Most authentication systems are black and white, once you are in , you are in. It was brought our attention recently, that authentication should be an ongoing process, not a one time gate with continuous unchecked free rein once in.
The reasons are well founded.
1) Students at universities and employees at businesses, have all kinds of devices which can get stolen/borrowed while open.
My high school kids can attest this many times over. Often the result is just an innocuous string of embarrassing texts emanating from their phones claiming absurd things. For example ” I won’t be at the party, I was digging for a booger and got a nose bleed” , blasted out to their friends after they left their phone unlocked.
2) People will also deliberately give out their authentication to friends and family
This leaves a hole in standard authentication strategies .
Next year we plan to add an interesting twist to our Intrusion Detection Device ( NetGladiator). The idea was actually not mine, but was suggested by a customer recently at our user group meeting in Western Michigan.
Here is the plan.
The idea for our intrusion detection device would be to build a knowledge base of a user’s habits over time and then match those established patterns against a tiered alert system when there is any kind of abrupt change.
It should be noted that we would not be monitoring content, and thus we would be far less invasive than Google Gmail ,with their targeted advertisements, we would primarily just following the trail or path of usage and not reading content.
The heuristics would consist of a three-pronged model.
Prong one, would look at general trending access across all users globally . If an aggregate group of users on the network were downloading an IOS update, then this behavior would be classified as normal for individual users.
Prong two , would look at the pattern of usage for the authenticated user. For example most people tune their devices to start at a particular page. They also likely use a specific e-mail client, and then have their favorite social networking sites. String together enough these and you would develop unique foot print for that user. Yes the user could deviate from their pattern of established usage as long as there were still elements of their normal usage in their access patterns.
Prong three would be the alarming level. In general a user would receive a risk rating when they deviated into suspect behaviors outside their established baseline. Yes this is profiling similar to psychological profiling on employment tests, which are very accurate at predicting future behavior.
A simple example of a risk factor would be a user that all of sudden starts executing login scripts en masse outside of their normal pattern. Something this egregious would be flagged as high risk, and the administrator could specify an automatic disconnection for the user at a high risk level. Lower risk behavior would be logged for after the fact forensics if any internal servers became compromised.
NetEqualizer News Blog 
Is a Balloon Based Internet Service a Threat to Traditional Cable and DSL?
August 7, 2013 — netequalizerUpdate:
Looks like this might be the real deal. A mystery barge in San Francisco Bay owned by Google
I recently read an article regarding Google’s foray into balloon based Internet services.
This intriguing idea sparked a discussion with some of the engineers at a major satellite internet provider on the same subject. They, as well as myself, were somewhat skeptical at the feasibility of this balloon idea. Could we be wrong? Obviously, there are some unconventional obstacles with bouncing Internet signals off balloons, but what if those obstacles could be economically overcome?
First lets look at the practicalities of using balloons to beam Internet signals from ground based stations to consumers.
Advantages over satellite service
Latency
Satellite Internet, the kind used by Wild Blue, usually comes with a minimum of a 1 second delay, sometimes more. The bulk of this signal delay is due to the distance required for a stationary satellite, 22,000 miles.
A balloon would be located much closer to the earth, in the atmosphere at around 2 to 12 miles up. The delay at this distance latency is just a few milliseconds.
Cost
Getting a basic stationary satellite into space runs at a minimum 50 million dollars, and perhaps a bit less for a low orbiting non stationary satellite.
Balloons are relatively inexpensive compared to a satellite. Although I don’t have exact numbers on a balloon, the launch cost is practically zero, a balloon carries its payload without any additional energy or infrastructure, the only real cost is the balloon, the payload, and ground based stations. For comparison purposes let’s go with 50,000 per balloon.
Power
Both options can use solar, orienting a balloon position with solar collectors might require 360 degree coverage; however as we will see a balloon can be tethered and periodically raised and lowered, in which case power can be ground based rechargeable.
Logistics
This is the elephant in the room. The position of a satellite in time is extremely predictable. Even for satellites that are not stationery, they can be relied on to be where they are supposed to be at any given time. This makes coverage planning deterministic. Balloons on the other hand, unless tethered will wonder with very little future predictability.
Coverage Range
A balloon at 10,000 feet can cover a Radius on the ground of about 70 miles. A stationary satellite can cover an entire continent. So you would need a series of balloons to cover an area reliably.
Untethered
I have to throw out the idea of untethered high altitude balloons. They would wander all over the world , and crash back to earth in random places. Even if it was cost-effective to saturate the upper atmosphere with them, and pick them out when in range for communications, I just don’t think NASA would be too excited to have 1000’s of these large balloons in unpredictable drift patterns .
Tethered
As crazy as it sounds, there is a precedent for tethering a communication balloon to a 10,000 foot cable. Evidently the US did something like this to broadcast TV signals into Cuba. I suppose for an isolated area where you can hang out offshore well out-of-the-way of any air traffic, this is possible
High Density Area Competition
So far I have been running under the assumption that the balloon based Internet service was an alternative to satellite coverage which finds its niche exclusively in rural areas of the world. When I think of the monopoly and cost advantage existing carriers have in urban areas, a wireless service with beamed high speeds from overhead might have some staying power. Certainly there could be some overlap with rural users and thus the economics of deployment become more cost-effective. The more subscribers the better. But I do not see urban coverage as a driving business factor.
Would the consumer need a directional Antenna?
I have been assuming all along that these balloons would supply direct service to the consumer. I would suspect that some sort of directional antenna pointing at your local offshore balloon would need to be attached to the side of your house. This is another reason why the balloons would need to be in a stationary position
My conclusion is that somebody, like Google, could conceivably create a balloon zone off of any coastline with a series of Balloons tethered to barges of some kind. The main problem assuming cost was not an issue, would be the political ramifications of a plane hitting one of the tethers. With Internet demand on the rise, 4g’s limited range, and the high cost of laying wires to the rural home, I would not be surprised to see a test network someplace in the near future.
Tethered Balloon ( Courtesy of Arstechnica article)
Share this: