text:
In this video, we wanted to show how much a part of the spanking experience either the embarrassment of being watched, or the exhibitionistic excitement of same, is. Who better to examine this intriguing part of the spanking world with than America's Spanking Sweetheart, and my BabyGirl, beautiful Sarah Gregory. Sarah has been misbehaving and figured she'd get away with it since Paul wouldn't DARE spank her in front of her friend Alexis. Imagine her surprise when he pulls her across his knee and spanks her right then and there, as her friend looks on, taunting Sarah, and exacerbating her humiliation by taking pictures of her subjugation. First, she receives a butt-burning 94 swats to the seat of her skirt, then Paul lifts her skirt to apply his firm hand to the thin seat of her white panties 130 times. Convinced she is not embarrassed enough, he makes her strip- down to her panties and bra in front of her friend, then makes her go over his knee AGAIN for an additional 74 to the hot seat of her panties and nearly 90 to her bare, red buns, right in front of her friend. Still not convinced that Sarah has been humiliated enough to learn her lesson, Paul sends her to the corner, where she must stand with her bright red butt exposed to anyone who happens to enter the room. He and Alexis will have a beer and visit while she must stand there, red-faced and embarrassed. Sarah DOES look very cute, standing in the corner, her face a mask of downcast extreme embarrassment as her hands frantically try to rub the immense sting out of her sore asscheeks (after all, she received well over 300 swats. There is a subtle little surprise at the end that suggests that Paul and Alexis are not the ONLY ones who enjoyed her humiliation. For fans of Sarah Gregory, cornertime, exposure, humiliation, and exhibitionism, this is a must-see, and it's available ONLY at Spanking 101!
Date Added: 07/26/12
File Size: 91.71 MB
File Type: Windows Media (wmv)
Bitrate: High: 1.5Mbps and Higher
Resolution: 640X480
Movie Length: 6 Minutes
M/F Spankings , OTK Spankings , Spanking
Sarah Gregory , cornertime , panties , bare bottom , voyeur , public , embarrassment
Store: Spanking 101: The Clips
Price: $3.99
This series of videos started out when a friend asked me to do a spanking demonstration for her BDSM group. My wife and I had so much fun doing it, that I decided to write a book, which then became a series of four books and a CD, soon to be available at www.spanking101thebook.com. When I was outted by an ex, I lost my vanilla job, so I decided to do videos that were also informative, to go along with the books. We have been very fortunate to have been able to work with some of the spanking Scene's most important icons, including Erica Scott, Dana Specht, Chelsea Pfeiffer, and Miss Chris. We have also been amazingly lucky to work with many of the Scene's current elite spanking models, including Sarah Gregory, Katherine St. James, Amelia Jane Rutherford, Leia-Ann Woods, Pandora Blake, Jennie Mack, and Ten Amorette. In addition to THAT, we have been able to work with some gorgeous new, er... faces: Sam James, Leila Hazlett, Amore, Millie, Purple, Rexie, Kisa Corwin, Sam James, Lily Starr, Sherie Taylor, Naughty Freckles, Jennie Mack, Skylar, Natasha Miller, Sasha, Nikki Rouge, Marie, Mira, Ashley Graham, Goldie Rosemont, Vivian, Galas Looner, Julianne Leigh, Scarlett Summers, Whitney Morgan, Emma Harper, and Rose Asteria. Our base set of models continues to grow, and we are always looking for more talent. Our models are well-treated, professionally spanked and protected, and are amongst the best-paid spanking models in the Scene. We have shot in Texas, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Nevada, California, Florida, the United Kingdom, the Cayman Islands, and Aruba. We plan spanking video ventures over the next 2-3 years that will include Japan, Australia/New Zealand, and Europe. If you are interested in working for us as a spanking model, please email me at email@example.com and put "model prospect" in the subject line. As for the videos in this store, you can expect absolutely the most beautiful women in the Scene, being spanked in everything from sexy outfits to totally nude. You'll see punishment spankings, fun spankings, sexy spankings, you name it. We have a large number of multiple-girl spankings as well. You'll see spankings, canings, paddlings, strappings, croppings, every imaginable type of spanking. While they are meant to be informative, they are absolutely worth watching just for the spankings alone. One other thing: while I have years of experience, and lots of advice to offer, I by no means claim to know it all. If you have suggestions for ideas I left out, please feel free to email me and let me know. I am not only open to suggestions, I welcome them. We are also glad to do custom video work. Just write me at email@example.com and put "custom job" in the subject line. One thing: these videos are my first attempts. while I am completely sure you'll be pleased with the content, I am still learning my way around the editing process. I am always open to honest, helpful criticism, but please spare me the nasty, unhelpful comments. I'll file them where they belong (up your kiester). However, I DO take helpful criticism to heart, and will use it to improve the product, so please don't hold back if it's honest criticism. I'm not made of glass. When I finally put them on the site, all of the 101 videos will have voice-overs, and they'll all be a more polished product, thanks in part to your suggestions.
