PDA

View Full Version : New FISMA Information Assurance Tool - xbasics Ulinzi



eeajam@gmail.com
05-16-08, 06:07 AM
xbasics Ulinzi is a new Information Assurance tool focusing
exclusively on FISMA. It implements the first two major steps needed
to be accomplished for any successful FISMA Information Assurance
effort: the Security Categorization of a given information system and
the analysis and development of a compliant set of Security Controls
for it. It is this effort that has gotten so many federal agencies
and contractors in trouble so many times, and yet this work continues
year after year implemented in the same manner. xbasics Ulinzi was
designed to change this.

xbasics Ulinzi is a new type of tool built from the ground up to
simplify, speed up and help users of all skill levels produce a
compliant set of FISMA Security Controls. It is a direct
implementation of all the corresponding NIST-developed standards and
guidelines, and therefore it not only contains all the data provided
in the NIST documents inside of it, but it also helps users implement
this effort as NIST intended. But this is just the tip of the
iceberg...

For more information visit, http://xbasics.com/products/

David H. Lipman
05-16-08, 03:17 PM
From: <eeajam@gmail.com>

| xbasics Ulinzi is a new Information Assurance tool focusing
| exclusively on FISMA. It implements the first two major steps needed
| to be accomplished for any successful FISMA Information Assurance
| effort: the Security Categorization of a given information system and
| the analysis and development of a compliant set of Security Controls
| for it. It is this effort that has gotten so many federal agencies
| and contractors in trouble so many times, and yet this work continues
| year after year implemented in the same manner. xbasics Ulinzi was
| designed to change this.

| xbasics Ulinzi is a new type of tool built from the ground up to
| simplify, speed up and help users of all skill levels produce a
| compliant set of FISMA Security Controls. It is a direct
| implementation of all the corresponding NIST-developed standards and
| guidelines, and therefore it not only contains all the data provided
| in the NIST documents inside of it, but it also helps users implement
| this effort as NIST intended. But this is just the tip of the
| iceberg...

Since it was spammed it should be AVOIDED !


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

eeajam@gmail.com
05-19-08, 06:17 PM
>
> Since it was spammed it should be AVOIDED !
>

Hi Dave! Could you be a little bit more explicit as to how do you
*magically* believe this tool was spammed? Based on what real
fact(s)? This is probably one of the most secure tools around, so I
would love to find out where you got your data from!

David H. Lipman
05-19-08, 06:32 PM
From: <eeajam@gmail.com>



| Hi Dave! Could you be a little bit more explicit as to how do you
| *magically* believe this tool was spammed? Based on what real
| fact(s)? This is probably one of the most secure tools around, so I
| would love to find out where you got your data from!

Your spam post using a GMail account through Google Groups.


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

eeajam@gmail.com
05-19-08, 06:58 PM
On May 19, 7:32*pm, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
wrote:
> From: <eea...@gmail.com>
>
> | Hi Dave! *Could you be a little bit more explicit as to how do you
> | *magically* believe this tool was spammed? *Based on what real
> | fact(s)? *This is probably one of the most secure tools around, so I
> | would love to find out where you got your data from!
>
> Your spam post using a GMail account through Google Groups.
>
> --
> Davehttp://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> Multi-AV -http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

In other words, there's no basis for the original statement. It's
just plain old FUD!

eeajam@gmail.com
05-19-08, 07:08 PM
So there's no basis for your statement! It's just FUD!

David H. Lipman
05-19-08, 07:25 PM
From: <eeajam@gmail.com>


|
| In other words, there's no basis for the original statement. It's
| just plain old FUD!
|

No FUD. You "spammed" this group with your unsolicited post.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

eeajam@gmail.com
05-19-08, 08:35 PM
Dave, are you're saying posts on public newsgroups are actually
solicited? Please explain me how this works so I'll know?

David H. Lipman
05-19-08, 08:43 PM
From: <eeajam@gmail.com>

| Dave, are you're saying posts on public newsgroups are actually
| solicited? Please explain me how this works so I'll know?

If someone poses a problem or question and you reply with a solution, it is solicited.

Now if someone was looking for a FIPS compliant IA tool and you responded with Ulinzi as a
possible solution, that would not be spam.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

eeajam@gmail.com
05-19-08, 09:09 PM
Well, I see posts about conferences, seminars, and other tools within
this newsgroup, and I don't see you stating anything about spam in
those posts. According to your statements, that would be unsolited
newsgroup entries and they should be labeled as spam, but you haven't
done that have you? I haven't seen anyone requesting information
about any particular conference, for example, but the post is there.
And it should be there as this is a public forum, that post is within
the topic of the forum and it targets the interest of the readers.
What's the problem with that?

eeajam@gmail.com
05-19-08, 09:11 PM
Well, I see posts about conferences, seminars, and other tools within
this newsgroup, and I don't see you stating anything about spam in
those posts. According to your statements, that would be unsolicited
newsgroup entries and they should be labeled as spam, but you haven't
done that have you? I haven't seen anyone requesting information
about any particular conference, for example, but the post is there.
And it should be there as this is a public forum, that post is within
the topic of the forum and it targets the interest of the readers.
What's the problem with that?

