Educause Security Discussion mailing list archives

Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Re: FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice

From: Tom Zeller <tzeller () UNICON NET>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:16:20 -0700
Me too, I have more than one email address, one of which is .edu.

Could someone send me a link to the patent infringement, please ?

I just saw free speech.

Thanks,
TomZ

On Dec 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Nathaniel Hall <educause-lists () NATHANIELHALL COM> wrote:


I don't contribute to this list very often, but I do take issue with blocking non-EDU addresses.  I am a *former* EDU 
employee who owns a consulting business and who will recommend a product if I truly believe it is appropriate.  I 
don't harvest email addresses and I push products because I make money off of a sale.  I don't.  I see the value that 
exists in the list thus I watch the list for interesting discussions.  Why punish those like me who follow the rules?

I believe there are some discussions that probably discussed in an open list like this, but that doesn't mean there 
aren't plenty to be had.  When I used the list more I had discussions but, as with all Internet accessible 
discussions, you must be careful what you share.  There is one highly restricted group that I know of where people 
still limit their discussions and it isn't exactly easy to become a member.  Just because the list isn't directly 
public doesn't mean the information is any more secure.

Lastly, I use a dedicated email address for these (and other) mailing lists in order to prevent harvesting my primary 
email addresses.

-- 
Nathaniel Hall

I am many things, but I am not a laywer, accountant, or agent of the federal, state, or local government.



On 12/08/2011 10:30 AM, Bateman, Darrell wrote:

For what it's worth, I rarely contribute in list discussions precisely because of the open nature of the list.

--------------------------------------
Darrell Bateman
Assistant Vice President for IT and ISO
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Information Technology Division
Texas Tech University


-----Original Message-----
From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU] On Behalf Of 
Valerie Vogel
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:06 AM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice


Rodney and I are taking your concerns under consideration. Specifically whether the list should be non-accessible to 
vendors, and not archived in a publicly searchable format on the Internet. As Larry mentions, limiting to .edu may 
unintentionally exclude some institutions.
Thank you,
Valerie

-----Original Message-----
From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU] On Behalf Of 
Carson, Larry
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:03 AM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice

I think .edu too narrowly limits the group to US higher ed institutes only when Educause is world-wide in scope. I 
don't see any issue with limiting it to Educause member institutes though.


Larry

---
Larry Carson
Associate Director, Information Security Management Information Technology | Engage. Envision. Enable.
The University of British Columbia
Tel: 604.822.0773 | Twitter: @L4rryC4rson


----- Original Message -----
From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv<SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU>
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU<SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU>
Sent: Thu Dec 08 07:54:30 2011
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice

I think participation in the list should be limited to .edu addresses and that access to the archives be limited to 
those with Educause login
credentials.   We can protect future discussions even if we can't
expunge the past archives from the public space.    In my view, anyone
who posts security related or DMCA complaint information to a public forum should be thinking long and hard about 
who is reading the posts.

Chuck

Charles F. Dunn
Information Security Officer
University at Buffalo
716-645-3582


On 12/8/11 10:29 AM, Ken Connelly wrote:

There are guidelines, and EDUCAUSE generally does a good job of
helping to enforce them.  That said, the list is public and
archived/available on the web.  Even if vendors and trolls aren't list
members, they can still see what's been said.  Even if that's removed
or restricted to EDUCAUSE/list members only, it's been available and
you have to presume that there are copies other than the one that EDUCAUSE maintains.

I think that Dennis has made a huge mistake here, but I find that
vendors tend to think differently than I do.

- ken

Hanson, Mike wrote:

Valerie and Rodney,

Why are non .edu people allowed to post on this forum and threaten
legal action?

What is the value of this forum if it is not the free exchange of
information between .edu's?

Members are asking for and seeking advice on particular products and
implementations. Now we have to worry about whether or not a
particular vendor is listening and will seek legal recourse based on
an opinion expressed?


Mike Hanson
Network Security Manager
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811








On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:42 AM, SCHALIP, MICHAEL<mschalip () cnm edu
<mailto:mschalip () cnm edu>>  wrote:

    Hey Educause…..any thoughts here?



    We come on this discussion group for the free exchange of ideas –
    and THIS is allowed!?



    Wow…..



    *From:* Dennis Meharchand [mailto:dennis () valtx com
    <mailto:dennis () valtx com>]
    *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:25 PM
    *To:* SCHALIP, MICHAEL
    *Subject:* RE: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice



    Michael,



    I think your response was bad form.

    I am instructing my lawyers to file the first patent infringement
    lawsuit against CNM.



    Let’s see how much of a bad publicity stunt this is.



    Dennis Meharchand

    CEO, Valt.X Technologies Inc.

    Cell: 416-618-4622<tel:416-618-4622>

    Email: dennis () valtx com<mailto:dennis () valtx com>

    Web: www.valtx.com<http://www.valtx.com>



    *From:* The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv
    [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
    <mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU>] *On Behalf Of *SCHALIP,
    MICHAEL
    *Sent:* December 7, 2011 9:34 AM
    *To:* SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
    <mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU>
    *Subject:* [Possible Spam] Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's?



    Bad form…..scare tactics…..bad publicity stunt…..how do we get the
    Educause moderator involved??



    *From:* The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv
    [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
    <mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU>] *On Behalf Of *Walter Moore
    *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:54 AM
    *To:* SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
    <mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU>
    *Subject:* Re: [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's?



    You had it right in your first paragraph. Whatever the merits of
    your patent case (and you will have to forgive my skepticism) you
    have no business interjecting it into this discussion.



    On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Dennis Meharchand
    <dennis () valtx com<mailto:dennis () valtx com>>  wrote:

    This is likely one of those situations where I should just
    continue to shut my mouth until we are already to act but here goes:



    My company Valt.X Technologies owns the patents in this area and
    we intend to enforce our patents in 2012.

    Here’s my advice – if you are using Deep Freeze or any VDI -
    include in your contract that they cover you for Patent Infringement.



    Valt.X has just won its first public tender in Canada – we own
    this area and intend to enforce our intellectual property rights.



    Our position is that Deep Freeze is a blatant copy of Valt.X
    issued patents and that VDI also infringes our patents – we intend
    to sue all infringers.



    Dennis Meharchand

    CEO, Valt.X Technologies Inc.

    Cell: 416-618-4622<tel:416-618-4622>

    Email: dennis () valtx com<mailto:dennis () valtx com>

    Web: www.valtx.com<http://www.valtx.com>



    *From:* The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv
    [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
    <mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU>] *On Behalf Of *Brandon Payne
    *Sent:* December 6, 2011 6:01 PM
    *To:* SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
    <mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU>
    *Subject:* [SECURITY] Deepfreeze on vm's?



    We are looking into VDI for all our computer labs. VMware View to
    be exact with WYSE P20 Zero Clients. Roughly about 300 or more
    vm's for all the labs.



    From a virtual standpoint - do you see the need for Faronics
    Deepfreeze on all computer lab vm's? Currently we are using
    Deepfreeze on our desktops in all labs and has worked out great.
    For this situation, I'm not interested in the security
    implications of why Deepfreeze is bad, just if its recommended in
    a virtual environment.



    What are you doing in situations if a user profile gets hosed up
    with malware in this vm enviroment?
Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Current thread: