<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Suresh Ramasubramanian &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Suresh Ramasubramanian on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2012, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2011-05-21T18:25:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> University of California Identifies the Next Hard Target in a Never Ending War (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/university_of_california_next_hard_target_in_never_ending_war</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/university_of_california_next_hard_target_in_never_ending_war</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is, of course, about the recent NYT article that showcases the results of Prof Stefan Savage and his colleagues from UCSD/Berkeley. As my good friend and longtime volunteer at CAUCE, Ed Falk, points out, this is a great find, but hardly a FUSSP. The nice thing about the fight against bots and spammers is these little victories people on "our" side keep having in an endless series of skirmishes and battles... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/university_of_california_next_hard_target_in_never_ending_war">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2011-05-21T18:25:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Why Isn't Mobile Malware More Popular? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_isnt_mobile_malware_more_popular</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_isnt_mobile_malware_more_popular</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is a followup to Wout de Natris' as usual <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/the_enisa_botnet_report_thoughts_on_the_state_of_play_in_smart_phones/">excellent piece</a> on the Enisa botnet report -- pointing out the current state of mobile malware and asking some questions I started off answering in a comment but it grew to a length where I thought it'd be better off in its own post. Going through previous iterations of Mikko's presentations on mobile malware is a fascinating exercise. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_isnt_mobile_malware_more_popular">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2011-05-09T08:01:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Comcast vs the FCC - A Reply to Susan Crawford's Article (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/comcast_vs_the_fcc_a_reply_to_susan_crawfords_article</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/comcast_vs_the_fcc_a_reply_to_susan_crawfords_article</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is a reply to Susan Crawford's circleid article "<a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100406_fcc_comcast_ancillary_jurisdiction_ancillary_to_something/">Comcast v. FCC - "Ancillary Jurisdiction" Has to Be Ancillary to Something</a>". I started writing a reply to her article, adding some comments I had and also reminding her that she'd predicted this herself, in an earlier circleid article, but it turned out long enough that I decided to submit it as a circleid post instead. On the whole, the facts agree with <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html">this CNET article</a>. This court decision was correct, and expected... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/comcast_vs_the_fcc_a_reply_to_susan_crawfords_article">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-04-06T23:08:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> "Internet Drivers License" - A Short History Lesson (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/internet_drivers_license_a_short_history_lesson</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/internet_drivers_license_a_short_history_lesson</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The press, the blogosphere, CircleID - everybody has been discussing Craig Mundie's comment on the need for an "Internet Driver's License". Most of the reaction has been from privacy advocates fearing that this is simply another way to kill anonymity on the Internet. Oh well... that's the usual set of reactions. Now... the fun part is, a driver's license also shows that you have the competence to drive... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/internet_drivers_license_a_short_history_lesson">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-02-11T09:23:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> More on Networks and Nationalization With Respect to Cyberwar (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090721_networks_and_nationalization_with_respect_to_cyberwar</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090721_networks_and_nationalization_with_respect_to_cyberwar</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As a follow up to Susan Brenner's <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/networks_and_nationalization/">Networks and Nationalization</a> and <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/networks_and_nationalization/#5576">my comment there</a>, I will go further in this post and talk about the "cyberwar" and "offense" aspects of her article. I think I made this point elsewhere as well... but before getting into a war, it'd be a brilliant idea to actually know that you can win. Cyberwarfare is the sort of game where you don't really need to be a huge government with the largest standing army in the world and sophisticated weaponry in order to win... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090721_networks_and_nationalization_with_respect_to_cyberwar">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-07-21T09:16:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> "It's The Internet Stupid" ...I Respectfully Disagree (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/its_the_internet_stupid_i_disagree</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/its_the_internet_stupid_i_disagree</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Today, in response to "<a href="http://itstheinternetstupid.com/">It’s The Internet Stupid</a>", Richard Bennett highlights (on the IP List) something I've noticed even among other advocates of 'Net Neutrality' (and how I've come to detest the term after its widespread and misguided overuse). Legislating against the concepts of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) or other preferential treatment of packets is not the brightest thing to do. I've seen others draw analogies to gun control using the 'guns don't kill people' argument... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/its_the_internet_stupid_i_disagree">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-06-08T16:08:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> A Noteworthy Report on Fast Flux Hosting (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090126_report_fast_flux_hosting</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090126_report_fast_flux_hosting</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This very interesting <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26jan09-en.htm">document</a> was released by ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) for public comment yesterday. And it asks some fundamental questions while at the same time pointing to sources such as the Honeynet Alliance's reports on fast flux. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090126_report_fast_flux_hosting">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-01-26T20:45:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> .hk the "Most Unsafe" Domains? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/hk_the_most_unsafe_domains</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/hk_the_most_unsafe_domains</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hong Kong domains are the most dangerous in the world; this little factoid from a recent McAfee report generated quite a bit of media coverage, and even made TIME magazine's top stories list. But all is not as it seems, and aspects of the report may have been out of date before the report was even published. McAfee's study seems to be based on a year's worth of data, and last year was a particularly bad year for the Hong Kong domain, thanks to a gang of botnet spammers registering thousands of domains under the .hk ccTLD. These domains were most likely registered using stolen credit cards... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/hk_the_most_unsafe_domains">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-06-06T04:22:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Are Domain Name Portfolios Actually Worth What They Are Touted to Be? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_portfolios_worth</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_portfolios_worth</link>
