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.
I don't know what all you longs are worrying about. Didn't you hear SKS say that he preferred to have the CC on Friday but was unable due to the meeting he had with an undisclosed multi-million unit potential opportunity??? You know if Steven says it, it as good as in the bank. I'm buying more tomorrow just like I do every day!! That $400 per share price which Awk was talking about 8 years ago is right around the corner! TTT. It's binary. It's coming! This millenia is OURS.
So it is understood that WAVX is now the sole developer/provider of the 2.0 TPM TSS, correct??
So when is the ASM???
So Alea, where do you surmise the "real scoop" does occur? Interesting comment which I think warrants some "color". TIA.
Touche!
"Now let me explain Awk's post from 5 minutes ago in layman's terms for all you minions....See I speak both languages...".
Comment for not meeting the qtr's target: "so,..yeah but wait til you see next qtr's #'s! The pipeline opportunities have doubled since last qtr! In fact, we're gonna need a larger pipe (chuckle, chuckle)!"
See it's all about the tech PLAN, not about the execution. I don't want to bore you with petty execution details. Look at this shiny thing over here! Isn't that cool! Gonna make us Billions if we just had your funding... (Meantime, I gotta find a new shiny thing quick! Whose idea can I steal?)
Alea, thanks for the laugh to start a holiday weekend. And thanks for keeping it real.
Au contraire, it will be the smart wavoids that dump the BoD. Wave's demise is uncertain at this stage. I wish I could be more certain with respect to the BoD. That would be a good start towards fiscal solvency.
ORC is no slouch. The government has much trust in their expertise. Interesting to see them put some of their trust in Wave today, no? Not alot of money granted, but a venerable seal of approval. Think the gov't may catch wind of that?
No more from me today, still tethered to one-per-day (if I feel like it).
So, it they were hurting for money, yo would think they would be invested in WAVE inorder to pick up some quick scratch. Unless, of course, they see no propsect for Wave to actually appreciate. Speaks volumes.
Been voting no to the WAVX BoD for years. Glad to see that the other board is finally duking it out on this issue. Makes you wonder who has benefited from Wave thus far and how.
Vote/Buy/Sell intelligently my friends.
Not certain if your post was in jest or not but I have had similar thoughts. But to who? Possibly themselves? It would be quite apropos for Wave mgmt to finally see a light at the end of the tunnel and then take the thing private, putting the final "coup de grace royal screw" to the beloved shareholders.
Dig,
That would translate into one dollar for each and every opportunity they have in the pipeline. A billion dollars for a billion opportunites? Man, where else are you going to find such a bargain??!! This is a steal of a lifetime so "I'ma backin' up the truck and avotin' yes for all!
PS What was the address for Alea's board on the ABB??
I was just thinking a little bit over the last week on this scrambls thing. If the app is very strongly encrypted and "tight", surely the gov't is not going to like this if they are not provided with back door access (the content deliverers' perspective are more perplexing but similarly problematic). What are the government's options?
1) Force Wave to provide the keys to the backdoor? General public would still use it but seriously bad people would not?
2)Buy it and shut it downt? Others will just create it
3)Force Wave to discontinue it? How? Entice it with other revenue streams? Taxation, audits, and other bureaucratic harassments? Harassment of anyone adopting the tech?
4)Drive Wave out of business? No DoD or other gov't sector biz? Awards to other vendoers for similar but unproven tech (doesn't solve the problem unless they provide a backdoor)? Non-awards to Wave partners?
Or am I just disillusioned with Big Brother's concern?
Wow! Nice pop! Well over $2.00 and heading for more. That's gotta hurt any one short. I think that run will resume. Seems to have legs......
I think his writing and tech editing skills are far superior to SKS. Perhaps we can use someone with such prowess here in NA.
It's an embarassment and has Wave written all over it. Folks see that terrible garbage and they will never take this company seriously.
