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.
Hey DownAndOut
I should have your handle except that I am simply way down but not completely out.
For other posters, I have been looking to purchase a drive from avenues such as newegg and tigerdirect but the secure drives are not readily available. I would like to get a secure drive despite my investment in wavx. Can anyone point me to the right outlet?
FWIW: I work for a F-500 as a systems architect. We were mandated to use PGP 9.0 for encryption.
Awk:
50 yr old cognac and cubans? Yikes, I thought I was doing well on $50 scotch and $10 cigars. Soon to be $10 Beams and $3 Dutch masters.
Cosign: 75% loss? Consider yerself lucky !!
mbarr:
In my case, it is my "sauces" that tell me we might be pleasantly surprised by Q1 results. And it is worth $50 per bottle.
TraderJoe (possibly OT)
As I have stated in my post, hindsight is 20-20. I hold my shares as I find the technology facinating and still see potential.
Furthermore:
- what people do with their money is their own business
- most here realize their opportunity lost or gained without others expounding on it
- many do have their money parked in the bull market in other investments
- advise should be given only when sought after
(disclaimer: this post is a TUI -- typing under the influence)
Nomad1:
Whoa! Looks like I invested in the wrong stock. I was banking on the fact that WAVX would look like that for that period of time.
If you bought in Sept'06, it is a 3-bagger. Such is life. But then again hind-sight is 20-20. Sigh .. oh well, at least I am tax-free while my other investments make up my WAVX paper losses.
RE: HP & Safeboot
Not surprising to me. Our company (using HP laptops) recently mandated PGP for full-disk encryption.
Quite a few companies, in my observation, may not seek the best or latest technology but will conservatively choose solutions which have "matured", been "proven", or shown as part of "best practice" standards.
Furthermore, with respect to security, any cost-effective solution will do as long as it minimizes their legal liability or prevents the company from being liable for gross negligence. Other business/gov entities have a higher requirements for security. I don't see it being the same across the board. Therefore, certain solutions may be legally sufficient.
Maybe Scorpio can expound on this minimal effort to limit liability, since I am not a lawyer.
(Disclaimer: Akua7 may not know what he is talking about)
Internet:
It depends:
If the company who offers me 50K has a history of steady profitability, "reasonable" growth, and good fundamentals, I would take the job at that company since my personality type seeks a comfort zone.
Then I would allocate some "gambling" money to buy some 10K shares in that company with a potential 1000% increase. Or some amount that I could pschologically afford to lose without losing much sleep. Again, a comfort zone for risk/rewards.
I studied most of the substantiative posts including yours. I enjoy your posts by the way. The logic of the posters I judge to be quite intelligent swayed me. Joining the "adjust to a smaller amount" camp.
Wave job openings
There are some posts implying a need to attract talent through these options. I am somewhat puzzled by the length of time that the job openings have been left unfilled.
There are 2 openings since May '06 and 6 openings since Oct '06. Any correlations to the options request and the long un-filled software engineering positions? The senior product manager position seems to have been there a while also. Are the candidates not being offered enough (options)? Or is there some other reason these positions remain unfilled? Or does this seem normal to some of you?
Great discussions on both sides. (Undecided)
Scorpio: re: 3x the pay
If a company offered me 3x my pay, I would take it in a heartbeat. That is, unless I knew that my current position could offer me more in future salary/options.
I am curious about the possibility of more than 3x the pay offered and how that might be accomplished.
Micro: "Zero for a return"?
I have negative returns aka less than zero. Wavx has allowed me tax-free capital gains on my other investments while providing me with the $3K IRS limit on capital gains loss. Whether it be wise or foolish, I have replinished the shares after bypassing the wash rule.
Eamonshute: Agreed, Barge (as much as I enjoy his posts) is out of line with respect to Unclevername. Feeney's being offered 3x the salary? Hell, if he were smart he would have taken the 3x offer - that is, unless he knows of or will be offered something more than 3x that we don't know of.
(When Rachelelise speaks, Akua7 listens. Akua7 is a techno-geek but a financial idiot)
RE Rachel's: "some may not understand how this game is being played"
Here is an excellent study on the game. There are others but this provides what I consider a good research publication.
http://mit.edu/wysockip/www/cheaptalk.pdf
RE: Tech questions:
1)Correct: plugins are additional "tested" functionality to existing software.
