When eCommerce companies want to optimize information security, password management tools enable users to create strong passwords for every login.

Better than a Master Pass
A two-factor authentication, a security process in which the user provides two means of identification, one of which is typically a physical token, such as a card, and the other of which is typically something memorized, such as a security code can drastically reduce online fraud such as identity theft . A common example of two-factor authenticationis a bank card: the card itself is the physical item and the personal identification number (PIN) is the data that goes with it.

LastPass 3.0 Premium and RoboForm, security downloads offer fingerprint-based authentication features that can be configured to any computer PC or mobile application.  Both are supported by the Google Authenticator mobile app for smart phone and device integration.

LastPass 3.0 is most powerful on-demand password manager on the market. LastPass 3.0 Premium includes mobile support and more features. Dashlane 2.0 is is not as robust, but includes a user-friendly interface. F-Secure Key is a free, one-device version of these top competitors. F-Secure Key is for exclusive use on an installed device, so password safe retention is dependent on proprietary use of the device itself. The application can be upgraded for a small annual fee.

Password Manager App Cross-Portability
F-Secure Key syncs with Mac, PC Android, and iOS devices simultaneously. A transient code is generated on mobile devices, in addition to the two-factor authentication default of the F-Secure Key master password security product.

Password capture and replay in case of lost credentials is made possible with a password manager. Integration of a password manager app with a browser allows a user to capture login credentials, and replay on revisit to a site. Dashlane, LastPass, Norton Identity Safe, Password Genie 4.0 offer continuous detection and management of password change events, automatically capturing credentials each time a new Web-based, service registration sign up is completed.

Other applications like F-Secure Key, KeePass, and My1login replay passwords via a bookmarklet, supported by any Java-equipped browser. KeePass ups the ante for would be keyloggers, with a unique replay technology.

Personal Data and Auto-Fill Forms
Most password managers fill username and password credentials into login forms automatically. Password managers also retain personal data for form fill interfaces with applications, and other HTML forms online. The RoboForm app is one of the most popular for its flexibility in multi-form password and personal data management, but the others also capture and reuse at least a portion of what has been entered in a form manually.

The 1Password app for Windows stores the most types of personal data for use to fill out forms. Dashlane, LastPass, and Password Genie store the various types of ID data used for form fill-in, like passport and driver's license numbers and other key details to HTML acknowledgement of discretionary password and personal information.

The Cost of Protection
LastPass Premium and Password Box are the lowest monthly password manager plans on the market, going for $1 a month. Annual plans offered by other password manager sources vary according to internal plan: Dashlane $20, F-Secure Key $16, and Password Genie, $15.
All password manager companies and their products may not be alike in the end.

Security checks on security products like password managers have become more sophisticated in response to product cross-portability and open source app interface volatility. Norton, RoboForm, KeePass, generate strong, random passwords on-demand. Some security procedures now require three-factor authentication, which involves possession of a physical token and a password, used in conjunction with biometricdata, such as finger-scanningor a voiceprint.

What are the best languages for getting into functional programming?

Computer Programming as a Career?

A business rule is the basic unit of rule processing in a Business Rule Management System (BRMS) and, as such, requires a fundamental understanding. Rules consist of a set of actions and a set of conditions whereby actions are the consequences of each condition statement being satisfied or true. With rare exception, conditions test the property values of objects taken from an object model which itself is gleaned from a Data Dictionary and UML diagrams. See my article on Data Dictionaries for a better understanding on this subject matter.

A simple rule takes the form:

if condition(s)

then actions.

An alternative form includes an else statement where alternate actions are executed in the event that the conditions in the if statement are not satisfied:

if condition(s)

then actions

else alternate_actions

It is not considered a best prectice to write rules via nested if-then-else statements as they tend to be difficult to understand, hard to maintain and even harder to extend as the depth of these statements increases; in other words, adding if statements within a then clause makes it especially hard to determine which if statement was executed when looking at a bucket of rules. Moreoever, how can we determine whether the if or the else statement was satisfied without having to read the rule itself. Rules such as these are often organized into simple rule statements and provided with a name so that when reviewing rule execution logs one can determine which rule fired and not worry about whether the if or else statement was satisfied. Another limitation of this type of rule processing is that it does not take full advantage of rule inferencing and may have a negative performance impact on the Rete engine execution. Take a class with HSG and find out why.

Rule Conditions

There are normally two sides to the story when it comes to employment. On one hand, employers hold the view that the right candidate is a hard find; while on the other, job hunters think that it’s a tasking affair to land a decent job out there.

Regardless of which side of the divide you lay, landing good work or workers is a tedious endeavor. For those looking to hire, a single job opening could attract hundreds or thousands of applicants. Sifting through the lot in hope of finding the right fit is no doubt time consuming. Conversely, a job seeker may hold the opinion that he or she is submitting resumes into the big black hole of the Internet, never really anticipating a response, but nevertheless sending them out rather than sit back doing nothing.

A recruitment agency normally keeps an internal database of applicants and resumes for current and future opportunities. They first do a database search to try and identify qualified and screened candidates from their existing crop of talent. Most often the case, they’ll also post open positions online through industry websites and job boards so as to net other possible applicants.

When it comes to IT staffing needs, HR managers even find a more challenging process in their hands. This is because the IT department is one of the most sensitive in any given organization where a single slip-up could be disastrous for the company (think data security, think finances when the IT guys are working in tandem with accounts). You get the picture, right?

Like me, I believe most people go about their business never to give a serious thought about their assumed private correspondence when using Gmail to email friends, colleagues and business associates.  As it turns out, your daily banter may not be so private after all.  A recent article in Fortune Magazine, “Judge Rejects Google Deal Over Email Scanning” caught my attention and an immediate thought dominated my curiosity…Google email and scanning scam.  

In essence, the article describes Googles’ agreement to change the way it scans incoming messages so that it no longer reads emails while they are in transit, but only when they are in someone's inbox! So, what exactly does that mean? Judge Koh, a San Francisco federal judge, said she's not so sure about that. Her ruling claims the settlement does not provide an adequate technical explanation of Google's workaround, which involves scanning in-transit emails for security purposes, and then later parsing them for advertising data. The judge also proposed a legal settlement to pay $2.2 million to lawyers, but nothing to consumers.

My interest in this story is not so much about the proposed settlements or the specific details about how Google or any of the web giants settle claims based on vague legal language. It is however, more about the naiveté of myself and perhaps many others that never question how the email scanning process really works. I wonder, do most of us really care that Gmail uses contents of our mail to display targeted ads?