It's Friday, I'm beat, and, well, I'm just feeling a bit lazy, to be quite honest. So, here are a scant few links to interesting stories from today, of all times. If you're curious about what I find most interesting during the week, then please subscribe to my Google Shared Items feed. Links after the jump...
* The best way to be lazy is to start by linking to Anton's list from the week, which you can view here. He has several good things on there this week, and so rather than just copy it, the right thing to do is to point at it. Check it - there really are several good items there.
* Though Anton links to them, I wanted to highlight the "GRC is Dead" thread of posts that Mogull started this week (w00t). Personally, I've never understood GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) -- it sounds an awful lot like marketing BS. And, so, nobody should be surprised to learn that - viola! - it's all a bunch of marketing BS. There have been a couple rebuttals of Mogull's post, which he links to in his responses. Check them out, in order, here, here, and here. BTW, the Hoff has weighed in on this topic, too, and he's pretty much on the money.
* You mayhaps heard of Debian's random number generation problems this week (see security bulletins here and here). Martin cross-links to a very funny Dilbert cartoon that is relevant, which you can view on his site (ha! you thought I was going to say "here" again, didn't you?!?:).
* Google apparently has been providing "safe browsing" via their search results since 2006 (who knew?). This feature has apparently been problematic for webmasters trying to figure out what makes their site suspected of being malicious. To help out, Google has introduced the Safe Browsing Diagnostic page along with the Safe Browsing API to help them out. Again, who knew?
* Last but not least (well, I don't think it's least, but maybe it is - you be the judge!)... Alan has posted an explanation of why Tenable's changed license is not the end of the world and why we should, in fact, support their decision. Frankly, he's right (this time). I was taken-aback by Tenable's original license change a few years ago, but the fact of the matter is that people were stealing their work and profiting from it. This change simply aligns them better with standard costing packages, and so it makes sense.
