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.
Isn't it great to know once the empirical evidence we all desire to make rational investing decisions with is published in the 10-K and 1st Q of 2017 there will be no doubt as to SFOR's finances!
The figures are not released publically for review until then. That's the way it is. I'm suprised you did not know that.
Nobody can guarentee "SFOR gets picked up as part of the military defense plan". All I was able to do was get them a chance at bat to present before the DOD/CIO. Yes, because of the recent passage and signature into law of H.R. 5293-DOD Appropriations Act, 2017 they finally have the money to purchase some vendors defensive software to put on all those DOD issue mobile devices. I was, like you, greatly encouraged by President-Elect Trump's statement. I also believe as strongly as you do that Mobile Trust version 3 is the better mousetrap and would nicely fill an unmet national defense need. Does the DOD/CIO's office think likewise? Please be aware they are considering several vendors. As to whose bids they consider and ultimately which vendor they choose, your guess is as good as mine.
Thank you for verifying that. Since the last year-end 10-K came out on 4/14/16 I've got 4/14/17 circled on my calendar. I've also noted the 1st quarter of 2017 report should be published no later than 5/15/17. I agree it's a long wait but I beieve those figures will be well worth waiting for. I've got patient capital invested here since I know what I own. Long & Strong SFOR!
I hadn't thought of that! Thanks for that insight. It makes perfect sense now that Singapore Telecom might buy SFOR, Duo and Centrify in one fell swoop. With 92 $billion in assets they could afford it.
You are completely discounting growing sales figures particularly as noted in the previous Q SFOR's most active market, OEM bundling Guarded ID with their products. This quarter ends tomorrow. Let's just wait and see what the year-end 10-K report contains figure wise. Based on the number of times SFOR products were listed as #1 and #2 sellers on Amazons computer network security offerings and on their most wished for list IMHO sales were good.
I wrote my last post assuming members of the DNC staff would at least have an excellent anti-virus program running. IMHO SFOR products would greatly enhance their defensive software capabilities.
Time will tell. Let's just see what the figures are in the year-end 10-K and 1st Q of 2017 report are. You predict disaster. I predict success. For me, the jury is still out until I see those two reports. GLTY
Why would Singapore Telecom buy all three? Why wouldn't they simply buyout SFOR then continue litigation against Duo and Centrify to recoup the buyout price of SFOR?
OMG Papa P! You have put a vision of a fantastic return on my modest investment in SFOR (2 million shares)in my head. What can I say? From your lips to God's ears! My only regret is that because of the honor code I am bound not to increase that. I used my military rank & specialty in all my correspondence to high ranking government & military officials.
I'm going to write to the DNC and cite just that! It's glaringly obvious. SFOR's products would have made a difference, a big difference. Thanks for finding & sharing that with us.
Yeah, it was a low tech hack that possibly could have been avoided if the DNC had just used SFOR products.
Wow! If Blank Rome wins in court against Duo, Centrify and Trustwave (read 97% owner Singapore Telecom) establishing a firm legal precedent that huge list could turn into a steady income stream for SFOR. Also, if treble damages are awarded that could serve as a powerful motivator for one of the infringers on Blank Rome's next hit parade to buy SFOR out to avoid that.
Thanks for answering my question on the 1st Q report release date.
Last chance for the much ballyhooed 2016 R/S to take place. Let's see if the SFOR CEO is a man of his word when he said emphatically "No R/S!" Mesdames et Messieurs place your bets. I'm betting on Mark Kay! Long & Strong SFOR!
Great catch! Thanks for sharing. Researching now.
Transition team written RE Mobile Trust as possible solution to Lt/Gen Ben Hodges mobile device COMSEC problem to date include:
1.) President-Elect Donald Trump soon to be Commander In Chief
2.) Lt/Gen Michael Flynn National Security Advisor
3.) Mr. Thomas Bossert Presidential Advisor for homeland security, counter-terrorism and CYBER SECURITY
4.) Ms. Carly Fiorina Director of National Intelligence nominee
5.) General John Kelly Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security nominee
6.) General "Mad Dog" Mattis Secretary of Defense nominee
All letters sent Priority Mail to: Presidential Transition Team
One Trump Tower
725 5th Ave.
New York, NY
10022
If you want to contact them about getting the troops Mobile trust on their issue I-Phones there do so in the next couple of weeks.
Follow-up letters to be sent to New POTUS 1/20/17 at: The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington D.C.
Also to his appointed advisors the same day at the same address.
Then I'll mail letters to his nominees once confirmed by the US Senate at their respective Washington D.C. offices.
I will report those addresses to readers once they take office.
Understand, I know what 12 hour shifts are all about! It concerns the release no later than date of the 1st quarterly report. Is 5/15/17 correct or not?
Is that yes to both questions?
Questions for the board. the last year end 10-K came out on 4/14/16. The next one is due 3/30/17 but SFOR usually files for an extension. That brings it to 4/14/17. Correct or not?
Also, would the 1st Quarterly Report be released no later that 5/15/17?