Ant
05-19-08, 09:22 PM
<eeajam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Dave! Could you be a little bit more explicit as to how do you
> *magically* believe this tool was spammed?

It would be spam if you posted similar messages in other groups.
Posting advertisements in discussion groups is not appreciated.
Please learn how to behave on Usenet (this is not a google group).

David H. Lipman
05-19-08, 09:28 PM
From: <eeajam@gmail.com>

| Well, I see posts about conferences, seminars, and other tools within
| this newsgroup, and I don't see you stating anything about spam in
| those posts. According to your statements, that would be unsolited
| newsgroup entries and they should be labeled as spam, but you haven't
| done that have you? I haven't seen anyone requesting information
| about any particular conference, for example, but the post is there.
| And it should be there as this is a public forum, that post is within
| the topic of the forum and it targets the interest of the readers.
| What's the problem with that?

One word - product.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

eeajam@gmail.com
05-19-08, 09:42 PM
So, you're saying information about conferences, seminars, websites or
any tool whatsoever, regardless if they are within the topic of the
newsgroup should not be allowed, as they are advertisements?

eeajam@gmail.com
05-19-08, 09:44 PM
> One word - product.

What about the product advertised at the bottom of your emails?
Again, you're not being fair here!

Ken
05-19-08, 09:59 PM
On Tue, 20 May 2008 01:43:16 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

>From: <eeajam@gmail.com>
>
>| Dave, are you're saying posts on public newsgroups are actually
>| solicited? Please explain me how this works so I'll know?
>
>If someone poses a problem or question and you reply with a solution, it is solicited.
>
>Now if someone was looking for a FIPS compliant IA tool and you responded with Ulinzi as a
>possible solution, that would not be spam.
David, ONE posting, politely worded, to an appropriate newsgroup does
not constitute spam. It is an informative message to the readers of
that group. You are at liberty to ignore it or not.

A message to dozens of groups, or a message oft repeated, or a blatant
advert full of puffed up language, does constitute spam and should be
attacked accordingly. Would you say that someone who responds to all,
or a majority of, enquiries with the same recommended product as a
spammer?

David H. Lipman
05-20-08, 03:18 PM
From: <eeajam@gmail.com>

>> One word - product.

| What about the product advertised at the bottom of your emails?
| Again, you're not being fair here!



That's a signature and is less than 4 lines longs and is conformative to all Usenet
standards.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

David H. Lipman
05-20-08, 05:11 PM
From: "Ken" <kwar6996@bigpond.net.au>


| David, ONE posting, politely worded, to an appropriate newsgroup does
| not constitute spam. It is an informative message to the readers of
| that group. You are at liberty to ignore it or not.
|
| A message to dozens of groups, or a message oft repeated, or a blatant
| advert full of puffed up language, does constitute spam and should be
| attacked accordingly. Would you say that someone who responds to all,
| or a majority of, enquiries with the same recommended product as a
| spammer?

Granted - one noted post. Lets teach the Google Grouper such that its is wrong so it such
actions are repeated numerously.

Yes, if someone posted the SAME response top numerous posts with the same content it might
be considered spam but more like a shill.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Leonard Agoado
05-23-08, 04:47 PM
<eeajam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2661369-e4e3-4d8d-af1a-0b1f0a59a733@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> So, you're saying information about conferences, seminars,
> websites or
> any tool whatsoever, regardless if they are within the topic of
> the
> newsgroup should not be allowed, as they are advertisements?



I think what they are saying is that you should understand the
following basic concept and apply it to the current case through
analogy -

Anatidae - identification and verification --

1. walks like
2. quacks like


Regards,

Len Agoado
agoado@msn.com

Kyle T. Jones
06-24-08, 01:18 PM
eeajam@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, I see posts about conferences, seminars, and other tools within
> this newsgroup, and I don't see you stating anything about spam in
> those posts. According to your statements, that would be unsolited
> newsgroup entries and they should be labeled as spam, but you haven't
> done that have you? I haven't seen anyone requesting information
> about any particular conference, for example, but the post is there.
> And it should be there as this is a public forum, that post is within
> the topic of the forum and it targets the interest of the readers.
> What's the problem with that?

It fails multiple ethical tests. Wanna prove it to yerself? Try
following an active group with zero spam filtering.

Cheers.