Search Results

Search found 129 results on 6 pages for 'broadcasting'.

Page 6/6 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 

  • Taking the training wheels off: Accelerating the Business with Oracle IAM by Brian Mozinski (Accenture)

    - by Greg Jensen
    Today, technical requirements for IAM are evolving rapidly, and the bar is continuously raised for high performance IAM solutions as organizations look to roll out high volume use cases on the back of legacy systems.  Existing solutions were often designed and architected to support offline transactions and manual processes, and the business owners today demand globally scalable infrastructure to support the growth their business cases are expected to deliver. To help IAM practitioners address these challenges and make their organizations and themselves more successful, this series we will outline the: • Taking the training wheels off: Accelerating the Business with Oracle IAM The explosive growth in expectations for IAM infrastructure, and the business cases they support to gain investment in new security programs. • "Necessity is the mother of invention": Technical solutions developed in the field Well proven tricks of the trade, used by IAM guru’s to maximize your solution while addressing the requirements of global organizations. • The Art & Science of Performance Tuning of Oracle IAM 11gR2 Real world examples of performance tuning with Oracle IAM • No Where to go but up: Extending the benefits of accelerated IAM Anything is possible, compelling new solutions organizations are unlocking with accelerated Oracle IAM Let’s get started … by talking about the changing dynamics driving these discussions. Big Companies are getting bigger everyday, and increasingly organizations operate across state lines, multiple times zones, and in many countries or continents at the same time.  No longer is midnight to 6am a safe time to take down the system for upgrades, to run recon’s and import or update user accounts and attributes.  Further IT organizations are operating as shared services with SLA’s similar to telephone carrier levels expected by their “clients”.  Workers are moved in and out of roles on a weekly, daily, or even hourly rate and IAM is expected to support those rapid changes.  End users registering for services during business hours in Singapore are expected their access to be green-lighted in custom apps hosted in Portugal within the hour.  Many of the expectations of asynchronous systems and batched updates are not adequate and the number and types of users is growing. When organizations acted more like independent teams at functional or geographic levels it was manageable to have processes that relied on a handful of people who knew how to make things work …. Knew how to get you access to the key systems to get your job done.  Today everyone is expected to do more with less, the finance administrator previously supporting their local Atlanta sales office might now be asked to help close the books for the Johannesburg team, and access certification process once completed monthly by Joan on the 3rd floor is now done by a shared pool of resources in Sao Paulo.   Fragmented processes that rely on institutional knowledge to get access to systems and get work done quickly break down in these scenarios.  Highly robust processes that have automated workflows for connected or disconnected systems give organizations the dynamic flexibility to share work across these lines and cut costs or increase productivity. As the IT industry computing paradigms continue to change with the passing of time, and as mature or proven approaches become clear, it is normal for organizations to adjust accordingly. Businesses must manage identity in an increasingly hybrid world in which legacy on-premises IAM infrastructures are extended or replaced to support more and more interconnected and interdependent services to a wider range of users. The old legacy IAM implementation models we had relied on to manage identities no longer apply. End users expect to self-request access to services from their tablet, get supervisor approval over mobile devices and email, and launch the application even if is hosted on the cloud, or run by a partner, vendor, or service provider. While user expectations are higher, they are also simpler … logging into custom desktop apps to request approvals, or going through email or paper based processes for certification is unacceptable.  Users expect security to operate within the paradigm of the application … i.e. feel like the application they are using. Citizen and customer facing applications have evolved from every where, with custom applications, 3rd party tools, and merging in from acquired entities or 3rd party OEM’s resold to expand your portfolio of services.  These all have their own user stores, authentication models, user lifecycles, session management, etc.  Often the designers/developers are no longer accessible and the documentation is limited.  Bringing together underlying directories to scale for growth, and improve user experience is critical for revenue … but also for operations. Job functions are more dynamic.... take the Olympics for example.  Endless organizations from corporations broadcasting, endorsing, or marketing through the event … to non-profit athletic foundations and public/government entities for athletes and public safety, all operate simultaneously on the world stage.  Each organization needs to spin up short-term teams, often dealing with proprietary information from hot ads to racing strategies or security plans.  IAM is expected to enable team’s to spin up, enable new applications, protect privacy, and secure critical infrastructure.  Then it needs to be disabled just as quickly as users go back to their previous responsibilities. On a more technical level … Optimized system directory; tuning guidelines and parameters are needed by businesses today. Business’s need to be making the right choices (virtual directories) and considerations via choosing the correct architectural patterns (virtual, direct, replicated, and tuning), challenge is that business need to assess and chose the correct architectural patters (centralized, virtualized, and distributed) Today's Business organizations have very complex heterogeneous enterprises that contain diverse and multifaceted information. With today's ever changing global landscape, the strategic end goal in challenging times for business is business agility. The business of identity management requires enterprise's to be more agile and more responsive than ever before. The continued proliferation of networking devices (PC, tablet, PDA's, notebooks, etc.) has caused the number of devices and users to be granted access to these devices to grow exponentially. Business needs to deploy an IAM system that can account for the demands for authentication and authorizations to these devices. Increased innovation is forcing business and organizations to centralize their identity management services. Access management needs to handle traditional web based access as well as handle new innovations around mobile, as well as address insufficient governance processes which can lead to rouge identity accounts, which can then become a source of vulnerabilities within a business’s identity platform. Risk based decisions are providing challenges to business, for an adaptive risk model to make proper access decisions via standard Web single sign on for internal and external customers,. Organizations have to move beyond simple login and passwords to address trusted relationship questions such as: Is this a trusted customer, client, or citizen? Is this a trusted employee, vendor, or partner? Is this a trusted device? Without a solid technological foundation, organizational performance, collaboration, constituent services, or any other organizational processes will languish. A Single server location presents not only network concerns for distributed user base, but identity challenges. The network risks are centered on latency of the long trip that the traffic has to take. Other risks are a performance around availability and if the single identity server is lost, all access is lost. As you can see, there are many reasons why performance tuning IAM will have a substantial impact on the success of your organization.  In our next installment in the series we roll up our sleeves and get into detailed tuning techniques used everyday by thought leaders in the field implementing Oracle Identity & Access Management Solutions.

