, and the fact that Kay has stated several times in 2016 & 2017 that there's no need for a R/S, not to mention, that a buyback has more potential of happening.
Without a link given to the thread for ease of reading it, I see no reason to go look for it. If you had given the ease of just clicking a link I would be much more likely to have followed the discussion thread, and read your comments, even though as to the reasons mentioned above, it may be pointless.
Anyone who is long, courteous to others and provided knowledgeable insight to the board, I always will take tge time to read if requested. But I dig enough searching for DD, without having to go looking for posts, when 20 seconds taken to provide a link would entice a look at your view point.
Issue of SFOR not keeping a Vaild SAM
I have not addressed this issue as of yet, because I viewed it as a waste of time. But it sure seems to draw a lot of comments from the peanut gallery, and comments from the longs. So let's settle it and spend our time on far more importent discussions.
Screw editing, the topic and poor arguments on SFOR not maintaining a valid SAM being made are not worth the effort, but my point is made here.
Why bother keeping you SAM current with the GSA Schedule. When there's no way to find your product by Catagory. It's like trying to find a minnow in the Ocean. When there is not category for Cyber Security and lumped in under Computer Software.
Although I dont have access to the latest GSA schedule, as of 1 year ago there were NAICS, SIC or SIN CODES for cyber security products on the GSA Schedule. Yea perhaps a keyword search on MultiFactor Authentication might return a hit, but only if you know exactly what you were looking for. How many are that we'll informed ?
It would be better to work other DoD Avenues attempting to find backdoor, if you have some connections, until such time a Code is added for Cyber Security.
Even if one oranzization were to happen to find you buried in the DVD Set on the GSA Schedule, getting one little contact is not going to get you much of anywhere in the Sea of non-coordinated, unorganized vastness of the Government Procurement.
Working towards a Huge Contract such as Sleddogs efforts in getting Secure Commications even just with Keyboard Encryption with MT on Government Issued iPhones is the way to at least get recognized on a huge contract and a foot in the door in a big way, then you can work on pushing OOB MFA.
Sleddogs efforts have at least gotten Kay's Phone ringing from the DoD.
Perhaps, just perhaps, now that the issue is making headlines and we have a POTUS that has made it one of his Top Priorities, a Catagory for Cyber Security has or maybe be created.
Being a Hot Topic, having many Standards Bodies and the Tech Industry already going with OOB MFA, what is the Government going to eventually go with ? Bubblegum and 100mph Tape to plug the Holes in their networks....
As a Small Company with few employees, and having Channel Partners who specialize on DOD Contracts.
SFOR should continue to Concentrate on using all resoures making Deals with Major Players in the Tech Industry and concentrating on defending their patents in Court, and not just merely defending, but having two of the Best Law Firms on the Planet doing so, to ensure SFOR maintains it's difinitive lead as the inventor of OOB MFA with Patents that Pre-date other companies and ENSURING All OOB MFA roads lead to Rome, I mean RAM.
The Bloated GSA Schedule is no more organized and well catorgiezed than the 76,000 + pages of IRS Tax Code is for the average citizen to find what they need, without a CPA.
There are 2.2M People using this antiquated GSA System in 2009. And trying to find StrikeForce and its Products without a specific category for Cyber Security, would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
If you were looking for a road leading to the city, would you turndown a Dead End Road ?
Article - Carusso, Ram_A, abazaba
Yes the Article is not bad. Although many here could add to a lot more positives, it was fair, and showed somethings to look forward to.
As far as Facts abazaba, yes there were facts. More than I highlightt here.
Not expecting fireworks on Q1, perfect.
Look to the 2nd half of the year. Perfect.
And just like the Q4, if disapointing, a dip is a buying oppertunity.
Perfect.
Although we may have a PR or two in May besides Q1 numbers to help offset another dip. We shall see.
It discusses the MSFT case and mentions the 7 Lawsuits. And a possible settlement maybe looming.
If I were reading it cold, not knowing anything about SFOR, the MSFT case and 7 more Patents Lawsuits would make me want to look deeper.
I have not added since .08, but if it dips below a penny, I will be adding. It was great aquiring from .003 up. But SFOR is still on Spring Clearance Sale where it sits for new investors and adding.
Next earnings are due to hit press mid May, and while they’ll be well worth keeping an eye on, we’re not expecting fireworks. The real ramp up is going to come during the second half of this year, as the company’s retail channels start to filter through to revenue collection. As such, if the numbers are perceived to disappoint (which may be the case), any dip on the response could be a nice opportunity to pick up a discount exposure on a misinterpretation, ahead of realignment when the later quarters’ numbers hit press.
There’s also the potential for litigation related windfalls. This company won out against Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) at the beginning of last year when it fought to reinforce the validity of a two factor authentication patent. This patent is now subject to seven new litigations, and with the Microsoft win in place to serve as precedent, there’s a good chance that Strikeforce could announce a one off payment, or royalty compensation type agreement, or both, at any time over the next few quarters.
You may have missed the Point.....
Yes we may not be getting a Dime from MSFT, but at least we can see the pricing for MSFT MFA Transactions as a Guide.
One may be able to evaluate what type of Pricing other companies we are Litigatin and judge if SFOR gets a small Percetage, what type of numbers SFOR might expect to recieve, even using a low ball Percentage. Just look at Germalto, and the companies they have using there services, which ZPAUL has listed in the Past.
Even if SFOR got a penny even half a penny out of every 10 Transactions...
How many Transactions Does MSFT get in a Day, a week or a Month in the 128 Countries it serves ?
Interpreting $SFOR State Of The Union 27 Apr 2017
Interpreting Strikeforce Technologies Inc (OTCMKTS:SFOR)’s State Of The Union 27 Apr 2017
On April 17, 2017, Strikeforce Technologies Inc (OTCMKTS:SFOR) put out what it refers to as its State of the Union release. The report detailed some financials from 2016 (and compared said financials to the corresponding figures during 2015) and went on to highlight the company’s position in the market.