2) Version compatibility needs to be discussed with the vendor.
RE: Your comment
Obviously the corporate user needs client and server ETS for their complete TC infrastructure, and server ETS to manage their FDE drives on their network, so without the TC infrastructure provided by ETS, FDE drives are pretty useless to the enterprise user.
----------------------------------------------
See Unclever's transcript:
Soetebier: If it looks like a major corporation has purchased all these machines, and then after they’re in their building they decide they want to upgrade to your software. What would be the amount of time it would take the IT department to come through and go box by box to upgrade them? Is it a complicated deal?
SKS: So it’s not that complicated of a deal. It depends on what tools the enterprise already has. Some corporations have the ability to push software to every machine on their network, without really the user knowing, at which point it’s a very easy solution. If the machines are shipped with the Trusted Platform Module turned off, then it does require two reboots of the computer in order to actually turn it on, and that’s really what takes the longest. So ten minutes a machine is probably a fair number to install the software, reboot a couple of times, and be on the network.
The majority of customers we’re talking to today, especially Dell customers, would like to have the full software package included when they buy the machine. They’re not talking to us independently because they just bought a whole bunch of machines, they’re talking to us because they’re on the way to buy a bunch of machines and they want to have the software on every machine they buy.
Damnme
BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH .... U krack me up!
Sorrry, somme of use tekhies lack sociall graces. Pardon my mis-spelleengs.
And yes, I notieced a WAVE systems in the shuttle project but never on this board.
Admins: please deleet as u see appropriats.
OT Unclever:
Haha ... yes I did hit the play button! All I heard was the introduction and it boggled my mind. I should have known to check the security settings and use my home computer instead.
I am tech enough in PC's to use top spyware scanning tools and remove spyware manually via the information generated in the logs (and not in the logs). Spyware infections are not frequent enough for me to register it yet. Thought of writing code to use the logs to auto-clean but spywares are inexpensive enough to purchase.
The "others" in your MP3, the way SKS said actually brought a smile to my face. There was actually an "inflection emphasis" on "others".
Thanks again Unclever. I was using my company's laptop which recently secured corporate PC's to a higher level. Next time I will use my home computer.
Again thank you for all you do. For Wavoid lurkers like me, your work has been quite valuable in assessing this stock, along with many others' input on this board.
For techies like me, the SKS's statement below makes good business sense. As an investor, I am very please to see it.
Too often, we experienced a "blame-game" of vendors with respect to product functionality. Because we are always asked to do more with less people (with the subtle threat of outsourcing); if one vendor's product does not work well with another's, I may just tell my manager that we may not have the resources to work on this, or simply delay until the problem is resolved. Often in the past, we decided which vendor had the issue if we saw serious value in the product. However, if it was too frustrating we would forgo the solution and opt for another solution if the interface was sound.
<Excerpt>
Our OEM partners, customers like Dell and Gateway and others have made it very clear to Seagate that they would like a full solution, not half the solution and half the solution from Wave. And we’ve had a few examples of this over the course of the last probably almost nine months, where Seagate shipped a drive to a customer, we shipped software, and all the versioning wasn’t properly lined up. So it didn’t work when it arrived on somebody’s desk and then it had to get fixed in 24 hours. Not because it didn’t work in our labs before we sent it, but people sent the wrong things. And I think that’s made it very clear to the OEMs that they don’t want to be in a position where they have to constantly have the vendors saying, “Well gee it’s not our stuff, it’s their stuff.” And vice versa. That, “Okay you guys get your act together. Give us a finished, completed solution. And we’d prefer to buy the technology that way.” And so I think that message has come across loud and clear. Seagate certainly oscillated over the course of the last six months, “Well we want to license it. No we don’t. Yes we do.” So it’s moving in that direction that they will pay us on a per FDE drive basis for software that we’re providing. We agree that that’s the right model, and hopefully we’ll get this done relatively soon. We’re getting down to the final endpoints of this.
<End Excerpt>
Thank you very much!
For some reason I could not get the audio to play.
Snackman, Bigtim, AWK: Thank you!
Being a financial idiot, I was not sure what to make of all this. Being a techie, I know that the technology is sound and that Wave has a technological advantage. But then again, I though OS2 was superior to MS.
