Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Close

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

When Identity Theft is not Theft

Two years from now, it will not be necessary to steal anyone's identity. Web surfers will have given away more personal info to the world than even the greediest thief would ever want to rip off by illegal means.

I'm not so much talking about static identity info, like your Social Security number (which will be worthless anyway in a year or two). I'm talking about the really interesting dirt. Your shopping habits, reading habits, movewatching habits, hobbies, favorite travel destinations, where you went to school, who you've worked for and how long you stayed at each job, and (let's not mince words) sexual preferences, who your friends are, the names and ages of your children. Most of this info can be scraped, right now today, from blog bios, online resumes, mySpace profiles, tag-sharing sites, social networking sites (like linkedin.com), and photo-sharing sites. Your info is out there. You put it there yourself.

And the bad part is, there's no taking it back. Google archives old pages. So does the Wayback Machine.

You're leaking personal info to the world every time you use an online service of any kind. Particularly the spate of Web 2.0 applications offering free online word processing, spreadsheets, chats, etc. Those are hosted apps. Most of the hosts are trustworthy (arguably), but the hosts tend to archive chatlogs and other interaction records, which means the storage media on which that material is archived can be stolen or lost just like the Veteran's Administration guy's laptop.

Or it can be inadvertantly indexed by Google and exposed to searchers (as has happened with supposedly private test scores).

The outflux of identity info onto the Web is massive, and it's accelerating daily, driven largely by the explosion in popularity of "Web 2.0" apps.

All of which is great news to the National Security Agency, who by some accounts are sifting through your data right now.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Spring Framework Backlash

It's refreshing (and healthy, I think) to see open, honest debate erupt over the usefulness of IoC frameworks, in particular the certifiably trendy Spring framework. I refer to Bob Lee's gratifyingly blunt I Don't Get Spring.

Surprisingly, most of the comments at the end of Lee's blog are dispassionate, logical, and in full agreement with Lee's premise, which (to oversimplify) is that Spring is cryptic, over-architected, and malodorous at a code level (among other felonies), begging the question of why anyone would use it.

I can understand why Lee would feel that way. He's right on most counts. Spring is indeed byzantine and heavy (as most things surrounding J2EE are), and buries too many dependencies in XML. But that doesn't mean Spring doesn't have its legitimate uses.

Monday, June 05, 2006

JVM as Web-Service Endpoint

Imagine if you could ping a running JVM over HTTP to obtain realtime diagnostic info. That seems to be what Sun has in mind with U.S. Patent 7,039,691, "Java Virtual Machine Configurable to Perform as a Web Server," granted to Sun Microsystems last month.

Abstract: A virtual machine, such as a Java(tm) virtual machine, is configured to operate as a web server so that users, using a browser, can make general-purpose inquiries into the state of the virtual machine or, in some cases, mutate the state of the VM. A "browsable" VM contains a network traffic worker, such as an HTTP thread, a services library, and a VM operations thread, which is an existing component in most virtual machines. The network traffic worker and the VM operations thread communicate through a request data structure. The VM operations thread generates a reply to the request upon receiving a request data structure from the traffic worker. Such a reply can be in the form of an HTTP response containing HTML or XML pages. These pages are transmitted back to the browser/user by the network traffic worker.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Metacompilers and Checkers

Imagine if your favorite compiler were extensible in such a way that you could add your own custom static checks, to find bugs of a special kind that you need to be able to find but that your compiler is too stupid to know about out-of-the-box. That's the intuition behind metacompiler (MC) technology. You write a checker, which is a snap-in that knows how to check for whatever kind of syntactic or other blunder you care about, and add it to the compiler. Then the compiler knows how to emit new warnings or error messages.

A checker can be as simple or as sophisticated as you want it to be. Maybe you want to be sure that every call to foo( ) is eventually followed by a corresponding call to bar( ). Or you may have application-specific security concerns (in the context of export laws, perhaps). Or you may have company policy around certain syntactical idiosyncracies that would only be of specific concern to your department or your company.

Interestingly, the Stanford MC guys did a pass against the Linux kernel using their own custom checkers plugged into their own MC-aware gcc and found almost 600 potentially serious bugs, most of which have not been looked into yet (if you believe Coverity's latest findings).