Read full story: External Source

But a big impediment in adopting cyber-infrastructure in most jurisdictions is the lack of financial incentives. The energy savings of cyber-infrastructure are usually earned by the facilities or estates department or rarely based on to researchers and educators. But initiatives like national Green Revolving Funds, funded by the national government such as the 10 million Salix pound program in the UK, and JISC/JANET programs to promote clouds, outsourcing and Green IT are starting to make a difference. More importantly universities such as Cambridge are developing programs to pass on energy savings to individual departments^†.

Another great example is the public-private partnership of London University and UNIT4 to offer shared outsourcing services to UK universities, as well as the recent JANET cloud brokering offering.

If these collocated facilities use green or renewable power, the carbon/energy savings for a university can be significantly greater than more traditional energy saving schemes such as changing light bulbs or adding insulation. Of course, advanced high speed R&E networks supporting Software Defined Networks and Hybrid optical backbones are critical for this vision.

Ultimately I think such initiatives can entirely underwrite the cost of such advanced networks by making Green Revolving Funds aware of the huge energy savings available by integrating advanced networks with clouds and outsourcing. Kudos to JISC/JANET for these forward thinking services.

^† Cambridge Shared Savings – A new case study from the JISC-funded RECSO Project, managed by Forum for the Future with inputs from SusteIT, describes the background, aims and working of the Electricity Incentive Scheme (EIS) that Cambridge University implemented in 2008/09 and has since developed. The Scheme encourages consumers of electricity across the University to maximise their energy efficiency through a system of financial incentives (both rewards and penalties) at a departmental level. It thus achieves the benefits of fully devolved energy budgets without the administrative and managerial implications that this could have involved. The Scheme saved an estimated £820,000 in energy costs in its first year. Although not targeted at ICT, it obviously provides general incentives to tackle its energy use — as evidenced by an Appendix which details how the scheme helped stimulate an innovative green data centre (PUE approaching 1.1) in the Department of Engineering (also featured in the presentations from our September 2011 workshop at Cambridge). (PDF)

Written by Bill St. Arnaud , Green IT Networking Consultant

Nixu DDI in Enterprise Environment – Click to Enlarge

When integrated with Nixu NameSurfer IPAM, Nixu NEE provides organizations with location-aware IP Address Management process greatly speeding up the response times for internal service requests. By providing a transparent real-time view of the active IP allocations, organizations are also able to keep accurate inventory of their IP resources and to take appropriate measures against unauthorized use of their network resource.

Since its initial launch in late 2010, Nixu NEE has been warmly received by enterprises and governmental organizations subject to various security standards, such as PCI (Payment Card Industry) standards. The Managing Director of Nixu Software, Juha Holkkola said in this regard: "Although it's not always easy to quantify a Return on Investment (ROI) for network security enhancements, Nixu NEE has been able to significantly boost the IPAM ROI for our customers. Thanks to its accurate IP-location inventory, organizations running Nixu NEE and Nixu NameSurfer IPAM have been able to dramatically reduce the time require for onsite service calls and as a result achieve 100% improvements in operational efficiency of their IT support teams."

Find out more about Nixu NEE and download a free 30-day evaluation license from our website.

As previously announced, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") has formally opened the application window under which organisations can apply for the right to own and operate a new generic top level domain. The application window will remain open until 12 April 2012. Under ICANN's rules, applicants for new gTLDs must first purchase an application slot, or placeholder, for each application for US$5,000 each, which will then be deducted from each US$185,000 gTLD application fee.

The Company intends to use the Placing proceeds to provide additional working capital and in particular, to fund the application slots and subsequent fees for new gTLDs on behalf of itself and clients of Minds + Machines. The Company expects to submit multiple batches for application slots during the application window having already submitted for its first twenty application slots. In January, TLDH announced that Minds+Machines will also be providing the back-end registry services for the proposed new .BAYERN domain.

Antony Van Couvering, CEO of TLDH, commented: "We are delighted that both existing and new investors have responded so positively to our plan. With a new cash balance of approximately US$25 million, no debt, and a public stock, we believe that TLDH is ideally positioned to participate in the new gTLD opportunity."

Peter Dengate Thrush, Chairman of TLDH, added: "TLDH management believes that the increased capital will allow it to increase significantly the number of applications it is able to make, allowing it to develop a wider, more diversified portfolio of names in multiple languages and scripts."