Truscousa: If you read this, I find it amusing that you are unfazed, and that Helpful posts a satire.
OT Greenwavx: RE Lenovo, another amusing article
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/28/us-govt-to-launch-investigation-into-lenovo-spy-pcs/
The Sony reference below is even more amusing.
As you may recall, way back over a year ago when Lenovo announced its intentions to buy IBM, congress stepped in to call for an investigation to make sure the Commies Chinese megacorp wasn't going to be getting access to anything sensitive or secret in IBM's labs or R&D facilities. Well, obviously everything passed over kosher, but now the US State Department's placing an order for 15,000 Lenovo PCs, and the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission wants a thorough look through the machines to ensure they're not rigged with bugs and spyware. Outside dismantling every single PC and freshly installing the OS themselves, we're not sure how they would guarantee they'd be clean, which just goes to show you've really got to trust your PC manufacturer, especially if you're the government. In all reality they're probably more likely to find a Sony backdoor than a Lenovo one, anyway.
Greenwavx: RE: Lenovo purchase -- An article that might answer your question.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180201733
<Excerpt>
Even these low-end machines aren’t without a security chip. “Lenovo ships a lot of PCs inside China with a Chinese government chip instead of the TPM,” he says. “We don’t know what it does.”
The obvious fear is that the chip gives the Chinese government the ability to access any encrypted communications, something that seems particularly sinister in light of the recent allegations that American technology companies (in particular Yahoo) have helped the Chinese government locate dissidents. But Anderson emphasizes that these machines are only sold within China. “They’re completely unsuitable for the American market,” he says.
<End Excerpt>
FYI: I am not pushing for the IBM security architecture.
I just happen to know more about that architecture than most other systems.
Secure Hypervisor for non-techies:
http://www.research.ibm.com/secure_systems_department/projects/hypervisor/
See Virutal TPM on that page:
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/ssd_vtpm.index.html
Secure P2P Architectures
I found the slide show to be a good presentation.
http://www.list.gmu.edu/zhang/isa767/projects/adarwish.ppt.
FYI: Gartner's analysis of vPro
http://www.gartner.com/news/asset_15595.jsp
Scroll down to:
Intel vPro a Step Forward for Security Software Appliances
Event
On 24 April 2006, Intel introduced the vPro platform for maintaining and managing desktop PCs. vPro, which includes an Intel Core microprocessor, the Q965 chipset, the Intel Pro/1000 controller, and integrated graphics and network interface cards, will be available in 3Q06.
Analysis
Systems that carry Intel's vPro brand will offer important new integrated capabilities (see "Intel vPro Adds Value Through Remote Management for Desktop PCs"). These capabilities include security virtualization, which enables security software to run as a software appliance — a single virtual-machine partition, isolated from the operating system (OS) and applications. Partitioned security functionality (for example, host-based intrusion prevention systems and patch management tools) cannot be altered or deactivated by end users or malicious code. Intel's "ecosystem" partners will deliver additional functionality that makes use of this increasingly important capability.
Security virtualization is not new. Lenovo's security appliance, for example, exploits Intel Virtualization Technology-enabled systems, and products such as VMware isolate virtual machines using software-based enforcement by the virtual-machine manager, which can itself be a target for attack. vPro's hardware-enforced virtualization reduces this threat, but areas of vulnerability remain: A thin hypervisor layer governs virtual-machine creation and management, and the security partition itself runs an OS. These will be targets for attack and may need to be patched. vPro also presents other challenges:
Virtualization is limited to a single partition and application, but many security and management products would be useful as appliances. (Gartner believes this limitation is intended to appease Microsoft, which plans its own future hypervisor.) vPro-branded systems will initially be unavailable for mobile notebook computers. Migrating installed PCs, and developing a healthy vendor ecosystem, will take time.
The technologies behind vPro are proprietary to Intel.
Recommendations
Consider the benefits of isolating security functionality using virtualization, but do not necessarily wait for vPro. Enterprises that need this functionality can find products on the market now that use existing hardware
Use virtualization products that exploit Intel Virtualization Technology or AMD Pacifica technology for hardware-enabled enforcement and virtual-machine management
If possible, pursue a hypervisor or virtualization strategy that supports both Intel and AMD processors (as Xen does and Microsoft’s future hypervisor will).