			<description><![CDATA[According to a <a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2007/08/07/tucows-revenues-come-up-short-stock-tumbles/">recent article</a> in Domain Name Wire, "shares of domain name company Tucows are down over 15% in early trading after announcing earnings." Elliot Noss, President and CEO of Tucows, says: "We delivered solid financial performance in the second quarter, which benefited from the sale of a block of 2,500 domain names from our portfolio." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_portfolios_worth">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-10-23T21:03:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> The New Hong Kong Anti-Spam Law, and a Small Fly in the Ointment (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/hong_kong_anti_spam_law</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/hong_kong_anti_spam_law</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, it has been quite a while since first the Hong Kong <a href="http://www.ofta.gov.hk">OFTA</a> (in 2004) and then <a href="http://www.citb.gov.hk">CITB</a> (in 2006) issued requests for public comment about a proposed UEM (Unsolicited Electronic Messaging) bill to be introduced in Hong Kong, for the purpose of regulating unsolicited email, telephone and fax solicitations. We're a large (worldwide) provider of email and spam filtering - but we're based in Hong Kong, and any regulation there naturally gets tracked by us rather more actively than laws elsewhere. We sent in our responses to both these agencies... The bill is becoming law now - and most of it looks good... There's one major fly in the ointment though... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/hong_kong_anti_spam_law">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-06-03T09:33:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> EFF and Its Use of Propaganda: Could Karl Rove do better? Probably (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_use_of_propaganda_karl_rove</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_use_of_propaganda_karl_rove</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The latest post on <a href="http://www2.dearaol.com/blog">DearAOL's blog</a>, by EFF activist coordinator Danny O'Brien, is titled "The Shakedown Begins". In short, Danny receives email from overstock.com on an AOL mailbox -- email that he apparently paid overstock $29.95 to receive. And that email arrives with Goodmail certification that AOL recognizes and flags as such. Danny seems to think this is not the sort of email that should be certified by Goodmail, and that AOL should not suddenly turn on Goodmail certification. Suddenly? <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_use_of_propaganda_karl_rove">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2006-05-12T07:20:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> EFF on Goodmail: Further Confusing an Already Confused Issue (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_on_goodmail_further_confusing_an_already_confused_issue</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_on_goodmail_further_confusing_an_already_confused_issue</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Cindy's <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004398.php">piece on the EFF website</a> seems to be a bit of a pastiche, with elements taken out of various articles (some outright wrong, some merely misinformed) that have been doing the rounds of the media for quite a while now about Goodmail. She started off comparing AOL and Goodmail with the old email hoax about congress taxing email. That same line was used in a CircleID <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/aol_and_Goodmail_two_steps_back_for_email/">post</a> by Matt Blumberg, CEO & Chairman of Returnpath... Various other quotes from different places - Richard Cox from Spamhaus on CNN for example. However a lot of the quotes in those articles are being based on wrong or out of context assumptions, starting with one that goes "AOL is going to remove all its existing whitelists and force people to use Goodmail". <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/eff_on_goodmail_further_confusing_an_already_confused_issue">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2006-02-10T19:46:16-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Objections to .XXX, Attention in High Places (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/objections_to_xxx_attention_in_high_places</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/objections_to_xxx_attention_in_high_places</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Dot XXX is in for some interesting times, I fear. First the ICANN GAC chair Sharil Tarmizi is suggesting that more time be given for government and public policy feedback on .XXX. Objections certainly have started to come in from rather high places, such as from the US Department of Commerce. Personally speaking I'm inclined to be in favor of .XXX because it at least gives people in the adult entertainment industry their own online space and a stronger voice (gTLD)... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/objections_to_xxx_attention_in_high_places">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2005-08-16T07:48:29-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Actions Required by Developing Economies Against Spam (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/actions_required_by_developing_economies_against_spam</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/actions_required_by_developing_economies_against_spam</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My OECD paper on spam problems in developing economies is now linked from the OECD Anti-Spam Toolkit page, as part of section 8 of the Anti-Spam Toolkit (Outreach). This ZDNet article provides a reasonably good summary of my paper as well. I welcome comments and suggestions from CircleID readers. "Spam is a much more serious issue in developing countries as it is a heavy drain on resources that are scarcer and costlier in developing countries than elsewhere..." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/actions_required_by_developing_economies_against_spam">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2005-05-29T09:38:07-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Port 25 Blocking, or Fix SMTP and Leave Port 25 Alone for the Sake of Spam? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/port_25_blocking_or_fix_smtp_and_leave_port_25_alone_for_the_sake_of_spam</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/port_25_blocking_or_fix_smtp_and_leave_port_25_alone_for_the_sake_of_spam</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Larry Seltzer wrote an interesting article for eWeek, on port 25 blocking, the reasons why it was being advocated, and how it would stop spam. This quoted an excellent paper by Joe St.Sauver, that raised several technically valid and true corollaries that have to be kept in mind when blocking port 25 -- "cough syrup for lung cancer" would be a key phrase... Now, George Ou has just posted an article on ZDNET that disagrees with Larry's article, makes several points that are commonly cited when criticizing port 25 blocking, but then puts forward the astonishing, and completely wrong, suggestion, that worldwide SPF records are going to be a cure all for this problem. Here is my reply to him... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/port_25_blocking_or_fix_smtp_and_leave_port_25_alone_for_the_sake_of_spam">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2005-04-17T10:27:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