The new Ordinary Shares being issued pursuant to the Placing will, on issue, rank pari passu with the existing Ordinary Shares in issue and application will be made for the new Ordinary Shares to be admitted to trading on AIM. Trading in the new Ordinary Shares on AIM is expected to commence on or around 17 February 2012.

About Top Level Domain Holdings Limited

Top Level Domain Holding is a publicly traded holding company listed on the London AIM market. The company is focused on the new top-level domain space. Top-level domains, such as .com, run by VeriSign (NASDAQ: VRSN), and .biz, run by NeuStar (NYSE: NSR), are regulated by ICANN. ICANN has announced plans to expand the number of top-level domains. TLDH intends to make targeted investments in this space, focusing on both infrastructure technologies and specific top-level domains.

The terms "broadcasting" and "broadcasting undertaking", interpreted in the context of the language and purposes of the Broadcasting Act, are not meant to capture entities which merely provide the mode of transmission. The Broadcasting Act makes it clear that "broadcasting undertakings" are assumed to have some measure of control over programming. ... When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content. The term "broadcasting undertaking" does not contemplate an entity with no role to play in contributing to the Act's policy objectives. Accordingly, ISPs do not carry on "broadcasting undertakings" under the Broadcasting Act when they provide access through the Internet to "broadcasting" requested by end‑users.

The research [PDF] analyzed detailed information from The Conference Board Help-Wanted OnLine (HWOL) database as conventional employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics were not suitable to track such a phenomenon as this economic ecosystem is so new.

But many other readers and astute observers of this space, domestic and international, would not confuse the public dead silence we are hearing from ICANN and its insider community or the euphoria of the long awaited application submissions we are seeing to mean that all is perfect. The multistakeholder model, ICANN's version of it, the New gTLD program, ICANN's approach on it, and The Single Root and its unique identifiers are all at graver risk than ever and must be saved before it is too late. Only then can we truly claim to be serving the "Global Public Interest" beyond mere words, slogans, and 11th hour band aid patches.

If you question my opinion on this gravity please take note of how Dr Larry Strickling, US Assistant Secretary of Commerce, concluded his letter to ICANN on Jan 3, 2012 stating:"How ICANN manages the new gTLD program will, for many, be a litmus test of the viability of this approach”.

It is understandable why those in the ICANN community who do see many of these grave risks to the multistakeholder model in plain sight chose to remain silent. Some do so in order not to cause any hiccups or possible derailment to the long overdue, but inequitable to emerging markets, New gTLD program that stands to benefit them, their businesses or their plans. Instead they chose to formulate their message to focus on only the opportunities the new gTLDs will bring, and rightly so, but with little or no attention to their local and global risks. After all, serving the Global Public Interest is not their mandate — it is however ICANN's mandate per the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) agreement with the US Government, to which and to whom at the very least, it should be accountable.

The Global Picture

Internationalized Domain Name gTLDs, also known as IDN gTLDs, will usher the Global Multilingual Internet I have championed and advocated since the late 1990's, at many levels and roles, to serve "The Global Public Interest" that should empower local citizens.

Readers may be aware that I have also, inside and outside the ICANN fora, created great international awareness of the immense positive benefits of the coming Multilingual Internet that will be born thru IDN gTLDs and the new gTLD program. More acutely, I have not shied away from pointing out the grave risks, some of which remain unaddressed and unresolved. Also, the international relationships that I have created with global leaders in their sectors like Deloitte, VeriSign and others that primarily focus on the emerging markets and IDNs should carry some weight, credibility and validity to the voice of concern I raise, for those who care to listen.

But these accolades do not detract me from following my conscience and beliefs, as I have done over the years, to point out the grave risks I see in plain sight regardless of how unpopular this may make me at first glance with colleagues and fellow ICANN community members. Many are aware that I also have placed serving The Global Public Interest that I have always talked about above any possible personal or business interest. I hope that saying my peace may help save the Multistakeholder model, its principles and the single root of unique identifiers, the 10s, maybe 100s of millions of dollars that applicants are investing in applications, and ICANN from failure, and before it is too late.

The Imminent Grave Risks

Imminent grave risks are facing the Multistakeholder model, the single root, and ICANN itself, as well as serving "The Global Public Interest". In brief they are… Click here to continue reading the full Ankabooot editorial.

Written by Khaled Fattal, Group Chairman, The Multilingual Internet Group

Gofus is coming on board as PIR pursues the proposed .NGO (non-governmental organization) domain extension.