If you plan to use vPro to deliver a security appliance and plan to use another hypervisor (for example, Microsoft or Xen), make certain the appliance and the hypervisor can coexist and test thoroughly for compatibility issues before deployment.
Analytical Sources: Neil MacDonald and Amrit Williams, Gartner Research
AWK: RE: GVTPM (Generalized Virtual TPM)
Thanks! I missed that post.
Unixguy: Re TPM's vs PC Virtualization, Competition
Virtualization is here to stay and will become mainstream in corporate PC's, and in some distant future, maybe home PC's. See example ref below.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1929010,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
Regarding competion: Maybe virtualized partitions may compete with with a few functions of a TPM with respect to security subsystem isolation. Like AIX 5.3 which can run single machines, machines with dedicated CPU's/IO devices or fully virtualized LPAR's, WAVX's technology is even more versatile, encompassing mobile phones/devices, storage devices, input devices, ?printer devices?, ?ethernet?, PDA's etc, etc, all of which are normally independent of an system being virutal or dedicated. I don't see competition due to virtual computing in the PC space.
I don't blame you for being curious about this tech while being a doubting potential investor. My Unix guys think that I am insane for investing in WAVX. Even the security guys!. We always have a good laugh though, but hopefully mine is the last :). If you find a serious competition please present your analysis or direct me to your findings. Something major, for example, if DELL/Seagate switches to another WAVE-like company.
Jazz2800: Very interesting to hear that WAVX explored technology similar to that of SecureBlue. Thank you! Yes, flashmemory is expensive, prices are falling, but for immediate deployment of the security technology, which WAVX is doing, SecureBlue is disadvantaged short-term due to that expense. The encryption does run through memory. SecureBlue is not a chip but a security technology that can be incorporated into processors without requiring a TPM. (Correct me if I am wrong. Done with 7 beers here). Wave's exploration of that technology tells me that they can move quickly in that direction should it prove advantageous.
http://news.com.com/2100-7355_3-6059276.html
Note Palmer discussing a bulk-encryption device in trying to explain an advantage over TPM's. This again seems to be a niche market and not a global scheme of the technology which WAVX is engaged in. Again, even if it is platform independent, it will take maybe 2 years for other chip vendors to research and incorporate the technology based on my knowledge of how fast corporate America moves. They will incorporate it into their current chip technology but by that time, WAVX, like Sun's JAVA will have taken hold and their tech will be proprietary. However, they will profit from it, due to many corporations being "IBM sites".
Recall from history, not even Microsoft, with its billions in cash, could dislodge Sun's JAVA due to its platform independence and first mover advantage. Wave's solution is like this, in my opinion. Its interoperability and platform independence will be difficult to dislodge with any proprietary security solutions or second movers. I may be wrong, but I have thrown in my chips in this high stakes poker game. Based on my own research and analysis (thanks to this board), we have a good hand (IMO) to play.
I also foresee AMD announcing a "VPRO" of their own in the near future (6 months to a year). Virtualization technology is not new and they would be quite foolish not to have explored this to their advantage.
Appologies to all for rambling tonight. I may laugh tomorrow at what I wrote tonight after the alchohol has worn off.
Snackman: I am humbled by your compliments since I don't contributed much. I appreciate the compliment, but there is no way I can repay the enormous amount of "smart DD" by many of the posters here. I have watched this for a long time and am invested a long time. But being a techie I also am quite facinated by the evolving technology.
I usually don't post due to time constraints or some DD already posted (you guys are too fast). And may be some alcholol to prompt me to post :) :)
But I posted due to unixguy's lack of substantial arguments for or against competition of IBM's security research against WAVX's progress. And I am sort of a "Unix Guy"/"SAP Guy", and my collegues and I are always discussing latest techs.
It appeared to me that the IBM Cell Broadband Engine mirrors some of WAVX's technology. I feel that WAVX has a first mover advantage to this and also an advantage to SecureBlue due IBM's ambiguity as to how it will be deployed along with IBM's previous proprietary nature. How long might it take other chip makers to incorporate this? My opinion: maybe 2 years at least.