    Read the article

  • Is Multicast broken for Android 2.0.1 (currently on the DROID) or am I missing something?

    - by Gubatron
    This code works perfectly in Ubuntu, in Windows and MacOSX, it also works fine with a Nexus-One currently running firmware 2.1.1. I start sending and listening multicast datagrams, and all the computers and the Nexus-One will see each other perfectly. Then I run the same code on a Droid (Firmware 2.0.1), and everybody will get the packets sent by the Droid, but the droid will listen only to it's own packets. This is the run() method of a thread that's constantly listening on a Multicast group for incoming packets sent to that group. I'm running my tests on a local network where I have multicast support enabled in the router. My goal is to have devices meet each other as they come on line by broadcasting packages to a multicast group. public void run() { byte[] buffer = new byte[65535]; DatagramPacket dp = new DatagramPacket(buffer, buffer.length); try{ MulticastSocket ms = new MulticastSocket(_port); ms.setNetworkInterface(_ni); //non loopback network interface passed ms.joinGroup(_ia); //the multicast address, currently 224.0.1.16 Log.v(TAG,"Joined Group " + _ia); while (true) { ms.receive(dp); String s = new String(dp.getData(),0,dp.getLength()); Log.v(TAG,"Received Package on "+ _ni.getName() +": " + s); Message m = new Message(); Bundle b = new Bundle(); b.putString("event", "Listener ("+_ni.getName()+"): \"" + s + "\""); m.setData(b); dispatchMessage(m); //send to ui thread } } catch (SocketException se) { System.err.println(se); } catch (IOException ie) { System.err.println(ie); } } Over here, is the code that sends the Multicast Datagram out of every valid network interface available (that's not the loopback interface). public void sendPing() { MulticastSocket ms = null; try { ms = new MulticastSocket(_port); ms.setTimeToLive(TTL_GLOBAL); List<NetworkInterface> interfaces = getMulticastNonLoopbackNetworkInterfaces(); for (NetworkInterface iface : interfaces) { //skip loopback if (iface.getName().equals("lo")) continue; ms.setNetworkInterface(iface); _buffer = ("FW-"+ _name +" PING ("+iface.getName()+":"+iface.getInetAddresses().nextElement()+")").getBytes(); DatagramPacket dp = new DatagramPacket(_buffer, _buffer.length,_ia,_port); ms.send(dp); Log.v(TAG,"Announcer: Sent packet - " + new String(_buffer) + " from " + iface.getDisplayName()); } } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } catch (Exception e2) { e2.printStackTrace(); } } Update (April 2nd 2010) I found a way to have the Droid's network interface to communicate using Multicast! _wifiMulticastLock = ((WifiManager) context.getSystemService(Context.WIFI_SERVICE)).createMulticastLock("multicastLockNameHere"); _wifiMulticastLock.acquire(); Then when you're done... if (_wifiMulticastLock != null && _wifiMulticastLock.isHeld()) _wifiMulticastLock.release(); After I did this, the Droid started sending and receiving UDP Datagrams on a Multicast group. gubatron