Essentially I'm tired of Wave diatribic (sp) blogs, Wave shoddy "D" movies, Wave mispellings, etc.... Stop with hyping the fluff. Where are the PR's with either real or potential $$$ attached??!! The rest is just noise - hype and bash the same.
Not much I'm afraid. It's a poorly done propaganda piece with no substance to it at all. Looks cheap. Our Wave Express/scrambls group must have put it together in their very expensive (and expansive) spare time. I hope it never sees the light of day in public.
So, Wave is protected on the sale to the tune of $1.3mm for 12 months from sale date in case the audit finds something erroneous?
Nice safety net if true.
See your penny and raise you one.... :)
Researchers: How 'leaky' smart phones give up their crypto keys
http://gcn.com/articles/2012/02/28/rsa-6-crypto-keys-extracted-from-leaky-smart-phones.aspx?s=gcndaily_290212
WD, your first point is a big development and I don't recall seeing or hearing this anywhere. Do youhave something to substantiate this? This would have enormous potential. Please advise. Thanks.
I like ths very much. Good validation and will no doubt generate revenues in the future.
I'd be happy with half of a PR if it got us back to $4.57 in SP.
ICBW but believe this contracts excludes hardware/software and only covers the 2-3 heads required to guide implementation over one year's time. Hardware and software procurement will be performed under one of their standard procurement contracts.
I'm sure this award will make other DoD services and programs take good notice. Nice order winner too when the commercial verticals are requesting references. Time for the integrators to step in and take a bite.
I take it the MS OS will be providing the functionality to use the TPM with BitLocker, correct? No Wave SW here. TIA.
Good analogy with SafeNet. Made some coin on them when they went private. Been watching them since.
I say Wave sells their first tranche of AMT share in May when the stock hits $6 PS. They'll yield ~$5mm, the stock will temporarily hit ~$5 PS and rapidly continue its ascent.
I suspect we cleared out some of those "weak" Safend shares over the last few days. The remainder is in stronger hands and is biding their time.
Windows 9.
All hail Wave!
NSA crafting cyber guidelines
By ZACHARY FRYER-BIGGS | Last Updated:January 16, 2012
Comments(0)Recommend(4)
The National Security Agency is developing cybersecurity guidelines to apply to its own systems and ultimately to any government or contractor network, according to sources familiar with the effort.
A 38-member team is drawing up the guidelines, which will be based on a list of 20 cybersecurity controls developed two years ago by an independent panel of government and nongovernment experts.
NSA spokesmen would neither confirm nor deny the program's existence.
The original guidelines were designed to promote continuous network monitoring, but they were largely sidestepped by the Defense Department and contractors. Still, they generated intense debate in military security circles, leading to the NSA's current project.
"What you are seeing is while the 20 points were developed two years ago and a lot of things have languished publicly, there has been an effort to run these things," said retired Maj. Gen. Dale Meyerrose, a former chief information officer for the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Meyerrose said that while he was familiar with the effort, he is not involved in it.
Knowledge of the NSA program emerges as the Pentagon evaluates its Defense Industrial Base Cyber Pilot, a test program in which more than a dozen volunteer contractors received DoD information about cybersecurity threats in exchange for information about attacks on their own corporate networks.
The pilot program was viewed as a potential model for improved cybersecurity in the contracting community, and experts say it has seen some success. But sources said participating companies have not been fully forthcoming about attacks, and much of the intelligence shared with the business by DoD was not new to the defense companies.
Still, the pilot could determine whether NSA officials decide that voluntary programs are unworkable and insist instead on mandatory compliance.
Meyerrose cited parallels between the pilot and the new guidelines.
"They are not unrelated, and I'm very confident that [NSA Director] Gen. [Keith] Alexander will draw off of that on things not to do and things to do," he said.
Alexander, who also runs U.S. Cyber Command, wants his program to be a "lead first" approach, according to a source with knowledge of the general's thinking.
"Right now, this is demonstrating what works," said the source. "They're doing it for themselves."