Gofus, who currently serves as the board chair of the national board of Volunteers of America, served as senior vice president of global product management for Verizon Communications in 2009 and chief marketing officer at Verizon Business from 2006 to 2008.

The .ORG domain has more than nine million domain names registered worldwide. Reston, Va.-based PIR was founded by the Internet Society in 2002.

In an interview with DailyVista, Gofus discusses how she will utilize her blend of nonprofit, marketing and communications expertise to grow .ORG's presence.

In recent years, GRFs have become increasingly popular on campuses in the United States and Canada. The funds operate and are managed by the university, with loans issued to university departments or campus groups. As of February 2011, there were 52 active green revolving funds in the United States and Canada. These funds were traditionally earmarked for energy efficiency applications like changing light bulbs or boilers. But increasingly they are now being used for IT applications.

Most green initiatives involve ICT in some form or another. A good example is Iowa State University that borrowed $300 from the university GRF to install energy saving software on over 500 computers, which is projected to result in over $49,000 in annual energy savings for the university.

One GRF model, that is gaining popularity, is national or state based GRF funds like Salix in the UK which received over $10m pounds from the UK government. These funds are also being targeted to support IT energy reduction as for example the recent funding of 2 million pounds to University of St. Andrews.

Another model, that is being explored is where the NREN operates a national GRF, sponsored by the national/state government or collectively on behalf of the institutions. Network membership or users fees can then be deducted against the fund, if the institution undertakes activities to reduce their IT energy impact through the use of clouds, remote collocation, offloading campus network management, content peering and other such services.

CANARIE, through the Greenstar program in partnership with the Canadian Standards Association has developed process and procedures on measuring the detailed energy costs savings that are possible through such arrangements.

Some pointers:
Good Overview of Green Revolving Funds
JISC white paper: Using IT to go green at universities & revolving green funds: briefing paper
CANARIE-Greenstar-CSA document

Written by Bill St. Arnaud , Green IT Networking Consultant

I believe that I speak for many when I question whether ICANN is opening up these comment periods in good faith, or instead whether these are smokescreens, mere distractions to pretend that ICANN is "listening" to the public while staff and insiders proceed with predetermined outcomes.

I note that as of today, there are multiple past comment periods where ICANN staff have not yet even summarized/digested the public's input. This is simply unacceptable. In other organizations, people would get fired for not doing their jobs in a timely manner. At ICANN, such behaviour is not only tolerated, it is seemingly encouraged. It appears to be part of the culture of "willful blindness" of ICANN staff, insiders and the Board, in order that its "top-down" agenda can be imposed upon an unwilling public, rather than actually listening to the public in the "bottom-up" process that it suggests exists.

Furthermore, when ICANN does bother to get around to publishing summaries, it's clear that they do not even listen to what the public has to say on the topic! The public opposed new TLDs by a great margin. It was a very clear message, yet ICANN kept ignoring what the public had to say, and mischaracterized their words when speaking to others (e.g. politicians in Washington, etc.) about the public "consensus."

One sees that ICANN continues to speak in that twisted and biased manner in this actual comment period, when it uses loaded phrases such as "carefully crafted, new protections" or "perception" or "perceived need" — the underlying assumption being that the public is simply "stupid" and "doesn't understand" new TLDs, and if only the public "knew better", they would "come around" and "love what ICANN is doing." That is simply preposterous and arrogant. It demonstrates that ICANN is out of touch with reality. The informed public knows that new TLDs will be a disaster, and has said so in clear language at every opportunity. ICANN is not "misunderstood" as some people believe — the public fully understands ICANN, and opposes its plans! Period!

ICANN acts like a greedy politician, asking for a "tax increase" to pay for a new bureaucracy that simply transfers wealth from the public to itself and its insiders. ICANN is not creating new wealth. ICANN is destroying wealth. Taxpayers see through attempts to bamboozle them that the "tax increase" is a good thing. Just as the public sees through attempts by ICANN and its insiders to bamboozle them that this new TLDs plan is "good" for the public. Attempts to dress up their greedy proposal using words like "innovation" fail, because the public is smarter than ICANN and can see through their self-serving proposals.

One need only look at the .XXX rollout, which was a disaster for the public. Millions of dollars were spent by universities, non-profits, individuals and corporations to purchase "protection" so that someone else could not tarnish their image/brand/identity. ICANN and its insiders do not consider this to be a "disaster", though — they look at this as "innovation", and pat themselves on the back saying "job well done." ICANN might pretend "well, no one told us this was going to happen… how were we to know??" That's utter nonsense, of course. One can go back to the analysis of Tim Berners-Lee on new TLDs, who didn't mince his words. He said "New Top Level Domains Considered Harmful". Could one be more clear?? [NB: He was not pointing to just .mobi and .xxx — he was saying this about ALL new TLDs (see the "Title" tag in the W3C page).]