It would have helped protect desk tops, lap tops and mobile devices that had inadequate anti-virus programs from the zero day attacks that GRU key logger and click jackers may use. Granted the GRU probably has some of the best hackers in the world! SFOR's multi-layered defense & anti-screen capture with keystroke encryption, OOBA and 2 factor authentication just may have stopped them or at the very least slowed them down enough for users to get an indication they were being hacked and given the user enough time to secure their system. At this point we don't know until the GRU strikes a SFOR protected computer.
I stand corrected! There is the terms of service/ IHUB rules to comply with. I crossed the line in summer and was banned for an insult. I deserved to be banned for that insult and have resolved to be civil to all regardless of provocations.
One more day of tax loss selling and it will be over.
What's wrong with Chevy trucks?
Wrong! The company can't claim it is if it wasn't. I suggest you chat with Ram or his assistant about this. Then please report back to us what you are told. Thank you.
This could not be more timely! Thanks ZPaul for posting that article. It pulls no punches. It identifies, quite clearly, just who the hostile intelligence service is that tries to exploit the mobile device COMSEC vulnerability Lt/Gen Ben Hodges spoke of during NATO FX Anaconda. I believe SFOR's Mobile Trust version 3 is the solution to that man's COMSEC problem. Long & Strong SFOR!
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the POTUS the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces?
As far as "a phone call to some Administration weiner" The DOD/CIO's policy guy called me I did not call him. Amazing the response a well written letter to the POTUS will get! I encourage other readers to do the same. Perhaps wait until 1/20/17. Then write President Trump, as I will, about the SFOR solution to Lt/Gen Ben Hodges mobile device problem. Support Our Troops. Let's help get Mobile Trust version 3 on their issue mobile devices in 2017.
When I was an Air Force finance officer for a year we couldn't put out those RFPs without a guaranteed funding source. Because of the Congressional budget impasse H.R. 5293-DOD Appropriations Act, 2017 was not passed and signed into law by POTUS until just last week. You know as well as I the funds are not released by the US Treasury to the DOD until the effective date!
The DOD/CIOs office has been taking sales presentations since early June when the policy guy called me. So they have been working the issue for some time. As far as the "big boys (major defense contractors)" are concerned, tough! Last year, at the behest of the Small Business Administration, legislation was passed and signed into law. It gives small business the right to compete on a level playing field for a slice of the DOD budget pie. That's law now! As far as "the Federal Acquisition Reg taking a very dim view of attempts to influence the outcomes"
The US Constitution grants citizens "the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances". This is what I have done as untold numbers of paid, professional lobbyists have done for decades. I will continue to do so on behalf of my family members and friends now in uniform and in harms way. I will not stop until they & their battle buddies get some vendors defensive software on their issue mobile devices. I hope SFOR's Mobile Trust version 3 unless there is something better. May the best vendor's product win!
ZPaul is the originator of post # 126132 with links provided for "truths" I defer to his excellent DD on this matter.
We should know if "they will get anywhere" with the release of the 1st Q 2017 report. The DOD/CIO's policy guy told me emphatically "They are aware of the mobile device COMSEC problem" and "We are working the issue". The problem is they had insufficient funds to address a DOD wide fix until the recent passage and signature into law of H.R. 5293-DOD Appropriations Act, 2017. I am confident this problem will be solved within the first 100 days of the Trump administration. However, your guess is as good as mine if the DOD/CIO will choose the SFOR Mobile Trust version 3 solution to it or not.
If you can disprove what ZPaul posted in message # 126132 I will be in shock and disbelief!
Not really. It'll only be "AWESOME" if and only if ACS hit a home run and SFOR gets a tiny slice of the DOD financial pie. If not, I'm confident the troops will finally get some vendor's defensive software on their mobile devices. For me that's the bottom line.
I did all I did to raise awareness of the issue and yes, SFOR product awareness since I honestly believe Mobile Trust is the better mousetrap at this point in time. Mark Kay has thanked me for my efforts in this matter.
"Several banks using SFOR patent from court documents and from George Waller: First Community Bank of NY & Bank of Tokyo; Chase and Citigroup are also considering testing SFOR products" Links provided by ZPaul in his post # 126132.
You're right there are and will be no DOD contracts until the DOD competitive process is over and the winning bidder has been selected. You are incorrect in stating "Every company in the world could get a chance at bat" there is a process to enter the DOD procurement cycle as a distributor/bidder. ACS and Alverez are US Government distributors for SFOR products. I personally broke the ice at the Pentagon for SFOR. The CIO's policy guy called me
due to my letter to POTUS landing on his desk regarding the mobile device COMSEC issue. He brought up the SFOR site as we chatted stating he had been unaware of SFOR's products until then. He requested and was given Marks phone number by me to arrange a sales presentation by our distributor and stated the CIO had one last week and two this week by other vendors so our conversation was timely. I asked if I could pass his direct Pentagon phone number to Mark to insure communications took place. He gave me that permission. I then called Mark & briefed him. Mark said he would call him Monday morning. He did so and made the arrangements. ACS got a chance at bat & briefed the DOD/CIO's office on the Mobile Trust solution to their COMSEC problem. I wasn't there & don't know how it went. Time will tell.