This is one we’ve come back to on a number of occasions over the last year, and in light of the recent update, we’re going to take a look at the company one more time with the goal of realigning our bias.
So, here goes.
For those new to Strikeforce, this one’s a cyber security technology play, with a focus on consumer products. It’s got a suite of products on the market right now, each of which targets a different aspect of IT tech. We won’t go into these products here as we’ve done so plenty of times before, but as a quick introduction, there are three primary products that comprise the company’s portfolio: ProtectID, GuardedID and MobileTrust.
The first is a two-factor authentication technology and the latter two are designed to protect against a range of cyber security threats – keylogging, clickjacking etc. – for both desktop and mobile devices.
Our thesis for this one to date has been this: that the company has spent a long time trying to get these products to market, and more specifically trying to get them in the hands of customers, but its efforts have been stymied somewhat by a muted consumer demand for cyber security (outside of the standard anti-virus type products). Right now, however, cybersecurity is a hot topic. Trump, Russia, North Korea, Democratic email leaks – all these things are keeping security in the mainstream news, and this sort of exposure is going to (and already is proving to) filter through to mainstream public conscience.
And the recent release from Strikeforce reinforces this thesis. Management pointed towards the threat of security breaches being taken far more seriously now by all operators than ever before, and that the company is positioned to take advantage of this shift in perception is – in our eyes – indicative of a real chance for upside revaluation.
So what did the numbers tell us?
For the year to December 31, 2016, Strikeforce pulled in a little over $384K in revenues. This compares to the $271K reported a year earlier – a 42% increase across the period. That’s not great in terms of top line, but it’s a decent shift up, and we expect that the numbers should really start to inflate this year in line with the above mentioned increased demand in the market.
Next earnings are due to hit press mid May, and while they’ll be well worth keeping an eye on, we’re not expecting fireworks. The real ramp up is going to come during the second half of this year, as the company’s retail channels start to filter through to revenue collection. As such, if the numbers are perceived to disappoint (which may be the case), any dip on the response could be a nice opportunity to pick up a discount exposure on a misinterpretation, ahead of realignment when the later quarters’ numbers hit press.
There’s also the potential for litigation related windfalls. This company won out against Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) at the beginning of last year when it fought to reinforce the validity of a two factor authentication patent. This patent is now subject to seven new litigations, and with the Microsoft win in place to serve as precedent, there’s a good chance that Strikeforce could announce a one off payment, or royalty compensation type agreement, or both, at any time over the next few quarters.
Nothing’s guaranteed, of course. There’s always a dilution risk at this end of the space, especially when it comes to a tech company trying to establish a product suite in a growing market. Strikeforce is going to need funds to expand into its potential (setting aside the potential for any litigation income for a second) and this capital is going to come from equity issue, in all likelihood.
At its current market cap, however, there’s a lot of room for value add before a raise is necessary, and any run should help to offset the impact of an issue longer term.
https://www.insiderfinancial.com/interpreting-strikeforce-technologies-inc-otcmktssfors-state-of-the-union/122012/
Z You have listed in the past
Some of the Customers under Comapnies in suit, I recall Germalto being one with a long list. Each of these companies having their own Customer base that maybe using SFOR IP.
Be it PCI, etc. SFOR getting just a small percentage of the transactions that these companies are charging, would be a staggering amount.
ZPaul I'd like to get your thoughts on the Above, while keeping in mind what Microsoft is charging for Multi-Factor Pricing.
Enlighting indeed.
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/multi-factor-authentication/
Some details from McAffee Spinout. Video
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/04/mcafee-new-independent-cybersecurity-company-again.html
DOLPHY - "Hard to Phantom"
You've been investing g at least for a while with 9600 post on ihub.
You know the score, and you're in pennyland, land og the MM's and manipulation. I think you been in SFOR since at least since December.
Yes it's frustrating, Some were calling for .40 in 40 days back then.
But look what you Own whether 1M or 10M shares, with some here still holding since the trips and at least 1 for 7 years, and he won't let go of a share.
It's hard to flip when we know the news is coming and been coming since Oct..
We can see what's out there, and probably a lot more than what we see.
Hell I've even flipped some and repurchased, knowing unless the 10-K were to be backed up by more than HSN we would retrace even if we had a good 4th Q.
Yes a settlement would not only bring in cash, but it will backup the Patents with a 2nd Settlement. Once SFOR gets 2, 3, 4 in the bag it proves a lot.
But deals have been on the burner since the 4th Q, Something is bound to popup soon, yeah I know, how many times have you heard that......
I believe from emails the MidShift Crew as recieved there's at least 2 more deals coming in May.
Do not know if we will have announcements, or the deals are just new ones being made. Either way it's great. Look at the Price, it's almost time to add some more from my view and thought.
Plus we have heard that Kay at least talking to a large Institutional Investor thanks MidShift Crew. Will that panout, given Kay's Background I have feW doubts, when will they jumps in? Anyone's guess, but I might venture a guess, just before a deal, settlement news or a buyback.
Sorry I won't pump and say we will have something next week, can't do it. But once it's starts to move on Real News, deal, settlement, OTC upgrade, Buyback .014 will be gone. Just like I know there are some that are kicking themselves for not buying more at .004 - ..006....
At least one knows what's coming. That's at least better than most investments. Especially an OTC.... and what's coming won't be chicken feed Fluff.
We have a CEO that actually take calls and answers email with what he can say. Not some IR person giving you a rehearsed Spiel. From what I've seen, each one of Kay's are unique and address what is asked if Possible.
If your not flipping, then just check in once a day see if volume is building, and just know things are in the works and coming.
If young just be thankful you can retire early, if you have at least a few million shares, if not, at least be able to pay off the Mortgage and car. And have a lot more in your pocket and be able to add the Max to a Roth each year. Be thankful you found this oppertunity.
Great Law Firms, Great Patents, Grade Products, Great Deals not announced, but can be seen.