ICANN and its insiders are emboldened by the dot-XXX launch. They want to multiply that "tax" on the public, what many have described as a "protection racket", a thousand-fold. ICANN suggests that "this time will be different" — keep dreaming! The only thing that will be different is the *degree* to which the public will be damaged. ICANN wants to damage the public a thousand-fold, to the benefit of itself and its insiders.

ICANN instead needs to take a step back, whether willingly or by being forced to do so by the GAC, DOC, NTIA, DOJ or by other agents that are representative of the public interest. I suggest ICANN be compelled to do the following:

(1) immediately suspend the new TLDs rollout, and refund all monies collected to date.

(2) terminate the staff who have pushed forward this new TLDs plan over the objections of the public. It's clear that these staff have their own agenda that does not reflect the public interest, and it's time for new blood that is ready to serve the public, rather than staff who want to be masters over an enslaved public.

(3) go back and present true options to the public regarding new TLDs. In our prior recent submissions (see here and here), (which ICANN has yet to summarize, although we repeat much past input) we identified FIVE allocation methods for new TLDs. Five! 5! Yet, ICANN has never presented them all as options to be seriously considered. They simply imposed in a top-down manner their single plan that maximized the benefits to ICANN's insiders, rather than allow for competing alternatives that maximize the benefits, if any, to the public. One can see some of the options that ICANN failed to allow the public to even comment on, such as:

(i) no new TLDs

(ii) .com domains simply "ascending" to the root (no need for "defensive registration" concerns in that scenario, is there??)

(iii) Ascended TLDs approach (see here for full description) which also reduces the need for defensive registrations considerably.

(iv) regular competitive bidding/tenders for lowest cost to registrants (this was the DOJ/NTIA/DOC proposal in December 2008)

(4) go back and do true economic studies that weigh the benefits and the costs on the public (not just the benefit to ICANN and its insiders) for all alternatives (including the four options presented in point (3) above), not just the self-serving single plan that ICANN wants to impose upon the public. The economic studies must be truly independent, with researchers selected by the NTIA/DOC/DOJ or GAC, and not by ICANN staff/insiders.

In conclusion, ICANN simply acts as if it "knows better" (which it doesn't) and dismisses all attacks on its extremist and disastrous plans. It is our true hope that ICANN not be allowed to damage the DNS further. As Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

"The second effect is that instability is brought on. There is a flurry of activity to reserve domain names, a rush one cannot afford to miss in order to protect one's brand. There is a rash of attempts to steal well-known or valuable domains. The whole process involves a lot of administration, a lot of cost per month, a lot of business for those involved in the domain name business itself, and a negative value to the community."

The existence of this comment period about "defensive registrations" is proof that "Sir Tim" was right! (maybe that's why he was knighted, due to his brilliance) We ask that the new TLDs plan be terminated, so that further "negative value to community" does not occur. By continuing to ignore the public's wishes, ICANN is causing DNS instability. A trusted custodian of the DNS would not be causing DNS instability. Yet, ICANN has been doing exactly that. It's time that the world recognizes that ICANN is no longer a trusted custodian of the DNS and its damaging plans must be opposed.

Written by George Kirikos, President, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

1. Localization – Your offerings are focused on local markets and there is no agenda for a multi-directional outward expansion. True, there are millions of successful businesses comfortably paced and happily servicing their local customer base, but a gTLD is most suitable when there is a challenge to tackle unlimited marketing options and enlarge national or global visibility.

2. Discounted Pricing – You pursue a reduced price strategy over creating premium branded goods. Commoditized businesses nestled in their own culture all over the globe stay firmly streamlined with such thinking. A gTLD is for extreme value added models in pursuit of extreme image visibility and mindshare to earn premium profit. This tool is to assist in digital presence and brand name visibility.

3. Brandless Advertising – Your business has a fierce agenda to push more adverting and promotion but not necessarily branding. There are far more businesses using advertising without any clear image positioning mandate or branding. A gTLD is for well defined strategies on market positioning and high value brandable concepts to reach massive customer touchpoints. This platform is for well structured name identities leading charge for brandable offerings

4. Outsourced Talent – Your business model mainly outsources marketing, advertising, branding and IT components. It's very common for businesses to avoid building highly skilled internal teams to integrate and create competitive advantage. A gTLD demands commanding knowledge from the internal teams to interact with highly specialized external services to achieve a comprehensive long term plan. It will allow sophisticated branding maneuvers and tackle futuristic issues.

