http://www.windowsitpro.com/authors/author/author/5777303/rsscomment/5777303en-USSun, 27 May 2012 07:17:00 GMTSun, 27 May 2012 07:17:00 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/windows-client/token-based-security-add-ons#commentsAnchorSun, 11 Jul 2004 08:35:14 GMT
Mega AS Consulting Ltd developed a new technology product, the CAT - Cellular Authentication Token to provide a commodity product that every business will be able to afford in order to protect its users Server access. This is a Two Factor Authentication generator of One Time Passwords using the popular Cellulars. The CAT is a stand-alone product that does not use SMS or any type of communications. With no special hardware overhead and no hidden costs this product is the most cost effective product in the security market today. With benefits like: Low cost Ease of use Multiple OTP accounts management No hidden costs No communication or SMS required Security standards - TFA Using the cellular and not an additional propriety hardware This product is the replacement of the old tokens technology used today for securing users access to servers. With this new technology a new service is now possible – the eAuthentication service where companies who are no willing to purchase the Authentication server package can get the authentication done as a service at Mega AS Consulting Ltd.’s CAT Authentication Server for a monthly charge. More information at: www.megaas.co.nz ]]>arnnei,arnneisp Sun, 11 Jul 2004 08:35:14 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/windows-client/token-based-security-add-ons#commentsAnchorhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/windows-client/token-based-security-add-ons#commentsAnchorThu, 06 Nov 2003 19:40:33 GMT
I DON’T GET IT! HOW DOES THE TOKEN BASED SECURITY SYSTEM WORK? STEP BY STEP (BASIC)]]>gurdeep Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:40:33 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/windows-client/token-based-security-add-ons#commentsAnchorhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/security/the-case-against-c2#commentsAnchorFri, 15 Feb 2002 11:04:58 GMT
A sure sign of someone who knows absolutetly nothing about C2 is someone who rallys against it as "outdated." It bothers me when that someone is a writer with the potential to reach a large audience who will take what he says as "truth" simply because he writes well and they have no particular reason to doubt his "expertise." Mr. Rothke asserts that C2 is outdated because it does not address the items listed in his article. I disagree. C2 is really about defining your universe and then controlling what takes place within the confines of that universe by identifying users and resources, and then mediating their interactions in accordance with some clearly defined policy. That universe may include any of the things Mr.Rothke claims are ignored by C2. C2 was not designed or intended to be application specific - in that sense it is timeless. Mr. Rothke is also wrong when he said that C2 was intended to apply only to stand-alone systems. The redbook (network interpretation) was published to further clarify network issues vis-a-vis C2, NOT as an additional standard. Most of my rant is spelled out in both the Orange and Red books. Has Mr. Rothke even seen the documents in question? What good is information when it cannot be trusted? ]]>Lohkee Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:04:58 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/security/the-case-against-c2#commentsAnchorhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/security/the-case-against-c2#commentsAnchorFri, 13 Aug 1999 10:31:54 GMT
I enjoyed reading the C2 point/counterpoint in the May issue. Although I agree with Ben Rothke’s comments about the Rainbow Series standards being incomplete and antiquated, at least they’re standards. As flawed as the ratings may be, we must have a common set of criteria as a starting point for evaluating systems, be they standalone or networked. I would like to see the Rainbow Series standards revised to be more in line with emerging European standards and more current with existing (and future?) technologies. Finally, one comment about the magazine: Although NT is a great product, not everything Microsoft does is perfect. I’m interested in seeing more objective critiques and independent analysis of NT features and products (such as Mark Minasi’s March NT SP2 horror story) rather than gushy product reviews. I have found that more people notice when things go wrong rather than when things work properly. Keep up the good work.
--Andy Goldin]]>Andy Goldin Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:31:54 GMThttp://www.windowsitpro.com/article/security/the-case-against-c2#commentsAnchor