    Read the article

  • Mac OS X 10.6 assign mapped IP to Windows 7 VM in Parallels

    - by Alex
    I'm trying to assign a mapped IP address to a Windows 7 VM. I have setup running in Parallels 5 in wireless bridged networking mode. The problem I am having is that it looks like the VM is actually broadcasting the MAC address of the host machine and thus causing a clash of IP addresses on the network. This is my current setup: Macbook Pro :~ ifconfig -a lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 gif0: flags=8010<POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST> mtu 1280 stf0: flags=0<> mtu 1280 en0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 00:26:b0:df:31:b4 media: autoselect status: inactive supported media: none autoselect 10baseT/UTP <half-duplex> 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex> 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex,flow-control> 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex,hw-loopback> 100baseTX <half-duplex> 100baseTX <full-duplex> 100baseTX <full-duplex,flow-control> 100baseTX <full-duplex,hw-loopback> 1000baseT <full-duplex> 1000baseT <full-duplex,flow-control> 1000baseT <full-duplex,hw-loopback> fw0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 4078 lladdr 00:26:b0:ff:fe:df:31:b4 media: autoselect <full-duplex> status: inactive supported media: autoselect <full-duplex> en1: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::226:bbff:fe0a:59a1%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x6 inet 192.168.1.97 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 ether 00:26:bb:0a:59:a1 media: autoselect status: active supported media: autoselect vnic0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.1.81 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 ether 00:1c:42:00:00:08 media: autoselect status: active supported media: autoselect vnic1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 10.37.129.2 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.37.129.255 ether 00:1c:42:00:00:09 media: autoselect status: active supported media: autoselect Windows 7: :~ ipconfig -all Windows IP Configuration Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : Alex-PC Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . : Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Parallels Ethernet Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-1C-42-B8-E7-B4 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes Tunnel adapter Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Microsoft Teredo Tunneling Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-E0 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes Tunnel adapter isatap.{ACAC7EBB-5E5F-4F53-AFD9-E6EAEEA0FEE2}: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Microsoft ISATAP Adapter #3 Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-E0 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes Billion Bipac 7200 modem router: In DHCP server settings have the following two mapping entries. alex-macbook-win7 00:1c:42:00:00:08 192.168.1.98 alex-macbook 00:26:bb:0a:59:a1 192.168.1.97 The problem I have is that when the VM starts up it gets assigned the 192.168.1.97 address instead of the .98 address and thus networking on the host stops working as it says there is a clash. I have tried removing the mapping for "alex-macbook" which results in the guest machine being assigned a normal DHCP address and NOT the one that is in the mapping of the router.

    Read the article

  • SINGLE SIGN ON SECURITY THREAT! FACEBOOK access_token broadcast in the open/clear