5. Cyber-Oblivion – Social Media/Multilingulization/Cyber Branding is irrelevant in your successful organization. Organizations must either respond and interact with the rest of the cyber world or prepare to fall into an odd culture separated from the market reality. A gTLD is for aggressively pursuing the global 2 billion online users, driven by innovation and adoptability to global marketing needs in harmony with one internet one world, one name brand and one owner philosophy. It will fit with game changers mentality.

6. Budgetary Constraints – Your current sales volume or profit margins do not allow such expenditures. Almost all businesses are in a catch 22 trying to make such quantum leaps. The costs of gTLD are equal to production cost of a TV commercial. When properly applied, gTLD creates marketing weapons with maximum impact resulting in increased sales advantage and greater profitability. Under right applications it can replicate sub-domain-name branding at fraction of cost.

7. Cascade Effects – Your business model does not allow for the creation of unlimited customer touchpoints and multi-directional expansion. Most businesses structurally are not prepared for unlimited growth. A gTLD cascades downward when there are numerous applications for fully integrated social media and latest cyber technologies. It will spread outwards to increase customer touch points.

8. Convoluted Clusters – Your product and services name identities have become confusing and this lack of symmetry makes the costs prohibitive. Most businesses have either too few or too many brand names due to internal disparities and corporate politics supporting customer's confusion. A gTLD program demands well defined naming architecture to enable distinct name identities to act as precise marketing weapons. It will force corrected rules and vision towards business naming issues.

9. Name Rejection – Your already established name identity has no elasticity for stretching over the canvass of global image and trademarking and it is unable to pass the stringent tests of ICANN. Last century regional names are not capable to fit the next generation of global digital cyber branding. Businesses must either ignore or face the glaring disfunctionalities of their names. A gTLD provides wings to a globally workable name pushing them into a higher stratosphere in the fastest time and at a minimum cost. The ownership of a gTLD name will attract global spotlights.

10. Brandless Empires – You are in the business of making money and have successfully done so. Every corner of this planet has such great examples and yet not every success results in a successful brand delivering value-added experience at higher returns. A gTLD is for those wishing to own exclusive ownership of a globally recognized cyber name identity device, earn the respect and support of national or global mindshare, offer high value premium brands, while pursuing market domination via name identity. Name identity ownership must match high caliber outward bound brandable ideas.

(Excerpted from DOMINATION, THE gTLD NAME GAME by Naseem Javed Copyright © 2012
by permission of Metrostate Syndicate)

Written by Naseem Javed, Corporate Image & Global Naming Expert

Mail authentication schemes like DKIM and the new dmarc.org group use cryptographic signatures to help authenticate mail and prove that it really is from who it purports to be from. So, if the mail can authenticate the sender, the phishing problem goes away, right?

Unfortunately not. One huge problem is that even if you have all the crypto stuff so you can be 100% sure that a message really is from, say, BANK-AMERICA.COM, you don't know whether BANK-AMERICA.COM is actually your bank or not.

I've made a little game called Phish or Fair. It shows you a domain name, you guess whether it belongs to Bank of America. Try it out and see how you do.

Then see if you can figure out why a bank would use over a thousand different domains. My example here is Bank of America, but they're no worse than other big banks; I picked them because their name is easy to search for.

If banks were serious about phishing, they'd pick one name, one domain, and use that consistently. But they don't.

PS: BANK-AMERICA.COM belongs to some guy in France.

Written by John Levine, Author, Consultant & Speaker

Domain Name Watching and Trademark Watching Services make perfect sense when new registrations and applications are being submitted and granted on a daily basis. I think that we can all easily agree that trying to understand new domain name and trademark registrations without an automated service would be nearly impossible.

And when ICANN eventually moves away from these discrete application rounds, I will be the first one to recommend an Application Watching Service.

However, as all new gTLD Applications in this first round will be publicly posted to the ICANN website on May 1st , it would seem that reaching for Ctrl-F would be the quickest and easiest way to search for exact- and near-matches.

Additionally, the applications that are likely to cause the greatest concern are probably those that consist of generic terms being applied for by a single company which intends to restrict ownership to only itself. So looking through the list of applications will be critical — you may not know what is of concern until you actually see it.

