Netlify, a service for quickly rolling out static websites, raises $2.1

Mathias Biilmann — a former CTO of a firm that built websites for small businesses — says developers have gotten so used to using Github as a central workflow, they expect the entire rest of the developer experience to work the same way.

“The way that a front-end developer would work would be to go into a server and change how things were structured, but then Git came in and became the basic way of operating,” Biilmann, co-founder of Netlify, said. “You get more and more the expectation that pushing to Git something happens.”

That’s his goal for his and his co-founder Chris Bach’s new company. Netlify basically initiates its own kind of repository that pushes both to a Github repository and its own services. Then, those updates execute and are distributed across a wide network of content delivery networks to deliver pre-built static pages to visitors — with Netlify picking the best one from the cloud services available. Netlify then distributes all those static sites across its own content delivery network, meaning that when visitors access those pages they are pre-built.

The idea here is that, instead of a program running every time a visitor goes to a page, the pre-loading has already been done and the user is immediately served a page that’s directed from the closest geographic server, in order to reduce load times. More dynamically built pages may also be vulnerable to slowdowns if they suddenly get a spike of traffic, Biilmann said.

The hope is that, by simplifying the deployment process, he can convince developers that are looking for a lightweight page experience to use something like Netlify instead of simply deploying directly to Amazon Web Services or other providers. To do all this, the company has raised $2.1 million from Bloomberg Beta and Tank Hill Ventures.

Part of the process that’s developed over time is simply pushing Git updates directly to a server, like AWS. The expectation over time has become to simply run a push update through a command line and expect it to work on the other end. Since this has become an increasing expectation over time, especially with front-end developers, Biilmann and his team decided to build a set of tools that bundled together all the necessary components of building out those pages and deploying them.

So, Netlify enables those developers to roll out changes across a larger network of servers that can easily be rolled back with those kinds of simple updates. And all this can be done directly from a command line interface.

So, why pre-built? There are a few reasons: sometimes, when visiting a site, the page will build dynamically based on the applications running on something like Amazon Web Services. That not only requires the page to build itself, but also leaves open the opportunity for malicious attacks (like finding a vulnerability in a Flask server, for example). By essentially pushing the site in isolation from a CDN, they aren’t tapping into a dynamic setup that might be open to attack.

We say static site it’s not like 1994 where sites were static, 99.9% of sites serviced by Netlify are very dynamic,” Biilmann said. “They just interact with the browser instead of having to be built server-side every time.”

If a developer ends up breaking a line of code, they can quickly roll back to a previous instance of the site that’s out there. While most of the operations can be done from a command line interface, Netlify users can also view a snapshot of their running pages through a web-based interface and monitor their health.

At the moment Netlify doesn’t serve tools that interact with a database layer. Biilmann says this is primarily because many modern pages implement an experience that’s hooked through a set of APIs into other services. One example he gave would be running comments through an API like Disqus, or running search functions through another API.

Investors in Netlify include Heroku founder Adam Wiggins and Github founder Tom Preston-Werner, who clearly seem to have an interest in helping individuals deploy fuller — and faster — website experiences with a simpler developer experience.

The challenge for Netlify will to keep those experiences simple and quickly adjust to developer demands for these kinds of tools. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine something like AWS implementing a similar tool, and with so many developers already running on AWS, it might be hard to peel them away. But Biilmann says that, while larger companies have enjoyed the capability to deploy these kinds of experiences, tools like these will help attract a wider long tail or developer activity.

Read More

Why haven't we seen the smartphone security apocalypse in iPhone and Android yet?

Mobile phones present a ripe attack vector for hackers, but so far we've avoided the nightmares of Windows 95. Is it just a matter of time?

Finally, the mobile security apocalypse is upon us. A recent BBC headline warned: "Android bug fear in 900 million phones." For those of us who lived through Windows 95, widespread, catastrophic malware and security vulnerabilities were the norm, not the exception, which is why one of life's great mysteries has been the apparent absence of massive mobile security threats.

Despite everyone carrying around multitudinous attack vectors 24/7, when was the last time a friend or family member called you up to ask how to remove a virus on their phone? Something like the extremely destructive Chernobyl virus that plagued Windows 95? Probably never. Yet, that was a routine occurrence in the early days of the desktop.

But, according to a new MobileIron report, enterprises are about to get a severe wake-up call as "The velocity of mobile attacks is increasing," but a mere 8% of enterprises are enforcing OS updates to keep employee phones secure.

What, me worry?

