<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Security consultant hijacked 250,000 machines</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/security-bytes/security-consultant-hijacked-250000-machines/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/security-bytes/security-consultant-hijacked-250000-machines/</link>
	<description>A SearchSecurity.com blog</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 07:45:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: 09091134911</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/security-bytes/security-consultant-hijacked-250000-machines/#comment-1069</link>
		<dc:creator>09091134911</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 05:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://security.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/11/12/security-consultant-hijacked-250000-machines/#comment-1069</guid>
		<description>A House bill that would have authorized a one-time $250 check to seniors, veterans as well as the disabled that collect Social Security was defeated in the House Wednesday. The bill is a response to the absence of a [A href="http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/12/08/house-bill-social-security/"]Social Security cost-of-living boost[/A] (COLA) in 2011. The reasoning was that a one-time $250 payment would somehow make up the difference. The GOP succeeded in killing the bill on the grounds the nation couldn't afford adding another $14 billion to the deficit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A House bill that would have authorized a one-time $250 check to seniors, veterans as well as the disabled that collect Social Security was defeated in the House Wednesday. The bill is a response to the absence of a <a href="http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/12/08/house-bill-social-security/">Social Security cost-of-living boost</a> (COLA) in 2011. The reasoning was that a one-time $250 payment would somehow make up the difference. The GOP succeeded in killing the bill on the grounds the nation couldn&#8217;t afford adding another $14 billion to the deficit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger's Security Blog : Be Careful Whom You Trust</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/security-bytes/security-consultant-hijacked-250000-machines/#comment-432</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger's Security Blog : Be Careful Whom You Trust</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://security.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/11/12/security-consultant-hijacked-250000-machines/#comment-432</guid>
		<description>[...] When I talk to customers I sometimes ask them, whether they do background checks on whom they hire as employees or contractors. If it comes to security, the whole theme gets pretty sensitive. Imaging that you hire an employee to deal with your security architecture and he turns out to be a criminal. Or you give a project to work on your security to an external consultant and all of a sudden he is arrested for spreading malware. Fantasies? Not really! This just happened: Security consultant hijacked 250,000 machines Would a background check have helped here? Probably not but we really have to think about whom we trust and how we hire people. I still cannot understand that there are companies hiring convicted hackers (even though everybody deserves a second chance – I agree). I blogged on that already once and the comments have been not in line with my view (Hackers getting Jobs in the Industry) Any views from your side? Roger   Filed under: Security, Cybercrime, Processes [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] When I talk to customers I sometimes ask them, whether they do background checks on whom they hire as employees or contractors. If it comes to security, the whole theme gets pretty sensitive. Imaging that you hire an employee to deal with your security architecture and he turns out to be a criminal. Or you give a project to work on your security to an external consultant and all of a sudden he is arrested for spreading malware. Fantasies? Not really! This just happened: Security consultant hijacked 250,000 machines Would a background check have helped here? Probably not but we really have to think about whom we trust and how we hire people. I still cannot understand that there are companies hiring convicted hackers (even though everybody deserves a second chance – I agree). I blogged on that already once and the comments have been not in line with my view (Hackers getting Jobs in the Industry) Any views from your side? Roger   Filed under: Security, Cybercrime, Processes [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- dynamic -->