Be wary of companies offering new gTLD Application Watching Services at this time. Given that the number of submitted applications will likely be between 1,000 and 1,500, companies should be able to easily review the full list on May 1st, and quickly identify applications of concern.

Written by Elisa Cooper, Director of Product Marketing at MarkMonitor

Scotland Yard. Some of the interest is due to marvel that two such sophisticated organizations could be had, some is due to schadenfreude, and some is probably despair: if the bad guys can get at these folks, is anyone safe? To me, though, the interesting thing are the lessons we can learn about what's wrong with security. Many of the failures that led to this incident are endemic in today's world, and much of the advice we're given on what to do is simply wrong or arguably even harmful.

The first issue is how Anonymous managed to record the call. The ways we'd see it done in a movie — tapping a phone line or listening to law enforcement official's cell phone — are comparatively difficult to do. They're not impossible, but they're not the easy way for a task like this. Rather, what appears to have happened is what most outside security experts immediately suspected: Anonymous read an email giving the details of the call, and simply dialed in, in the same way as the intended participants. The message was sent to "more than three dozen people at the bureau, Scotland Yard, and agencies in France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden;" a single security flaw anywhere along the chain could have resulted in the leak.

Here we see the first flaw: the call details were, effectively, a shared credential. It is quite probable that the conference call moderator had no idea who had dialed in. We see the same phenomenon with role accounts: many people share the password for the login, email access, etc. It may happen in the large — postmaster@example.com — it may happen when a vacationing executive gives a secretary the password to his or her email account; it may happen when spouses or romantic partners share passwords. Whatever the reason, it creates a security risk.

Reading further into the article, we see that "One recipient, a foreign police official, evidently forwarded the notification to a private account". At that point, it's tempting to blame that official, say he or she was poorly trained or disobedient, and stop worrying. Apart from the self-evident fact that a single security lapse shouldn't compromise everything (a proposition easier to state than to make happen), I strongly suspect that this unnamed official was behaving very rationally: he or she either wanted email access that was too inconvenient via the proper mail servers, or wanted a different human interface. If this person had no access to work email from home, or felt that, say, gmail was enough better that their productivity was improved, it's not surprising that this would happen. It shouldn't happen — and one would hope that a police official working on cybercrime would understand the risks — but in a strong sense the failing was organizational: if my hypothesis is correct, they may have failed to make it easy for people to do the right thing. Let me stress this: a security mechanism that is so inconvenient that it tempts employees to evade it is worse than useless, it's downright harmful. (Note well: I'm not saying that this official did the right thing; I'm saying that organizational policies or technologies may have led to too much temptation for people who are trying to be more productive.)

But how did Anonymous know which outside email account to monitor? This article notes that assorted groups have made a habit of targeting law enforcement email servers, with some success against less-sophisticated police organizations. That would yield a list of email addresses, and perhaps passwords. Perhaps more importantly, it can show who was using an outside mail server, one that isn't protected by VPNs, firewalls, one-time passwords, and the like. At that point, the attackers have several ways to proceed.

First, they could try this law enforcement email password against the outside mail server. The odds are high that it will succeed; far too many people reuse passwords. And why do they do this? Because they have too many passwords to remember, especially if they're all "strong". And of course, people are forbidden to write them down.

Most of the advice we get on security starts with "pick a strong password". (Look at CERT's advice: the very first thing it tells people to do is "always select and use strong passwords". Patches, a really effective defensive measure, are mentioned fourth.) Strong passwords are not a bad idea, but you're in much more trouble if you reuse passwords. No one can possibly memorize all of the passwords they have; reuse is the usual answer.

A second way in which the attackers could have compromised the official's account is via a spear-phishing message, booby-trapped to install a keystroke logger. That's been seen, though more often in a national security context. If the attackers did this, even encrypting the emails wouldn't have helped; the same malware that stole the login password could probably steal the private key as well. But I'm pretty sure that no encryption was employed; most encryption systems are too hard to use. Smart-card based decryption would have helped (though such things are far less convenient to use); though there are still attacks, they're more involved, and arguably less available to a group like Anonymous.

It's clear that there wasn't a single failure involved; in particular, the crucial mistake of forwarding work email to a personal account was quite plausibly a rational response to organizational policies. Preventing recurrences of this kind of incident will not be easy; there are too many weak spots.

Written by Steven Bellovin, Professor of Computer Science at Columbia University