Security is one of those things that only seems obvious in retrospect. Intuitively we know that mobile security must be an issue, with billions of phones in circulation. Yet, as individuals and employers, we do very little about it.

SEE The state of mobile device security: Android vs. iOS (ZDNet)

For many of us, we haven't needed to. Apple's iOS, for example, is a closed system that has made it difficult for hackers to crack its security. However,according to noted security expert Eugene Kaspersky, iOS' closed nature is actually the very thing that makes it most problematic:

[T]he most dangerous scenario, I am afraid, is with iPhones. It's less probable because it is very difficult to develop malware for iPhones, because the [operating] system is closed [for outside programmers]. But, every system has a vulnerability. If it happens—in the worst case scenario, if millions of the devices are infected—there is no antivirus, because antivirus companies don't have any rights to develop true end-point security [for Apple].

Given that MobileIron found that 81% of devices used in the enterprise are iOS, this could portend trouble. Even so, it is Android, not iOS, that gets targeted 92% of the time, according to a 2013 Juniper Networks study.

Regardless, the problem for enterprises is that they seem to exercise very little control over the mobile devices on their networks, as Conner Forrest reportedon MobileIron's findings:

• 40% of companies had missing devices, up from 33% in Q4 2015;
• 27% of companies had out-of-date policies, up from 20% in Q4 2015; and
• 8% of companies were enforcing OS updates, which was comparable to Q4 2015.

Personal devices on corporate networks

This isn't so hard to understand when we remember the personal nature of mobile devices. Back in the days of the Chernobyl virus, "personal computers" were often paid for by their companies. Today, Gartner estimates that 40% of all "enterprise devices" are actually personal smartphones and laptops, and I'd wager that the percentage of personal smartphones in use is actually significantly higher.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

After all, even if the enterprise buys the phone, I've seen plenty of employees skirt mobile device management policies to be able to use "their" phone as they choose. Mobile is personal, and individuals will go to great lengths to keep their mobile devices off of IT's radar...

...though not off the network. And that's where the risks lie.

In an increasingly connected and interconnected world, everything—including our lighting systems—creates a potential attack vector. While it would be nice to believe that widespread malware attacks are a thing of the desktop past, that would also be incredibly naive, given how tempting today's targets are.

Many of us (myself included), remember when the desktop was ripe with Chernobyl virus-like attacks. It would be foolish to believe that we're not headed there on our mobile devices, too, though in a much bigger way. And yet, we still haven't had a Chernobyl. The question is, "Why?"

What do you think?

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Are we headed for another Chernobyl-like virus in mobile? What is the biggest threat mobile presents in the enterprise? Share your thoughts in the comments or on Twitter.

Read More

Android Apps Fool Hundreds of Thousands With Empty Promises

Nearly one million Android users have fallen victims to eight fake applications that falsely claimed to help them gain more followers on social networks, but instead stole their information and money.

Detected as Android/Fasurke, these applications made it to the Google Play about four months ago, which gave them enough time to gather between 250,000 and 1,000,000 downloads, researchers at ESET discovered. These pieces of software attracted users with empty promises, with interesting app names, and with bogus descriptions.

These fake applications promised to boost user’s followers on different social networks, but did nothing of the sorts, researchers warn. Instead of offering more followers, friends or views on social networks, these apps lured users into sharing their personal information, paying perpetual subscriptions, or consenting to receiving marketing messages or ads.

When running the application, users were requested to enter their mobile device model, username and the number of followers they wished to gain, promising thousands of new followers with just one click. However, after supposedly launching the “followers generating process,” users were presented with a “human verification” step.

This step was meant to trick the user into entering an endless set of offerings of gifts, coupons and free services, and into sharing their personal information (name, email, address, telephone, date of birth, and gender). Moreover, users were asked to consent to receiving telesales calls and text messages, some of which cost around $5.50 per week.

According to ESET researchers, this “verification step” is actually an endless spiral, its only purpose being that of milking as much information and money as possible from the unsuspecting user. Although many individuals who downloaded these apps decided to share their negative experience via comments and low rating on Google Play, thousands of other people still downloaded them.

Google was informed on these applications and has already removed them from the marketplace, but ESET researchers say that similar threats might still exist, including users naïve enough to install them and share their personal information.

To stay protected, users are advised to download applications only from official storefronts, as they contain the smallest number of malicious applications. Before downloading an app, however, users should also have a look at its rating, should analyze the permissions it requests, and should think twice before installing a program that promises something “too good to be true.”