My point is to Unixguy was: Please point out how it might be advantageous or disadvantageous to investing in WAVX with substantiative arguments. Here are some questions that cross my mind to another unixguy who might be knowledgeable about WAVX technology:
Can't a virtual server/partition be akin to a TPM? The hypervisor technology is able to isolate partitions from each other as if the were separate hardware. I belive that WAVX technology may be transparent to this hardware/virtualization technology with a few modifications just as AIX 5.3 was with IBM p5 technology. What say you? Do you see a hack in the hypervisor? If so, conjecture how? Any news on whether or not the security technology is going to be incorporated into the IBM p6 chips. Other vendors's chips? At what cost? Any conjecture on adoption? WAVX is already adopted. Is IBM's technology a competitive threat being relative new technology?
Why could VPRO or other virtualization technology be more secure vs separate TPM. Maybe VPRO is not as mature as VMware and the IBM hypervisor technology? If not why not? First technology introductions are often accompanied by bugs. What might they be based on previous hypervisor technology? Why might hypervisor technology be as un-hackable vs separate TPM? Is it really?
Sorry Snackman (chuckles). Anyway, these questions do occupy my time among other job-relate tech stuff. Now you can also see why I drive some of my collegues nuts since unlike unixguy, they cannot escape my insistence on answers on other issues.
wavxmaster: Thank you for the report !
barge: As you can see, I am not as free from addictions (thought-additions) as you perceived.
Okay back into hybernation until my next bout with beer.
Unix-guy: I wondered what flavor of UNIX that you are involved in.
I worked on AIX/e-series (currently as a sytems architect), HPUX (up to 2 yrs ago), SUN (long time ago). Quite the opposite of you. The IBM hypervisor technology is an offshoot from the mainframe technology. It can also do Linux partitions as can the mainframe :).
I track the virutalization technologies due to its being the wave (no pun intended) of the future (VPRO, VMware, IBM's virtualization technology and dynamic infrastructure, HP VSE, etc, etc). FYI: I am a systems architect and systems performance specialist for p4/p5/p6 applications servers for SAP systems with DB's on zOS.
As an investor, I ponder how WAVX might have a competitive advantage, whether it matters or not, having separate hardware chip or a virtual partition/server such as the recent VPRO. Thanks to this board for the many links for me to study.
As far as WAVX competitive edge over IBM -- key word ala Barge circa 2000 -- interoperability. IBM is known to be proprietary, although SecureBlue is said to break from that.
WAVOIDS reading this: re: wavxmaster's comment about Feeney's insider trader comment -- My take: Feeney is saying "Don't ask me anything you don't already know"
Unix-guy: The IBM Cell technology was quite facinating reading.
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cellsecurity/
In case you are a mediocre UNIX guy (yes, I have worked with a few):
The p5 servers currently do not have an interface to TPM's. The future p6 technology currently does not have plans for integration with TPM's.
IBM was/is involved in security research/enhancements in cryptography and security for a long time. Hence, their success with government contracts. However, much of their solutions were proprietary.
In case you have an agenda:
Having seen you on this board for a while, one would think that you would have done some research on this subject matter including the competitive probability of IBM's newer security technology. If you are a knowledgeable UNIX guy like a few of my collegues then you should share your research with the board in terms of Wave's competitive advantage/disadvantage over IBM's SecureBlue/Cell Tech.
In case you want to ridicule me:
Don't bother. My lunch buddy is a SAP security manager and has done enough of it regarding my investment.
Interesting overview of history, tech, and forcasts of TPM's for new investors:
http://www.technologypundits.com/index.php?article_id=215
Sorry if already posted. Not enough emphasis on Wave, IMBO (B=biased).
Barge: Thanks for your usual enthusiastic reply per "The TCG is there for vendor-neutral industry-standards and Wavx is allowed to own the space". This has been reiterated on the boards many times and "verified" by my own research which is why I am still heavily invested.
My point was that IBM was/is working on attestation however not in the sense that Wavx is. IBM probably could position Linux attestation for corporate intranets which are primarily IBM shops.
Older (2004) but interesting PDF about Linux and TPM's:
http://www.research.ibm.com/secure_systems_department/projects/tcglinux/perspolicy.pdf
Barge: From the following article, IBM did not forget about attestation. They seem to be "playing" with it. But perhaps you are referring to the PC/Windows market.
See the following link for research on Linux attestation.