Almost everyone here should be Researching a Great Attourny, CPA, and Estate Planner. And not telling anyone when the Lotto numbers Match., Just find a rubber room and Bounce off the walls, until the reality kicks in.
GLTA
Q&A With a Gold Titan: Rob McEwen 4/28/17
Katusa's Investment Insights
April 28, 2017
Q&A With a Gold Titan: Rob McEwen
When it comes evaluating and buying gold assets, few, if any, people know more than my friend Rob McEwen. Rob is the extremely successful founder and former CEO of gold giant Goldcorp. He’s a member of the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame and the current CEO of McEwen Mining. Recently, I discussed gold acquisitions with Rob and even got him to mention some of his top junior gold stock holdings. Below, you'll find insights from one of the gold world’s greatest dealmakers.
Marin Katusa: I’m here with Rob McEwen, a legend in the gold mining business. Rob, thanks for doing this for my readers. First question: where are we currently in the gold market when it comes to the spot price of gold?
Rob McEwen: We are in the early stage of a major uptrend. There are a number of reasons for this: one is the extreme amount of debt that has already been incurred by governments around the world. It is rapidly becoming a larger burden that will eventually become unmanageable. I expect to see widespread devaluation of currencies relative to gold.
Combine that with some geopolitical strife and economic problems floating around the world, and you are going to see more people turning towards gold as a form of insurance for the balance of their wealth. It’ll once again be used as it has been used for millennia: to preserve value, the ultimate currency.
Marin Katusa: I am with you 100 percent. I think we are in the early part of the gold “glory days.” I think gold is well-positioned to have a great run this year. The President of the United States just stated that the USD is overvalued, so you know we are in for an interesting year for currencies and gold. Where do you see the price of gold in the next 12 months and in the next 5 years?
Rob McEwen: Let me answer the second question first; In five years, we are going to be at $5,000 an ounce. This year I am expecting a higher price by the end of the year than gold is at now, possibly $2,000/oz.
Marin Katusa: Gold is a great hedge against the future value of a fiat currency, whether it’s the US dollar, the Euro or the Yen. A great example of this was what happened to the Russian Ruble from late 2014 and during 2015, where the Russian currency dropped in value by 50%, but those who had gold were protected by the currency depreciation. A lot of people say gold will do incredibly well in an inflationary market.
But if we enter a period of global deflation, I believe that gold will still do well; whereas the old argument was…it’s about inflation. What’s your opinion there?
Rob McEwen: I agree with you. In a deflationary environment, gold offers extreme liquidity. I’ll give you an example. Let’s compare having your money in gold or in real estate. If you want to sell your house, it is virtually impossible to sell it and get your money in two days. Gold, on the other hand, you can sell in two days and achieve instant liquidity. It offers that form of insurance in a deflationary environment where it gives its holder a clear advantage over most other asset classes.
Marin Katusa: I totally agree. We all saw that in 2008 when liquidity just went away.
Rob McEwen: Yes.
Marin Katusa: So you and I are on the same page when it comes to the price of gold. Now as the founder of Goldcorp – the second largest gold producer today – and the Chief Owner of McEwen Mining, you’re a legend in the gold business. You are no stranger to M&A, mergers and acquisitions. We’ve seen a flurry of PP’s by majors into juniors whether its Goldcorp, Agnico, Barrick, or the recent take out of some of these juniors’ non-producing gold companies. Do you see further consolidation in the gold space, or do you think the majors have kind of bit off what they need to chew for the next few years?
Rob McEwen: The majors now see the juniors as a sweet spot in the market. They bloated their balance sheets with debt from 2005 up to 2012. Then gold and silver prices collapsed and suddenly their revenues were insufficient to service their debt. The way of dealing with the problem was selling properties and drastically cutting back their exploration budgets. As a result, most majors, now have negative growth profiles.
So to deal with this falling production curve, they have to come up with some excitement for their shareholders. They have to be able to say “we have growth in these other areas”, and that’s why we see them jumping into the junior space. They are aggressively looking for the juniors with potential and also looking at geopolitical areas closer to home where there seems to be a district developing. Look at the Yukon and what Goldcorp’s doing. It bought Kaminak and some others immediately around Kaminak. They are consolidating properties in safer jurisdictions.
Marin Katusa: And district scale potential…
Rob McEwen: …in communities that are more predictable and closer to home.
Marin Katusa: I think the sweet spot here is going to be the mid-tiers. I personally believe that there is going to be consolidation in the mid-tiers, where mid-tiers is defined as between 100,000-1,000,000 ounces of annual production. Do you see active M&A within the mid-tier gold producer sector?
Rob McEwen: Absolutely. The mid-tiers’ production curve is going up. The seniors’ production curve is going down. So the performance is going to be in the mid-tiers and the juniors. But the mid-tiers need to get size as the market has become increasingly dominated by passive investment through ETFs, rather than active investment managers.
The number of the indices that the company is in is going to increasingly determine the volume and market liquidity of a company’s shares. Therefore, some mid-tiers are probably going to be looking for stocks that are ignored by the indices and ETFs. So if you have a good project that’s got room to grow and you’re not in a lot of indices, you might want to be looking over your shoulder or people should look at you to buy before the bigger guy steps in.
Marin Katusa: That’s a perfect segue into my next question. When Rob McEwen is the head of a company as a corporate, what are the key items you would like your corporation to look at when you are evaluating a potential takeover candidate? Let’s say, what are the five key important items?
Rob McEwen: I’ll look at management and what their past successes have been.
I’ll look at how much commitment they have made to the company financially. How many shares do they own and what is their cost of those shares? How many options have they been granted? Do they grant themselves a lot of options, and do they pay themselves excessively? If they are frugal with their options and their compensation and they have an interesting business plan, I go “Okay, I like that.”
Are they any good at math, and what’s their view of the future? In other words, have they gone out and sold royalties on their property? Have they sold metal streams? Have they hedged their future? And if they’re telling me they’ve got the best story out there and it’s going to keep growing and they also believe gold is going higher but they’ve sold a stream or royalties or hedged then I know they are talking from both sides of their mouth and I don’t invest.