A golden rule that users should always apply is to never share their personal information with a third party, unless they are sure it is trustworthy. Moreover, users should not consent to something and should not be ordering goods or services unless they are sure about what they will receive in exchange.

Read More

Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 Review: Effective Antimalware Performance

Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 ($80 for one year and three PCs as of January 25, 2012) ranked fourth in our 2012 roundup of security suites. Although it finished outside the top three, it's a solid all-around suite that will do an effective job at keeping you safe.

In our real-world malware blocking tests, Kaspersky's suite fully blocked all samples that it encountered. This result means that it should do very well in protecting you from brand-new, as-yet unknown malware. In addition, it detected 99.34 percent of known malware samples in more-traditional signature-based detection tests. On its own, that's a great showing--but believe it or not, that's merely an average result this year due to the overall strength of 2012's suites.

False positives are largely a nonissue: Kaspersky’s product misidentified only one safe file out of a pool of 250,000 files as dangerous. And the suite was effective at disinfection, detecting and disabling all sample infections on our test PC. It removed all traces of malware 60 percent of the time, performing slightly above average in that regard.

In general the Kaspersky suite has a low impact on PC performance, though it did slow our test machine a fair amount when we copied files over a network: It took 3 minutes, 34 seconds to complete this test, landing well behind the average of 3 minutes, 2 seconds.

It was faster than average, however, at scanning. It completed an on-demand scan (which runs when you manually click the 'Scan Now' button) of 4.5GB of data in 1 minute, 11 seconds--the third-best showing, and a considerably better result than the average of 1 minute, 59 seconds for the suites we looked at. It wrapped up on-access scanning (which kicks off when you open or save a file) of 4.5GB of data in 4 minutes, 40 seconds, about 8 seconds faster than average.

On the rest of our speed tests, Kaspersky finished either around average or above average as compared with its competition.

Kaspersky gave its software a face-lift in 2012, abandoning the curiously divided interface in last year's suite. While the new interface is fine, it isn't outstanding. Kaspersky uses a fairly standard multistep wizard installer that's fairly painless, but some of the other suites we looked at this year have one-click installation processes. Once the package was installed, we navigated its screens fairly easily. The main screen gives a clear indicator of your protection status, with buttons along the bottom to adjust settings for the suite's major components. Some parts still could use a redesign, though. For example, a few panels open in the main window, while others spawn new windows, which can be a little disorienting. And from a purely aesthetic perspective, I wasn't a huge fan of the teal-and-white theme--but that's picking nits.

Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 falls a little short of the absolute top competitors, mainly because of the all-around strength of this year's suites. Nevertheless, Kaspersky’s latest offering is worth a look.

Read More

Bitdefender Internet Security 2012 Review: Great Protection, Excellent Interface

Our top pick in our 2012 roundup of Internet security suites is G Data InternetSecurity 2012 ($35 for a one-year, single-PC license as of January 25, 2012). Although its interface isn't terribly friendly to beginners, G Data's suite put up some of the best malware detection and blocking scores in the history of our testing.

G Data InternetSecurity blocked all samples in our real-world tests (which assess how well security software can stop previously unknown threats). It also spotted all but five samples in our “zoo” of 108,869 samples of known malware--the best score we’ve ever seen on this particular test.

In addition, G Data's package had a low false-positive rate, labeling only one known safe file out of a pool of more than 250,000 as possibly dangerous; you don't have to worry about it flagging a good file as bad. It rendered all infections on our test PC inert, and it removed all traces of malware 60 percent of the time.

This suite's impact on PC performance was fairly minimal overall, but it did struggle in a few areas. It finished our on-demand scan test (which measures how quickly a suite can scan 4.5GB of files when you tell it to do so) in an above-average 1 minute, 49 seconds, but its on-access scanner (which kicks in when you open or save files) processed 4.5GB of data in a slow 6 minutes, 41 seconds. By comparison, on average the products we tested completed those tests in 1 minute, 59 seconds and 4 minutes, 48 seconds, respectively.

The G Data suite added less than half of a second to startup and shutdown times as compared to a PC with no antivirus software installed--in both cases, the best result among the products we tested. It also produced a good result in our download test, adding only about 1.5 seconds compared to our test PC without antivirus installed. On the other hand, it slowed our test PC considerably when we loaded Web pages, installed software, or copied files over the network.

G Data's interface isn’t too impressive. Its installer is fairly painless, but it forces you to click through a number of screens and requires you to restart the PC before you can use the software. The main screen isn't significantly different from that of last year's G Data suite, which isn't a good thing. Reaching some commonly used features via the main control panel is difficult, since they’re often hidden in menus. And unless you’re an expert, the settings can be confusing--there are just so many of them. That said, the clearly labeled 'Correct' button that appears when a problem occurs lets you quickly and easily fix any issues that prevent you from being fully protected.