    - by MOKANA
    Subsequent to my posting there was a remark made that this was not really a question but I thought I did indeed postulate one. So that there is no ambiquity here is the question with a lead in: Since there is no data sent from Facebook during the Canvas Load process that is not at some point divulged, including the access_token, session and other data that could uniquely identify a user, does any one see any other way other than adding one more layer, i.e., a password, sent over the wire via HTTPS along with the access_toekn, that will insure unique untampered with security by the user? Using Wireshark I captured the local broadcast while loading my Canvas Application page. I was hugely surprised to see the access_token broadcast in the open, viewable for any one to see. This access_token is appended to any https call to the Facebook OpenGraph API. Using facebook as a single click log on has now raised huge concerns for me. It is stored in a session object in memory and the cookie is cleared upon app termination and after reviewing the FB.Init calls I saw a lot of HTTPS calls so I assumed the access_token was always encrypted. But last night I saw in the status bar a call from what was simply an http call that included the App ID so I felt I should sniff the Application Canvas load sequence. Today I did sniff the broadcast and in the attached image you can see that there are http calls with the access_token being broadcast in the open and clear for anyone to gain access to. Am I missing something, is what I am seeing and my interpretation really correct. If any one can sniff and get the access_token they can theorically make calls to the Graph API via https, even though the call back would still need to be the site established in Facebook's application set up. But what is truly a security threat is anyone using the access_token for access to their own site. I do not see the value of a single sign on via Facebook if the only thing that was established as secure was the access_token - becuase for what I can see it clearly is not secure. Access tokens that never have an expire date do not change. Access_tokens are different for every user, to access to another site could be held tight to just a single user, but compromising even a single user's data is unacceptable. http://www.creatingstory.com/images/InTheOpen.png Went back and did more research on this: FINDINGS: Went back an re ran the canvas application to verify that it was not any of my code that was not broadcasting. In this call: HTTP GET /connect.php/en_US/js/CacheData HTTP/1.1 The USER ID is clearly visible in the cookie. So USER_ID's are fully visible, but they are already. Anyone can go to pretty much any ones page and hover over the image and see the USER ID. So no big threat. APP_ID are also easily obtainable - but . . . http://www.creatingstory.com/images/InTheOpen2.png The above file clearly shows the FULL ACCESS TOKEN clearly in the OPEN via a Facebook initiated call. Am I wrong. TELL ME I AM WRONG because I want to be wrong about this. I have since reset my app secret so I am showing the real sniff of the Canvas Page being loaded. Additional data 02/20/2011: @ifaour - I appreciate the time you took to compile your response. I am pretty familiar with the OAuth process and have a pretty solid understanding of the signed_request unpacking and utilization of the access_token. I perform a substantial amount of my processing on the server and my Facebook server side flows are all complete and function without any flaw that I know of. The application secret is secure and never passed to the front end application and is also changed regularly. I am being as fanatical about security as I can be, knowing there is so much I don’t know that could come back and bite me. Two huge access_token issues: The issues concern the possible utilization of the access_token from the USER AGENT (browser). During the FB.INIT() process of the Facebook JavaScript SDK, a cookie is created as well as an object in memory called a session object. This object, along with the cookie contain the access_token, session, a secret, and uid and status of the connection. The session object is structured such that is supports both the new OAuth and the legacy flows. With OAuth, the access_token and status are pretty much al that is used in the session object. The first issue is that the access_token is used to make HTTPS calls to the GRAPH API. If you had the access_token, you could do this from any browser: https://graph.facebook.com/220439?access_token=... and it will return a ton of information about the user. So any one with the access token can gain access to a Facebook account. You can also make additional calls to any info the user has granted access to the application tied to the access_token. At first I thought that a call into the GRAPH had to have a Callback to the URL established in the App Setup, but I tested it as mentioned below and it will return info back right into the browser. Adding that callback feature would be a good idea I think, tightens things up a bit. The second issue is utilization of some unique private secured data that identifies the user to the third party data base, i.e., like in my case, I would use a single sign on to populate user information into my database using this unique secured data item (i.e., access_token which contains the APP ID, the USER ID, and a hashed with secret sequence). None of this is a problem on the server side. You get a signed_request, you unpack it with secret, make HTTPS calls, get HTTPS responses back. When a user has information entered via the USER AGENT(browser) that must be stored via a POST, this unique secured data element would be sent via HTTPS such that they are validated prior to data base insertion. However, If there is NO secured piece of unique data that is supplied via the single sign on process, then there is no way to guarantee unauthorized access. The access_token is the one piece of data that is utilized by Facebook to make the HTTPS calls into the GRAPH API. it is considered unique in regards to BOTH the USER and the APPLICATION and is initially secure via the signed_request packaging. If however, it is subsequently transmitted in the clear and if I can sniff the wire and obtain the access_token, then I can pretend to be the application and gain the information they have authorized the application to see. I tried the above example from a Safari and IE browser and it returned all of my information to me in the browser. In conclusion, the access_token is part of the signed_request and that is how the application initially obtains it. After OAuth authentication and authorization, i.e., the USER has logged into Facebook and then runs your app, the access_token is stored as mentioned above and I have sniffed it such that I see it stored in a Cookie that is transmitted over the wire, resulting in there being NO UNIQUE SECURED IDENTIFIABLE piece of information that can be used to support interaction with the database, or in other words, unless there were one more piece of secure data sent along with the access_token to my database, i.e., a password, I would not be able to discern if it is a legitimate call. Luckily I utilized secure AJAX via POST and the call has to come from the same domain, but I am sure there is a way to hijack that. I am totally open to any ideas on this topic on how to uniquely identify my USERS other than adding another layer (password) via this single sign on process or if someone would just share with me that I read and analyzed my data incorrectly and that the access_token is always secure over the wire. Mahalo nui loa in advance.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6