A Deal With the Devil?
ANALYSIS – This article is downright humorous. Here we have two networking companies, each with security products or at a minimum, security features, who have indirectly endorsed the same application category (P2P) that has been the source of some of the largest data leakage incidents in recent times. Granted, the software was not the direct cause of the leaks, the user had some involvement. And yes, some of the P2P applications are now being used for legitimate commercial purposes, but doesn’t the mere fact that these companies endorse the technology put into question their stance on them from a security perspective? And can a router really tell the difference between a legitimate use and a non-legitimate use? Doubtful. Just imagine the debate between the business development team working the deal and the security team. In the end, money rules.
Click here to view the P2P Blog article.
LimeWire Claims: We’re #1!
ANALYSIS – This article highlights the fact that even with the negative publicity, the risk of lawsuit or loss of personal information, P2P applications remain extremely popular. The application is supposedly installed on 36.4% of all PCs -approximately 1.66 million desktops worldwide, making it the current leader in P2P market share. Interestingly, the article also points out that LimeWire is the target of an RIAA lawsuit, which is an ironic twist to the positive nature of the article. Hopefully, every user has taken care to configure the P2P application correctly to avoid distributing private data – or worse yet – corporate data. For enterprises, this statistic emphasizes the fact that they need to be diligent in their efforts to control the use of P2P on their network.
Click here to view the TMCnet article.
posted by: Matt on November 28, 2007 6:46 AM
filed in: Firewall
tagged: application control, file sharing, p2p
Comcast wants to block BitTorrent… How about you?
ANALYSIS – Comcast, the Internet Service Provider, has allegedly been throttling traffic for subscribers who are using peer-to-peer (p2p) applications such as BitTorrent. Comcast has justified this action by claiming BitTorrent and p2p applications are most well known for sharing music files, movies, videos, and software applications, with most of the files being shared illegally. This blanket stance does not take into consideration the legitimate p2p uses:
The question is why is Comcast trying to control P2P traffic like BitTorrent? Comcast is an ISP so wouldn’t this be an opportunity to sell more bandwidth? Is it a legal decision, protecting themselves from copyright infringement? Perhaps it is a security issue? Is it a customer satisfaction issue, where they are tired of trying to placate those that the P2P traffic is stepping on? Or is it purely a profit decision to avoid the cost of an infrastructure upgrade to address bandwidth demands? Perhaps it is a combination of all or something entirely different. What is clear and somewhat of an eye-opener is that Comcast is concerned about P2P traffic and if they are, then perhaps enterprises should be (more) concerned as well?
If ISPs are concerned about how much bandwidth BitTorrent and other P2P applications are consuming on their networks, shouldn’t enterprises be worried about it as well? And if enterprises are worried, and many clearly are, do they have the proper tools to provide the visibility and control required to gain the upper hand?