This isn't a perfect security suite, but the package excels where it counts most: stopping malware. If you can put up with some interface annoyances and sluggish scan speeds, G Data InternetSecurity 2012 is definitely a top-notch contender and worth your consideration.

Read More

Norton Internet Security 2012 Review: Solid and Efficient PC Security

Norton Internet Security 2012 $32.00

Symantec's Norton security suite will do a great job of keeping your PC safe, and the program is easy to use too.

An all-around solid defender and efficient performer, Symantec's Norton Internet Security 2012 ($70 for one year and three PCs as of January 25, 2012) comes in second in our 2012 security suites roundup on the strength of its slick, user-friendly interface and its solid malware detection and removal capabilities.

The Norton suite fully blocked all attacks in our real-world tests, which indicate how well security software will protect you against brand-new threats. It also detected 99.94 percent of known malware samples, the fourth-best result among the 14 products we looked at (the top package, G Data InternetSecurity 2012, achieved a detection rate of greater than 99.99 percent). In addition, the Norton software detected and deactivated all active malware components in our cleanup tests, and removed all remnants of malware half the time (which is about average). The Norton suite flagged nine known safe files out of 250,000 as being potentially dangerous; that’s quite a low false-positive rate percentage-wise, but it’s higher than average for the suites we tested.

In recent years Norton has claimed that its products won't slow down PCs, and for the most part that holds true in 2012. This year's edition added about 3.7 seconds to startup time compared to our test PC with no antivirus software installed, and added about 3.5 seconds to shutdown time. In both cases the Norton package performed somewhat better than average for the suites we tested. We saw the same kind of results in other performance tests, too, as the Norton suite had a lower-than-average impact on overall PC performance across the board.

The Norton package completed our scan tests quickly: It finished an on-demand scan (that is, one that occurs when you click the Scan button manually) of 4.5GB of data in 1 minute, 8 seconds--the second-fastest result in the test group. The on-access scanner (which fires up when you open or save files) completed scanning 4.5GB of files in 2 minutes, 34 seconds; again, that was the second-fastest time among the products we looked at.

We like Norton’s interface, too: It’s clean and well designed, and it installs with a click. Although it isn't the dead-simplest interface we've seen, the main panel is straightforward with a clear status indicator and links to common features. That said, while Norton's settings panel gives advanced users plenty of options to toggle, it may be a bit much for beginners. Still, in the end, Norton should be friendly enough for most people.

Even though G Data's suite edged out the Norton one overall in our roundup this year, Norton Internet Security 2012 is a very good option, and is easily worth your consideration.

Read More

G Data InternetSecurity 2012 Review: Top-Notch Antimalware Protection

InternetSecurity 2012

G Data's security suite is one of the best defenders we've ever seen, and it takes the top spot among this year's crop despite a rough interface.

Our top pick in our 2012 roundup of Internet security suites is G Data InternetSecurity 2012 ($35 for a one-year, single-PC license as of January 25, 2012). Although its interface isn't terribly friendly to beginners, G Data's suite put up some of the best malware detection and blocking scores in the history of our testing.

G Data InternetSecurity blocked all samples in our real-world tests (which assess how well security software can stop previously unknown threats). It also spotted all but five samples in our “zoo” of 108,869 samples of known malware--the best score we’ve ever seen on this particular test.

In addition, G Data's package had a low false-positive rate, labeling only one known safe file out of a pool of more than 250,000 as possibly dangerous; you don't have to worry about it flagging a good file as bad. It rendered all infections on our test PC inert, and it removed all traces of malware 60 percent of the time.

This suite's impact on PC performance was fairly minimal overall, but it did struggle in a few areas. It finished our on-demand scan test (which measures how quickly a suite can scan 4.5GB of files when you tell it to do so) in an above-average 1 minute, 49 seconds, but its on-access scanner (which kicks in when you open or save files) processed 4.5GB of data in a slow 6 minutes, 41 seconds. By comparison, on average the products we tested completed those tests in 1 minute, 59 seconds and 4 minutes, 48 seconds, respectively.

The G Data suite added less than half of a second to startup and shutdown times as compared to a PC with no antivirus software installed--in both cases, the best result among the products we tested. It also produced a good result in our download test, adding only about 1.5 seconds compared to our test PC without antivirus installed. On the other hand, it slowed our test PC considerably when we loaded Web pages, installed software, or copied files over the network.