The NSA team aims to first apply the 20-point list internally and later encourage other agencies to follow.
Drawn up by a group led by former Air Force chief information officer John Gilligan, "Twenty Critical Security Controls for Effective Cyber Defense" was released in 2009 in part to move organizations from periodic paper reports, which failed to detect problems quickly enough, toward continuous security awareness.
Gilligan said he was surprised by DoD's delay in implementing the various points.
"I've asked myself, ‘Why is this taking so long?' It seems so obvious,'" he said.
NSA would not comment on that either. But Gilligan said NSA has been involved in these efforts for years.
"NSA was a major player in the origins of the controls," he said. "They probably won't say that publicly, but the analysis threat patterns originally came from the NSA."
NSA routinely tests defense network security and frequently penetrated networks Gilligan was responsible for protecting when he was with the Air Force.
"I said to the NSA, ‘You coming in every year and just pointing out that you can break in relatively easily is not helpful. You need to tell me how to prevent that,'" he said.
Three-quarters of the points in the document address continuous monitoring, while the remaining quarter deals with wider analysis of systems.
Some of the suggestions in the document have been used by government agencies. The State Department, for example, saw a 90 percent decline in attacks in the first year after converting to continuous monitoring, according to a Department of Homeland Security report. State's effort was headed by John Streufert, who will take over duties as the new director of the National Cyber Security Division at DHS this month.
But many of the ideas listed in the critical controls document have yet to be implemented by DoD or by defense contractors with access to classified information.
"We know that it's effective," said James Lewis, who was part of the group that developed the list of controls and is a cyber expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It will take another push to get people to move toward continuous monitoring."
Extending coverage and creating guidelines does, however, raise the question of what, if any, kind of control the government should have over companies' networks, a question that has not been fully addressed by the framework team yet.
"It is this age-old question of trying to figure out what role the military should have in cyberspace," Meyerrose said. "There are two sets of opposing good intentions. The first is that the best assets of the United States government ought to be available to the American people, in commerce and other things. And there's the other, where we don't want the military intruding into other areas beyond the dot-military domain."
So Barge, you're saying that you are "renting" your shares out?
Malicious Software Attacks Security Cards Used by Pentagon
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/malicious-software-attacks-security-cards-used-by-pentagon/
Didn't LeBarge just answer your mail?
Re Dig's TPM Tablet article: What is the date on that article??
Could this be using Samsung's "private label" Wave SW??
Knowing we have seen far too many "wouldn't it be nice if Wave ...." posts in the past, but we really need to see a revenue producing PR from Wave shortly after these two positive WAVX covereage PR's. That would help the share price immensely.
"Hoping" for a 2012 that will make up for the "lost decade". The earlier in 2012 the better.
Concur.
Signed,
Sunny-Side Up (although some would beg to differ)
Agreed. Sell what we have before expending critical resources on yet the next boondoggle. Adoption rate on existing products is not where it should be. IMHO, This was seems too far from the main thrust right now.
I was also thinking BIO, Pharma, or Bank. BDC would also work. Glad to see BP was finally delivered and I was wrong.
Nope, just been working without a PO all this time. We're very trusting people here it Waveland.
My post for the day: Nice intuitive article - Tibuhdo mention
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/display/article-display/6575181034/articles/military-aerospace-electronics/exclusive-content/2011/11/secure-data_storage.html
Hi GF,
Was it really all DoD? I thought it was only a branch or two that required TPM's? Please advise source for my reference. Thanks.
EDIT: Also, NIST cites "roots-of trust" for BIOS, correct, not necessarily a TPM? As cited, I believe there are varying methods to supply an alleged root-of-trust.
broken for me also.
In a word - No.
Root,
Perhaps you know the answer to this: I was informed that a TPM enabled device (desktop/laptop) does not constitute a valid element (factor) for multi-factor identification. Doesn't comply for any of the "something you know/have/are". Is this your understanding?