Search Results

Search found 22139 results on 886 pages for 'security testing'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 76/886 | < Previous Page | 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83  | Next Page >

  • New Java ME security app, Rapid Tracker, is now full version

    - by hinkmond
    Rapid Protect has updated it's Java ME security app to be the full version now instead of a dumbed down version that ran on feature phones. Now, that's progress! See: Full Rapid Tracker on Java ME Here's a quote: Rapid Protect, a leading company focused on mobile based safety, security and collaboration space announces major feature enhancements to its award winning "Rapid Tracker" mobile applications. In addition to many new features, it announced availability of Full Rapid Tracker application on J2ME non-smart feature phones. Hmmm... "on J2ME non-smart feature phones". I wonder if by "non-smart" they mean another word... Perhaps, "non-iDrone-Anphoid"? Hinkmond

    Read the article

  • What arguments can I use to "sell" the BDD concept to a team reluctant to adopt it?

    - by S.Robins
    I am a bit of a vocal proponent of the BDD methodology. I've been applying BDD for a couple of years now, and have adopted StoryQ as my framework of choice when developing DotNet applications. Even though I have been unit testing for many years, and had previously shifted to a test-first approach, I've found that I get much more value out of using a BDD framework, because my tests capture the intent of the requirements in relatively clear English within my code, and because my tests can execute multiple assertions without ending the test halfway through - meaning I can see which specific assertions pass/fail at a glance without debugging to prove it. This has really been the tip of the iceberg for me, as I've also noticed that I am able to debug both test and implementation code in a more targeted manner, with the result that my productivity has grown significantly, and that I can more easily determine where a failure occurs if a problem happens to make it all the way to the integration build due to the output that makes its way into the build logs. Further, the StoryQ api has a lovely fluent syntax that is easy to learn and which can be applied in an extraordinary number of ways, requiring no external dependencies in order to use it. So with all of these benefits, you would think it an easy to introduce the concept to the rest of the team. Unfortunately, the other team members are reluctant to even look at StoryQ to evaluate it properly (let alone entertain the idea of applying BDD), and have convinced each other to try and remove a number of StoryQ elements from our own core testing framework, even though they originally supported the use of StoryQ, and that it doesn't impact on any other part of our testing system. Doing so would end up increasing my workload significantly overall and really goes against the grain, as I am convinced through practical experience that it is a better way to work in a test-first manner in our particular working environment, and can only lead to greater improvements in the quality of our software, given I've found it easier to stick with test first using BDD. So the question really comes down to the following: What arguments can I use to really drive the point home that it would be better to use StoryQ, or at the very least apply the BDD methodology? Can you point me to any anecdotal evidence that I can use to support my argument to adopt BDD as our standard method of choice? What counter arguments can you think of that could suggest that my wish to convert the team efforts to BDD might be in error? Yes, I'm happy to be proven wrong provided the argument is a sound one. NOTE: I am not advocating that we rewrite our tests in their entirety, but rather to simply start working in a different manner for all future testing work.

    Read the article

  • Security Alert for CVE-2011-5035 Updated

    - by Eric P. Maurice
    Hi, this is Eric Maurice again.  Oracle has just updated the Security Alert for CVE-2011-5035 to announce the availability of additional fixes for products that were affected by this vulnerability through their use of the WebLogic Server and Oracle Container for J2EE components.  As explained in a previous blog entry, a number of programming language implementations and web servers were found vulnerable to hash table collision attacks.  This vulnerability is typically remotely exploitable without authentication, i.e., it may be exploited over a network without the need for a username and password.  If successfully exploited, malicious attackers can use this vulnerability to create denial of service conditions against the targeted system. A complete list of affected products and their versions, as well as instructions on how to obtain the fixes, are listed on the Security Alert Advisory.  Oracle highly recommends that customers apply these fixes as soon as possible.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83  | Next Page >