G Data's interface isn’t too impressive. Its installer is fairly painless, but it forces you to click through a number of screens and requires you to restart the PC before you can use the software. The main screen isn't significantly different from that of last year's G Data suite, which isn't a good thing. Reaching some commonly used features via the main control panel is difficult, since they’re often hidden in menus. And unless you’re an expert, the settings can be confusing--there are just so many of them. That said, the clearly labeled 'Correct' button that appears when a problem occurs lets you quickly and easily fix any issues that prevent you from being fully protected.

This isn't a perfect security suite, but the package excels where it counts most: stopping malware. If you can put up with some interface annoyances and sluggish scan speeds, G Data InternetSecurity 2012 is definitely a top-notch contender and worth your consideration.

Read More

The Best 2013 Security Suites

A lot of different components must thoroughly mesh and work together well to mak 

 a security suite. Some suites are barely more than an antivirus plus firewall, while others include ever feature imaginable. In the very best suites, all components are equally effective, but a suite that's only good at a few security tasks can still be useful if its strong points match your needs.

The flood of 2014 suites is in full swing at present. I've reviewed eight with "2014" as part of the name, and several more are in the queue. Bitdefender, Webroot, Norton, and Kaspersky have dropped year and version numbers. To avoid confusion we're appending "(2014)" to 

those product names.

Notable Components
The chart below summarizes our findings for three dozen current security suites, highlighting overall scores and category scores of 4.0 stars or better. It's easy to see that some products earned high scores in all or nearly all the categories, while others got just a few high scores.

Ad-Aware Pro Security 10.5 turned in average scores in most of our tests, but it proved quite effective at blocking malware attack on a clean system. G Data InternetSecurity 2014likewise did its best work in the field of malware blocking.

ZoneAlarm Extreme Security 2013$44.95 at ZoneAlarm has perhaps the most complete parental control system of any suite, because its parental control component is a licensed version of the well-regarded Net Nanny. ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus + Firewall 2013 offers a bare minimum of suite components, but its firewall protection is top-notch.

Protection against fraudulent (phishing) sites is a primary component of the Privacy score. Because the actual phishing sites available on a given day are different from those on any other day, I rate antiphishing tools by comparing their detection rates with Norton's. Very few products come close to Norton's accuracy, but in recent tests both Bitdefender Internet Security (2014)$49.95 at BitDefender and Kaspersky Internet Security (2014)$25.00 at Amazon beat Norton, and Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2014$39.95 at Trend Micro came close.

The chart below lists current suites, along with their prices and star rating in several security categories. Note that in a few cases the price listed for "3-pack" actually gets you more than three licenses.

Our Top Choices
As you can see in the chart Norton Internet Security (2014)$64.99 at Lenovo earned four stars or better in every category. If you're looking for a traditional security suite, with essential features like antivirus, firewall, antispam, parental control, and phishing protection, it's a great choice, and it's one of our Editors' Choice suites. If you need local/online backup and tuneup, consider Norton 360 (2014)$79.99 at Norton, also an Editors' Choice.

Norton 360 falls into the category I call a "mega-suite" because it offers so much more than the basics. With Bitdefender Total Security (2014)$69.95 at BitDefender you get even more security components, pretty much anything you can think of. It's another Editor's Choice for mega-suite.

Looking for the smallest, lightest protection available? The installer for Editors' ChoiceWebroot SecureAnywhere Complete (2014)$29.99 at Webroot would fit on a 3.5" diskette (if you could fine one). Its unusual antivirus component doesn't use virus signatures; rather, it detects threats by their behavior and other characteristics. Webroot omits spam filtering and parental control, two common suite features that aren't universally needed, but adds a very flexible online backup and sync utility along with password management powered by Editors' Choice LastPass.

Modern malware is tough. If it's gotten a foothold on your PC already, it may resist your attempts to install the security software that could eliminate it. Tech support will help, of course, and many vendors will eventually escalate to remote-control diagnosis and repair of your troubles. Comodo Internet Security Complete 2013, also an Editors' Choice, makes that top-tier level support the default. Call on Comodo's GeekBuddy service for help with absolutely any PC problem, including getting the product installed on an infested system.

Make Your Choice
You won't go wrong selecting one of our Editors' Choice suites. McAfee Internet Security 2014$59.99 at Dell SMB and Kaspersky Internet Security (2014)$25.00 at Amazon also proved impressive in testing. Click the links in the blurbs that follow to read our comprehensive reviews of all the current security suites.

Read More