We should know if SFOR was chosen or not when the 1st Q report of 2017 is released. If anyone wants to verify this call Mark Kay directly. Also request he read you the responses from the POTUS, US Army Chief of Staff and United States Coast Guard. I sent him the originals which ZPaul posted here previously.
RE: Banks use please read ZPaul's post # 126132. How do ya like them apples Pennydream? Lmfao all the way to the bank in2017!
WRONG! Investors wrote Generals & Admirals at the DOD in the Pentagon and their high ranking civilian CIO. The Coast Guard falls under the Department of Homeland Security not the DOD. Consequently, investors wrote the USCG civilian business manager who up channeled the requests for information to his boss a USCG Vice Admiral and US Cyber Command. Investors also wrote, e-mailed called or and/or visited their members of Congress (both House and Senate) and lastly the Commander In Chief. This was done in support of the troops getting the defensive software they need on their issue mobile devices for COMSEC to protect them against collection & exploitation by hostile intelligence services.
SFOR! To the moon and beyond.
I agree. I did my DD but hesitated investing in SFOR until the Microsoft settlement was announced. Once the news hit the wires that Blank Rome had brought down the Goliath of IT I jumped in with both feet and bought a couple million shares. Knowing what I own I will hold until my personal goal is met pps appreciation wise. Long & Strong SFOR!
Nor will you until the 1st Q report of 2017 at the earliest! H.R. 5293-DOD Appropriations Act 2017 was just signed into law by the POTUS with an effective date of 1 Jan 2017. Funds are not transferred by the US Treasury to the DOD until that date. ONLY after then can the DOD/CIO's office initiate the competitive bidding process.
Beats me when the vendors (that ACS is competing against) have to submit their sealed bids by. I am no longer privy to that kind of info. Then and only then will the bids be opened and winner to address the mobile device COMSEC problem be selected. This is how the DOD Procurement cycle works. The wheels of government turn exceedingly slow but exceedingly fine unless there is an emergency. I sincerely hope SFOR gets a slice of the DOD pie but cannot "PROMISE" that. Nobody can! But at least SFOR got a chance at bat.
"Or at least part owner of it" I agree with that. The question is the exact date of investment. I chatted with another company officer (don't recall who) 6 months ago who stated "I sold Mark the shares" after telling me other company officers had also personally invested in the company. My failure was that I did not get the exact date time group as to when Mark invested. Somebody please call him & post his answer. I would but I've bothered him enough. Thanks!
Dear Mr. Bossert
Congratulations on your appointment by President Elect Trump to be his Assistant for Homeland Security and Counter-Terrorism.
I’m writing to you at the urging of my Congressman Poliquin’s senior staffer Tim Gallant, a retired USN CPO.
As a retired military intelligence officer I was alarmed when I read EUCOM Lt/Gen Ben Hodges AFN interview in Poland during NATO’s FX Anaconda in June. In it he stated, “Neither (unclassified) radio communications nor email are secure” and “I assume everything I write on my BlackBerry is being monitored.” I believe he’s absolutely right! This COMSEC problem can become an OPSEC one with dire consequences in the near future by enabling enemy targeteers to put munitions on American targets and troops, as I did to our country’s enemies.
As you are aware, our military is switching from Androids to Apple’s Chinese made I-phone 6. In July my (relationship withheld) and fellow unit members deployed to the Middle East in support of operations against IS. They have their personal mobile devices with them. These and issue I-phones have inadequate protection against cyber-attack and exploitation by hostile intelligence services to find, target and kill them, preventing their mission success.
Last winter I became concerned about protecting my personal and financial information from hackers. I found out that the anti-virus programs available fail to protect against the zero day attacks that key loggers and click jackers use. I wanted multi-layered defense and anti-screen capture capabilities. I read that “Silicon Review” recognized Strike Force Technologies as the world’s leading provider of patented, military-grade keystroke encryption, out of band authentication and two factor authentication. I purchased on-line via Amazon and installed their Mobile Trust product on my mobile device. I also encouraged family and friends to do likewise.
Mobile Trust is now being sold in brick and mortar stores nationwide. It was easy to install, costs $30 a year for two I-phones (or any android device), does not slow things down or cause any other problems. I did this only after Strike Force Technologies settled with Microsoft over patent infringement in January of 2016. In full disclosure, I was so impressed with Mobile Trust that I bought shares of SFOR stock. Please consider helping get our troops something to fix this tremendous COMSEC problem. I don’t even care if it’s Mobile Trust! They just need something better than the standard consumer encryption Apple provides its I-Phone 6. It is nowhere near the level of protection they need. Your area of responsibility includes our nation’s cybersecurity.
I’ve written letters to current government officials and received courteous replies. However, no defensive software was provided our troops due to the Congressional budget impasse. With the recent passage and signature into law of H.R. 5293-DOD Appropriations Act, 2017 funds are finally available to do this. When you are in office please help! Thank you for considering my request. If I can be of any further service to you or our country in this matter please don’t hesitate to call, e-mail or write me at (contact info withheld)
Best Regards,
4 Sleddogs Major USAF Retired
Former HQ/ EUCOM Member