Marin Katusa: This is Rob McEwen as an investor – what about Rob McEwen as a corporate entity?
Rob McEwen: The same rules apply because if management is out promoting and saying gold’s going higher and the value of their assets is going to benefit significantly. Then they should be exercising discipline and not giving in to that temptation to take money from a metal streaming company or royalty company or to hedge their future production. They should be preserving as much of the price upside as possible for their share owners.
Marin Katusa: What other key factors do you look for?
Rob McEwen: The strip ratio. What is the cost of moving all this material? I’ve always been a big fan of grade. In fact, I have probably focused too much on grade, having being spoiled by Goldcorp’s grades.
Marin Katusa: The Red Lake mines have truly been phenomenal grade.
Rob McEwen: …and look at the profit margins. An area that investors should take more time looking at is the company’s ownership of property and what payments might be required. Because often a company may say “Well, we got this property.” But perhaps they don’t own it or there are large outstanding payment yet to be made. Have they just optioned the property and have to make more payments? You need to ask if the property is owned and fully paid for. This isn’t usually in a presentation; you have to dig into the documentation.
Marin Katusa: I agree. I love this line – I don’t know where I picked it up years ago – grade is king and oxide is queen. Do you look at and do you prefer certain types of geology over others? Do you prefer open pits over undergrounds? Do you prefer oxides over sulphides, or do you just look at project specifics for your situation?
Rob McEwen: Project specifics and profitability.
Marin Katusa: It’s all about the profitability. Are there any other items that you look at, that you think investors should learn about and focus on, such as metallurgy, safety records, district scale potential and the ability to increase production?
Rob McEwen: All of those are also very critical. On a private basis, I will go much earlier stage. I am prepared to take more risk on a property if I like the concept.
Ps. Stay tuned tomorrow, because in Part 2 of the Q&A Rob will reveal to you the junior companies he’s looking at and investing his own money in.
https://katusaresearch.com/qa-gold-titan-rob-mcewen-exclusive-qa-marin-katusa/
While waiting for Part Two tomorrow, let me add Rob McEwen's Theme Song.
dounome - I don't think Rihana
Sang in anything I've posted
Perhaps My little Trek that had William Shatner singing Twilight Zone in my reply to Numbnuts, made you think of her. Not sure ?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130900977
Erie - Problems with SFOR Products HSN Review
StrikeForce's Help Desk is excellent. But the Soultion is at the Bottom of this post Most Likely..
I wrote to the Help Desk (You receive a Trouble Ticket # instantly) I had a Question around 1am, an expecting to get an answer the next day, I was amazed that less than 30 Minutes later I got a Reply.
Jumping to GuardedID:
Also most may not know unless they receive a warning on thier PC, but GuardedID Gives Warnings by Catagogies, if it sees a Problem, such as a Keyboard Driver being added and provides a History list of Warnings.
and don't forget to enable the ClickJacking Option to highlight the ClickJack Option.
As to the Problem with the HSN Review Erie, Most Likely Operator Error, the Samsung Windows Tablet not a PC, it is just that a Tablet with No External Keyboard and they need to load the Right Program Mobile Trust not GuardedID.
Ropes & Gray News Story HealthCare Privacy
The article Below this is the Follow on.
Prioritizing Healthcare Data Security in Aggregation, Sharing
Associated Article
http://healthitsecurity.com/features/implementing-cybersecurity-frameworks-in-healthcare-settings
“The initial development of the CSF leveraged nationally and internationally accepted standards including ISO, NIST, PCI and HIPAA to ensure a comprehensive set of baseline security controls,” HITRUST states. “The CSF normalizes these security requirements and provides clarity and consistency, reducing the burden of compliance with these requirements that apply to healthcare organizations.”
Changing the subject again !
Whether it's SFOR or Channel Partner, go back and read my posts where I said SFOR's Patents are FFEIC Compliant.
None of the Patents you show Pre-Date Ram Pemmaraju's, more food for Ropes & Gray.
Take that SAM battle somewehere else. Not my Battle.
But You might check Alvarez, perhaps they just be SAM. LOL
Whether it's you who brings home the Bacon or Your wife, does it matter.
My 7 Month FFIEC Battle won.
Had enough dealing with Twilight Zone, it's One Step Beyond.
It's 2am, I've got to Trek Off now, as I'm RDY2ROCK ON
Multi-year and shows SFOR FFIEC Compliant, More
Which goes to prove, the statement you made 3 times recently and debate we've held since November 2016, Is What It Is, BS.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130887436
So please don't confuse everyone by switching in Topics.
You did that last year over & over, and No One could see the truth because of it.
Fact is SFOR is FFIEC Compliant, and if nothing else a Multi-Year Contract with Sallie Mae being FFIEC Compliant Proves it.
So BS on your little 1 Line statement.
FLUFF? Sallie Mae has 6 Year Renewable Contract with SFOR.
What do you mean it has nothing to do with SFOR ?
It's right there in Black and White, SFOR has a Contract with Sallie Mae. And Sallie Mae falls under the FFIEC.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130887436
Longboard - Patent - "global impact"
Yes Mobile Trust will, that is the International Patent applied for.
The only Status I can offer is it not been approved yet.
Although here is when it was applied for, the Time Table, and comments.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129222008
CyberC "New Reality"
There's another one coming soon, It's in the works !
Works = Short for Ropes & Gray's hands...
WHO'S NEXT?
Longboard, not trying to shoot the Curl only to almost wipeout.
But do you know what Patents were Applied for Internationally ?
Has anyone asked Which Patents ?
Just remember it was applied for 3 years ago ? Before SFOR and ACS stuck the Deal.....
Although what's good for the Goose, is good for the Gander.
Thanks RDY2ROCK, But I liked This One !