[ Sorry for not highlighting important points in the article. Sometimes we Unix techies cannot figure out how to do those windows things :) ]
http://www.research.ibm.com/secure_systems_department/projects/tcglinux/
tcgLinux - TPM-based Linux Run-time Attestation
tcgLinux is an enhancement of Linux by a TPM-based Linux Security Module that is currently being developed by IBM research in close collaboration with various product groups and the IBM Linux Technology Center. Its main goal is to generate verifiable representative information about the software stack running on a Linux system. This information can be used by remote parties to determine the integrity of the execution environment. The project consists of three building blocks:
Integrity Measurement Architecture. We instrumented the Linux kernel to trigger a measurement for each executable, library, or kernel module loaded into the run-time before they affect the system. Our measurement consists of computing a SHA1 hash value of the file representing the executable content. We store all measurements since the booting of the system in a kernel-held measurement list. A measure library call allows applications to independently measure sensitive input before consuming it. First experiments show that this solution accumulates about 400-600 measurements on a Redhat system running X-windows and Gnome Desktop, and about 400 measurements on a Redhat system running an Apache web server and Jakarta Tomcat servlet machine. We have compiled some examples:
a complete annotated measurement list of an IBM Thinkpad T40 including boot and post-boot measurements.
the XML Schema describing the structure of the attestation response.
an exemplary attestation Request and Response: The real response will include the measurement values and ordinal numbers only. We have added some more information (status and file name) for demonstration purposes.
TPM-based Attestation. We use a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) to securely maintain an integrity value over the measurement list residing in the kernel. Consequently, each new measurement added to a kernel-held measurement list, is also extended into a protected hardware Platform Configuration Register (PCR) of a TPM security chip attached to the system. Therefore, this PCR always contains an aggregate of the current measurement list. When retrieved remotely, this aggregate (integrity value) is signed by the TPM hardware. A remote party can now validate the integrity of the measurement list by comparing the signed integrity value and a locally computed aggregate of this measurement list. Thus, compromised systems can manipulate the kernel-held measurement list, but they cannot adjust the TPM-protected aggregate to fit the manipulated measurement list. Cheating systems are thus recognized when validating the measurement list against the signed aggregate of the measurement list.
Determination of System Properties. Taking advantage of the validated measurement list to reason about the security properties of a system's runtime is the central point of our current research.
Currently, we experiment measuring the information flow on SELinux systems to reason about isolation properties of a system. For this purpose, we modified tcgLinux to run as an LSM kernel module stacked on top of SELinux. We also envision to extend our attestation method to integrate virtualization technology and partition the attestation space of a system using the information flow policies enforced therein. Here is an overview of our most recent papers related to this project (please request copies by e-mail):
Reiner Sailer, Xiaolan Zhang, Trent Jaeger, Leendert van Doorn. Design and Implementation of a TCG-based Integrity Measurement Architecture. 13th Usenix Security Symposium, San Diego, California, August, 2004. (Final Paper on Usenix Server, Presentation Slides PDF. This publication constitutes a heavily revised version of IBM Research Report 23064)
Reiner Sailer, Leendert van Doorn, James P. Ward: The Role of TPM in Enterprise Security. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit (DuD), September, 2004. (also IBM Research Report 23363)
Reiner Sailer, Trent Jaeger, Xiaolan Zhang, Leendert van Doorn: Attestation-based Policy Enforcement for Remote Access. 11th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) 2004, Washington, October, 2004. (Final Paper in ACM Electronic Library. Presentation Slides PDF. This publication constitutes a heavily revised version of IBM Research Report 23205)
The Trusted Computing Group has posted a good overview of the TCG Architecture and TPM, which explains basic functions of the TPM and the idea behind them.
Another non-posting long here (over 8-9 years long? don't remember anymore). Am a sys admin for SAP/UNIX for an F500 Co. Been involved in some implementation of single sign on, SSH, Vintella/Active Directory and pondering if and when WAVX may replace or augment some of these existing technologies. My security buddies do not (yet) see the value of WAVX tech.
Great community here. Many thanks to Unclever for the transcripts and thanks to those who report on the SHM's. I am sure that there are many longs who like me do not post but appreciate it being there for review.
FYI: My co-workers think I am nuts for investing in this stock. I have the occasional basher jabs albeit not as serious as those seen here since they do not have the short interest.