Cloud & Telecom Security

Feld expressed his dislike to those fashion words in his famous blog:

I’m personally going to boycott the phrase “Web 3.0” since “Web 2.0” makes me tired enough. There have been some great quips going around the system about this, including Gordon Weakliem’s “I haven’t even gotten around to upgrading to Web 1.0 Service Pack 2”, Michael Parekh’s “Web 2007 versions”, Peter Rip’s “Web 2.0 + 1”, and Nick Bradbury’s “Web 3.0 Does Not Validate.” While I recognize the inevitability of the newest increment of the Web x.0 label, I don’t have to like it.

My points is that they are interesting stuff. Some guys like to use fashion words to attract eyeballs. As long as they can illustrate the essential points, just let it be.

I use Security 2.0 to describe the new trends in network security area, e.g. internal control, identity and access management, and etc. That differentiate themselves from the original anti-virus plus firewall plus IDS. No matter what you call them, they just exist there. right?

When I try to dig “Security 2.0″ via Google, only one noticeable hit was found from CSOonline by Sarah. Sarah summarized the convergence at security area, and regarded “Security 2.0″ as integration, convergence, holistic security and so on. Sarah reported a case study from Constellation Energy Group on convergence of physical security and IT security, where they assigned a new role named Chief Risk Officer, directly under CEO, who is responsible for control of what ever risks which might hurt the enterprise to an acceptable level. That’s very interesting and with deep insight. However, my vision of “Security 2.0″ is somewhat different. Read more…