You Put out The Facts, wait for the Absurd Definitive Reply, then move in for the Kill Shot.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130887436
FACTS
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130880237
WRONG! "SFOR can not pass FFIEC vendor review."
The Cyber Security Order Trump will sign
Revised Draft Trump EO on Cybersecurity
By Paul Rosenzweig Thursday, February 9, 2017,
Although modified by now, this is the Order POTUS Trump will Sign.
As stated in the link
I've received this draft text from 3 different sources:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/revised-draft-trump-eo-cybersecurity
STRENGTHENING THE CYBERSECURITY OF FEDERAL NETWORKS AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Cybersecurity of Federal Networks.
(a) Policy. The executive branch of the Federal Government operates its networks on behalf of the American people. These networks and the data on them should be secured responsibly using all United States Government capabilities. The President will hold accountable heads of executive departments and agencies (Agency Heads) for managing the risk to their enterprises. In addition, because risk management decisions made by Agency Heads can affect the risk to the executive branch as a whole, it is also the policy of the United States to manage cyber risk as an executive branch enterprise.
(b) Findings.
(i) Cybersecurity risk management comprises the full range of activities undertaken to identify and protect information and information technology (IT) assets from unauthorized access and other threats, to maintain awareness of cyber threats, to detect anomalies and incidents adversely affecting IT assets, and to mitigate the impact of, respond to, and recover from incidents.
(ii) The executive branch has for too long accepted antiquated and difficult to defend IT and information systems.
(iii) Effective risk management involves more than just protecting networks and data currently in place. It also requires planning so that future maintenance, improvements, and modernization occur in a coordinated fashion and with appropriate regularity.
(iv) Known but unmitigated vulnerabilities are among the highest risks faced by executive departments and agencies (agencies). Known vulnerabilities include using operating systems or hardware beyond the vendor's support lifecycle, declining to implement a vendor's security patch, or failing to execute security specific configuration guidance.
(v) Effective risk management requires Agency Heads to lead integrated teams of senior executives with expertise in IT, security, budgeting, acquisition, law, privacy, and human resources.
(c) Risk Management.
(i) Agency Heads will be held accountable by the President for implementing risk management measures commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm that would result from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of information or systems. They shall also be held accountable by the President for ensuring that information security management processes are aligned with strategic, operational, and budgetary planning processes, in accordance with chapter 35, subchapter II of title 44, United States Code.
(ii) Effective immediately, Agency Heads shall use The Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the Framework), or any successor document, developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to manage their agency’s cyber risk. Each Agency Head shall provide a risk management report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Secretary of Homeland Security within 90 days of the date of this order describing the agency’s implementation of the Framework. The risk management report shall document at a minimum the mitigation and acceptance choices made by each Agency Head. Any accepted risk from unmitigated vulnerabilities must be explicitly documented in the report. The report described in this paragraph may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.
(iii) The Director of OMB, with appropriate support from the Secretary of Homeland Security, consistent with Chapter 35, Subchapter II of Title 44, shall assess each agency's risk management report to determine whether, in the aggregate, the risk management choices set forth in the report are appropriate and sufficient to manage the cyber risk to the executive branch enterprise (their determination).
(iv) The Director of OMB, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, with appropriate support from the Secretary of Commerce and Administrator of General Services, and within 60 days of receipt of the agency risk management reports outlined in subsection (ii) of this section, shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, their determination and a plan to accomplish the following:
(A) protect adequately the executive branch enterprise should the determination identify insufficiencies;
(B) establish a regular reassessment and determination process;
(C) address unmet budgetary needs necessary to managing risk to the executive branch enterprise resulting from their determination;
(D) clarify, reconcile, and reissue as necessary all policies, standards, and guidelines issued by any agency in furtherance of Chapter 35, Subchapter II of Title 44, United States Code and this order; and
(E) align these policies, standards, and guidelines with the Framework.
The report described in this paragraph may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.
(v) Effective immediately, it is the policy of the United States to build a more modern, more secure, and more resilient Executive Branch IT architecture.
(A) Agency Heads shall show preference in their procurement for shared IT services to the extent permitted by law, including email, cloud, and cybersecurity services.
(B) The Assistant to the President for Intragovernmental and Technology Initiatives shall coordinate a report to the President from the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of OMB, and the Administrator of General Services regarding modernization of Federal Government IT. The report shall be completed within 150 days of the date of this order and, at a minimum, describe the following:
(1) The technical feasibility and cost effectiveness, with timelines and milestones, of transitioning all agencies to one or more consolidated network architectures, and any legal, policy, or budgetary considerations to implementing that transition; and
(2) The technical feasibility and cost effectiveness, with timelines and milestones, of transitioning all agencies to shared IT services, including email, cloud services, and cybersecurity services, and any legal, policy, or budgetary considerations to implementing that transition.
In assessing technical feasibility under subsections (1) and (2), the report shall consider the impact of transitioning to shared IT services on agency information security, including by making recommendations to ensure compliance with policies and practices issued in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3553. All Agency Heads shall supply such information concerning their current IT architectures and plans as is necessary to complete this report on time.
(C) For National Security Systems, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence shall implement this order to the maximum extent feasible and appropriate. The Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence shall provide a report to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism describing their implementation of this paragraph within 150 days of the date of this order. The report described in this paragraph may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.
Section 2. Cybersecurity of Critical Infrastructure.
(a) Policy. It is the policy of the United States to ensure that the United States Government is prepared to employ its authorities and capabilities to aid in the protection of the operation of critical infrastructure entities identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(b) Support to Critical Infrastructure. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of appropriate sector specific agencies, as defined in Presidential Policy Directive 21 of February 12, 2013, and all other appropriate Agency Heads, as identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall:
(i) identify authorities and capabilities that agencies could employ to support the cybersecurity efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators identified pursuant to section 9 of Executive Order 13636 of February 12, 2013 (Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity) to be at greatest risk of attacks that could reasonably result in catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, or national security (section 9 entities);
(ii) engage section 9 entities and solicit input as appropriate to evaluate whether and how the authorities and capabilities identified in subsection (i) of this section might be employed to support their risk management efforts and any obstacles to doing so; and
(iii) deliver a report to the President, with a classified annex as appropriate, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, within 180 days of the signing of this order, that includes the following:
(A) The authorities and capabilities identified pursuant to this paragraph;
(B) The results of the engagement and determination required pursuant to this paragraph; and
(C) Findings and recommendations for better supporting the cybersecurity of section 9 entities.
(c) Supporting Transparency in the Marketplace. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, shall provide a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, that examines the sufficiency of existing Federal policies and practices to promote appropriate market transparency of cyber risk management practices by critical infrastructure entities, with a focus on publicly traded critical infrastructure entities, within 90 days of the date of this order.
(d) Core Communications Infrastructure. The Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall lead an open and transparent process to identify and promote action by owners, operators, and other stakeholders of core communications infrastructure to improve the resilience of such infrastructure and to encourage collaboration with the goal of dramatically reducing threats perpetrated by automated and distributed attacks (e.g., botnets). The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the heads of sector specific agencies, the Chairs of the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission, other interested Agency Heads, owners and operators of core communications infrastructure, and other stakeholders as appropriate in carrying out this paragraph. Within 240 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall make publicly available a preliminary report on this effort. Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretaries shall submit a final version of this report to the President.
(e) Assessment of Electricity Disruption Response Capabilities. While this order is being implemented to improve the security of critical infrastructure sectors, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and in consultation with State, local, tribal and territorial governments and other stakeholders as appropriate, shall assess:
(i) the potential scope and duration of a significant cyber incident against the United States electric subsector;
(ii) the readiness of the United States to manage the consequences of such an incident; and
(iii) any gaps or shortcomings in assets or capabilities required to mitigate the consequences of such an incident.
The assessment shall be provided to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, with a classified annex as appropriate, within 90 days of the date of this order.
(f) Department of Defense Warfighting Capabilities and Industrial Base. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall provide a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, on cybersecurity risks facing the defense industrial base, including its supply chain, and United States military platforms, systems, networks, and capabilities, and recommendations for mitigating these risks, within 90 days of the date of this order.
Section 3. Cybersecurity for the Nation.
(a) Policy. It is the policy of the United States to promote an open, interoperable, reliable, and secure Internet that fosters efficiency, innovation, communication, and economic prosperity, and respects privacy, while guarding against disruption, fraud, and theft.
(b) Deterrence and Protection. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the United States Trade Representative, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall jointly submit a report to the President on the nation’s strategic options for deterring adversaries and better protecting the American people from those who would use networked technology to defeat or undermine this policy.
(c) Internet Freedom and Governance. The Internet is a resource that underpins American power, innovation, and values. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall report to the President on continued actions to support the multi-stakeholder process to ensure the Internet remains valuable, reliable, and secure for future generations.
Section 4. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head there of; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) All actions taken pursuant to this order shall be consistent with requirements and authorities to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources and methods. Nothing in this order shall be construed to supersede measures established under authority of law to protect the security and integrity of specific activities and associations that are in direct support of intelligence and law enforcement operations.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Trump’s promise on cybersecurity: what’s been happening?
The Boys on the MidShift Crew have been working overtime and found this current important Update. My hats off to them.
25 APR 2017
Trump’s promise on cybersecurity: what’s been happening?
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/04/25/trumps-promise-on-cybersecurity-whats-been-happening/
As US President Donald Trump closes in on his 100th day in office, he faces plenty of scrutiny over things that didn’t get done in that all-important period of any new administration. One big criticism in the media last week was that he’d blown his self-imposed 90-day deadline to unveil a tough new cybersecurity plan for the federal government.
But it’s worth noting that things have in fact happened on the cybersecurity front. Last month, for example, Trump hired Robert Joyce as his White House cybersecurity coordinator. Meanwhile, work has continued behind the scenes on an executive order that could finally be signed by Friday.
Who is Robert Joyce?
Joyce once ran the National Security Agency’s hacking division and has received praise across the defense community, including from Michael Daniel, his Obama-era predecessor.
“He has long experience in the cyber realm, knows the interagency process very well, and has proven himself as a leader at NSA,” Daniel told FCW writer Sean Carberry in an interview last week.
Sophos Home
Free home computer security software for all the family
Learn More
Daniel also told FCW that Joyce is “well versed in both offensive and defensive cyber, having worked both in the NSA’s office of Tailored Access Operations as well as the former Information Assurance Directorate, which was focused on protecting US systems and networks from cyberthreats”.
Executive order might be signed on Friday
Some might remember that day in late January when Trump was expected to sign an executive order on cybersecurity, but canceled it and instead promised a comprehensive plan to improve security in the federal government’s IT infrastructure in 90 days.
Though the deadline passed without a plan, Joyce himself told attendees at Georgetown University’s International Conference on Cyber Engagement Monday that the executive order was just about ready to sign.
He said the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was working with White House tech policy aides Chris Lidell and Reed Cordish on “a major effort” to create “approaches for the president’s consideration to modernize federal IT systems, retire outdated systems and move to shared services”. Joyce told the audience:
We must make sure that innovation and cybersecurity are intertwined.
Asked by a member of the audience if those provisions would be in an executive order Trump is expected to sign this week or if it would be spliced into a separate EO down the road, Joyce replied: “A little bit of both.”
Modernization provision tossed out?
That question was likely based on multiple media reports that the cybersecurity executive order to be signed this week won’t include the bit about modernizing federal IT systems.
Politico cited “multiple people familiar with the White House’s plans” who said the order will no longer contain the section on modernizing federal IT systems. Specifically, Politico said, it will “kick off reviews of each federal agency’s digital defenses and direct agency heads to adopt specific cyber standards”.
The federal IT modernization part now falls to Kushner and his new Office of American Innovation.
I agree. FFIEC FOR ALL SFOR LONGS
First like any regulatory body of the U.S. Government the FFEIC are far behind in the Publication of their Documents. Their current Guidance is just a 2013. Almost the same S*** as Their 2011 Guidance and was basicly the size of a letter. Which is what now 6 years behind ? Or 12 years behind from their Orginal Guidance of 2005 !
Surprise Surprise! How long have mobile devices been out and used in Banking Transactions?
In 2016 they put out Mobile Security Guidance Also, Ref: Near the bottom. It also States OBB and Biometrics.
Nothing has really happened in 3, 6 or 12 years right... Besides Massive Data breaches of Banks, Corperations and Government Agencies. LOL
Just the Data Breach of Epsilon around 2011 that houses the Email Addresses of 2,500 Hundred different Companies should be enough to make even the FFEIC to take Notice, yet oh a letter sized update in 2011 to their 2005 Guidance should surfice right !
You would think something as Important as Banking Regulations would at the very least have Regulators putting out Guidance on an Annual or Semi-Annual Basis. What is the Budget for this agency, and the others?
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
The FFIEC estimates it's Budget would be $15M for 2015.
Back to, I agree:
Of course the FFIEC does not "get in bed with Vendors"
But when the FFIEC uses the Term Out-of-Band MFA, and what in essance are they saying ?
Let's use just mention StrikeForce's Patents for just a Second.
Not only do the Patents cover OOB MFA, but also cover most forms of Biometrics for Authentication over the Network and let's keep that in mind as we look at what the FFIEC Guidance states that is highlighted is RED below.
Yes I agree with you WBCT, there are many forms of Layered Approches.
Effective controls that may be included in a layered securiy program include, but are not limited to:
fraud detection and monitoring systems that include consideration of customer history and behavior and enable a timely and effective institution response;
the use of dual customer authorization through different access devict
the use of out-of-band verification for transactions;
the use of “positive pay,” debit blocks, and other techniques to appropriately limit the transactional use of the account;
But we are talking here about MFA as it pertains to StrikeForce's Patents. That being OOB MFA.
What are the FFIEC Most Common Factors Required?
Existing authentication methodologies involve three basic “factors”:
• Something the user knows (e.g., password, PIN);
• Something the user has (e.g., ATM card, smart card); and
• Something the user is (e.g., biometric characteristic, such as a fingerprint).
Authentication methods that depend on more than one factor are more difficult to compromise than single-factor methods. Accordingly, properly designed and implemented multifactor authentication methods are more reliable and stronger fraud deterrents. For example, the use of a logon ID/password is single-factor authentication (i.e., something the user knows); whereas, an ATM transaction requires multifactor authentication: something the user possesses (i.e., the card) combined with something the user knows (i.e., PIN). A multifactor authentication methodology may also include “out–of–band”5 controls for risk mitigation.
Gee, I can't imagine where I've seen those 3 Bullets 1000 times before....
Appendices FFEIC same Guidlines
Generally, the way to authenticate customers is to have them present some sort of factor to prove their identity. Authentication factors include one or more of the following:
• Something a person knows—commonly a password or PIN. If the user types in the correct password or PIN, access is granted.
• Something a person has—most commonly a physical device referred to as a token. Tokens include self-contained devices that must be physically connected to a computer or devices that have a small screen where a one-time password (OTP) is displayed, which the user must enter to be authenticated.
• Something a person is—most commonly a physical characteristic, such as a fingerprint, voice pattern, hand geometry, or the pattern of veins in the user’s eye. This type of authentication is referred to as “biometrics” and often requires the installation of specific hardware on the system to be accessed.
Authentication methodologies are numerous and range from simple to complex. The level of security provided varies based upon both the technique used and the manner in which it is deployed. Single-factor authentication involves the use of one factor to verify customer identity. The most common single-factor method is the use of a password. Two-factor authentication is most widely used with ATMs. To withdraw money from an ATM, the customer must present both an ATM card (something the person has) and a password or PIN (something the person knows).
Multifactor authentication utilizes two or more factors to verify customer identity. Authentication methodologies based upon multiple factors can be more difficult to compromise and should be considered for high-risk situations. The effectiveness of a particular authentication technique is dependent upon the integrity of the selected product or process and the manner in which it is implemented and managed
The Agencies are aware of the fact that a number of institutions are requiring the “out of band” authentication or verification of certain high value and/or anomalous transactions. Out-of-band authentication means that a transaction that is initiated via one delivery channel (e.g., Internet) must be re-authenticated or verified via an independent delivery channel (e.g., telephone) in order for the transaction to be completed. Out-of-band authentication is becoming more popular given that customer PCs are increasingly vulnerable to malware attacks. However, out-of-band authentication directed to or input through the same device that initiates the transaction may not be effective since that device may have been compromised. For business customers, the out-of-band authentication or verification can be provided by someone other than the person who first initiated the transaction and can be combined with other administrative controls. Additionally, the use of out-of-band authentication or verification, for administrative changes to online business accounts, can be an effective control to reduce fraudulent funds transfers.
And finally in the Appendix the FFEIC states.
Out-of-Band Authentication
Out-of-band authentication includes any technique that allows the identity of the individual originating a transaction to be verified through a channel different from the one the customer is using to initiate the transaction. This type of layered authentication has been used in the commercial banking/brokerage business for many years.
Let's hear from an internal Auditor of 6.5 years at mid-sized Commercial Banking institutions, ehh
Slide show from an auditor.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://chapters.theiia.org/western-new-york/ChapterDocuments/FFIEC%2520Authentication%2520Guidance.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwibxIPyjsXTAhVM8CYKHT-yAJIQFghRMAY&usg=AFQjCNGCKVdH3GKRSMgysH7NLFXWBstY0w&sig2=PEqozgZBq_8xWkyLclejQg
In conclusion we also have PCI stating OOB MFA must be used in the Credit Card Payment Processing too.
And just because no Standards Organizations or Regulatory Body is NOT using the word StrikeForce to Remain Impartial the use the Term Out-of-Band MFA.
And OBB MFA (like it or not) is synonymous with Strikeforce Technologies.
Even if I were concede for the Moment the Microsoft Settlement were just a "payoff" and that the OOB MFA within its AZURE touches People in 128 different Countries.
And I have to wait any Amount if Time for it to be Fully Veted in the 7 current Lawsuits that StrikeForce has won Settlements or a Jury Trial with two of the Best Law Firms in the U.S. and the World Behind them. The ultimate reality is OBB MFA is synonymous with the name StrikeForce Technologies.
This is not some little used technology, this will be used in every Payment Procession Transaction, Consumer Banking Transaction, and Protecting Most Banks Internal Networks as well as most Corperations handling Consumer Privacy and more.
Unfortunately due to the many Industries imparitive need for Cyber Security and Microsoft Banging the Drum with AZURE, the Industry went to the only form of Authentication that has a chance of stopping the Hacking of Corperations Banks, etc. Without time for the battle for the leading Cyber Technologies and companies to battle it out in the IEEE and fight it out for the International Standard.
Instead that battle must take place in the Courtroom and in major Tech Giants using STI IP before the courts Cases are Complete.
As even though StrikeForce has been pounding the table for more than a Decade, The Threat was to Great, the Tech Industry was not prepared for the Hacking that was taking Place and moving at such and Exponential Speed, it thought it had Time. Well there's no time left now.
Which is why companies like INTEL and McAffee have been incorperating StrikeForce's Patented IP in to their Product Soultions, of which there is No Doubt.
You are free to say what you what say want , the fact remains Major Companies, The PCI, The ITU and even the FFIEC are saying OOB MFA is mandatory. And All Roads Lead to Rome, I'm mean RAM.
FFIEC Authentication in an Internet Banking Environment
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ffiec.gov/pdf/authentication_guidance.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjczZG8g8XTAhVI6iYKHfzFBXsQFgg3MAA&usg=AFQjCNFO5OWN23a87WXm0ZCSzzrBwWDGNg&sig2=hjMRzhATdQxX3ADKSKAB4Q
FFIEC 2011 Supplement
https://www.ffiec.gov/press/pr062811.htm
FFIEC 2013
https://www.ffiec.gov/press/pr121113.htm
FFIEC 2016
FFIEC's New Mobile Security Guidance: An Assessment
Authentication and authorization. A financial institution should have a process for authenticating users of MFS to protect customers against fraudulent transactions or malicious activities. Depending on the technology used and associated level of risk, financial institutions may consider biometric (e.g., voice, fingerprint, facial recognition) or out-of- band 19 authentication processes. The financial institution should not use mobile payment applications that rely on less secure (e.g., single factor) methods of authentication.20
This post in in reply to WBCTraders' Post:
WBCT - What Form of MFA does the FFIEC Require ?
Who knows CyberC -They may not have to proceed go filing suit, after a couple of Settlements are made.
Just the Notice Letter of Infringment and those companies Legal Firms looking at past Court evidence may convince them to Licence and pay Past Royalties lost, out of Court.
Not saying it will happen, but a possibility.
Thanks Jtech for fielding that Question.
A Sound reply.
WBCT - To Prescribe does not mean Create !
I STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THEY DO NOT CREATE THE Standards but Enforce their Use.
Video - How the Inter Partes Review (IPR) Works
Thanks ZPAUL !
Thought I would add this in Hopes it helps someone to understand more.
Intrensic Value - Excellent Point to bring up.
WBCT, FFEIC - Great Guidance and recommendations.
Guidance was released in 2011, standard not in place till 2012.
Show me !
Please show me anything in writing, from any Industry Source showing MFA has been the Standard for since 2010.
oKAY if you say so. Blame the MM's
VASCO WEBINAR begins in 15 minutes
Wed, Apr 26, 2017 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM EDT
Continuous Identity: Why Behavioral Biometrics Are Going Mainstream - Gotowebinar
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4611557757190118401%3Fsource%3DIA&ved=0ahUKEwiercHErMLTAhUEQCYKHTzDCGAQFggfMAA&usg=AFQjCNH7kJi9huEET4Q8rVO1cAHcx4NH1A&sig2=BaBzm3CMVlJEGCK8hfzjDA
Was the Microsoft Settlement really that bad?
Looking at the Time Line from all the information I have, I say the Microsoft Settlement was one of the better things to happen for $SFOR.
Where was the Industry Push for MFA before the Microsoft Settlement ?
How many years had StrikeForce been Touting MFA's Benefits and only a few were listening. Some Banks, Sallie Mae and others that took the time to actually listen and Act.
Along comes PhoneFactor and caught the eye of Microsoft, and they took the MFA Ball and began to run with it in AZURE.
The fact that an Industry Giant began using MFA is what gave MFA the Leap it needed to get the ball really rolling.
Having MFA touching People in 128 different Countries on a Daily Basis is an Advertising Shoot Heard Round the World, Literally !
Any money not recieved in the Settlement was peanuts in comparison.
Such is the Power of the World's Dominating Operating System and Corperate Office Suite of Programs.
Just my Opinion.
49'er
PCI relies on industry standards such as NIST, ISO, ITU and ANSI that cover all industries, not just the payments industry. From what has been presented here over the past 30 days, MFA is backed by all.
HSN - 30 day statement.
Although only Kay might be able to answer the question, I don't believe the statement precludes further HSN spots beyond May 15th.
"“This 12 months we also have progressed with our retail purchaser gross sales through these we outlined in social media and our new Tv set airing this thirty day period for GuardedID and MobileTrust,"
Video - McAffee Speaks at RSA 2017 30 Minutes
No Trump not in this Segment as the title Suggest.
Also Listen for McAffee's Honeypot test...! ! !
1st 30 Minutes McAffee. Whole hour 1:30 good, I enjoyed listen to Congressman Michael McCaul last 30 minutes.
Diffently Closer than the beginning of 2017.