Signup to receive updates and news from Spanking 101: The Clips.
More Clips from Spanking 101: The Clips>>>


text:
Afternoon summary
• David Cameron has refused to back a cap on bankers' bonuses at Royal Bank of Scotland and instead has pledged to limit overall pay at the taxpayer-owned institution. As the Guardian reports, Cameron was challenged by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, to stop bankers getting paid multimillion-pound bonuses as high as their multimillion-pound salaries, but dodged the question during his weekly prime minister's question time on Wednesday. In a return to the usual insults after a subdued session last week, Cameron hit back by claiming Miliband had "all the moral authority" of the Rev Paul Flowers, the disgraced Co-op banking chief, given the last government's record on banking regulation. It has also emerged that Miliband will include plans to reduce the size of banks in a major speech on the economy he is giving on Friday.
• Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, has said he does not back a "crude bonus cap" on pay in banks or proposals to restrict their size. As the Press Association reports, his remarks to MPs on the Treasury select committee are likely to be seen as a rejection of Labour rhetoric on the financial sector. Carney said he "absolutely" agreed with the conclusions of the parliamentary commission on banking standards that it was not convinced a "crude bonus cap" was the right way to control pay. He also backed a separate commission led by Sir John Vickers that a cap on banks' market share would "not result in substantial improvement to competition". Carney said: "Just breaking up an institution doesn't necessarily create or enable a more intensive competitive structure."
• The Liberal Democrats have concluded that they will not not take any disciplinary action against Lord Rennard, the party's former chief executive, who was accused of sexually pestering women. As Rowena Mason reports, Alistair Webster, a QC appointed to look at the evidence as part of a disciplinary process, found that the peer ought to apologise and commit to changing his behaviour, which may have caused "distress" to women, but that there was not sufficient evidence that he had acted in a sexually inappropriate way. Rennard has always vigorously denied acting inappropriately towards the complainants.
• George Osborne has said that cast-iron legal protections for the City of London will lie at the heart of David Cameron's EU reform plans. On a Guardian blog, Nicholas Watt says that Osborne spent an immense amount of time working on the speech and that it had two key messages: one for a UK audience, and one for an EU audience.
• Cameron has downplayed the likelihood of an inquiry finding evidence that Britain was to blame for a deadly raid of India's Golden Temple in Amritsar 30 years ago. Labour's Tom Watson raised the subject at PMQs. He asked:
On your Amritsar inquiry, instead of ordering the civil servants to investigate, why don't you just ask lords Geoffrey Howe and Leon Brittan what they agreed with Margaret Thatcher, and whether it had anything to do with the Westland Helicopter deal at the time?
In reply, Cameron told Watson: "I fear that you might have gone a conspiracy too far on this one." He said an inquiry would take place, but he suggested that it was likely to find Britain was not involved.
I don't want to prejudge the outcome, but I would note that so far it has not found any evidence to contradict the insistence by senior Indian army commanders responsible at the time that the responsibility of this - it was planned and carried out solely by the Indian army - so I think that is important to put that, but we do need an inquiry so we can get to the bottom of this.
• Cameron has backed calls for a "war on sugar". He was responding to Labour MP Keith Vaz, who asked him at PMQs if he would meet experts to discuss the "war on sugar", because voluntary arrangements with manufacturers were not working, and if he would give up sugar and sugary drinks for a day. Cameron replied:
I'm sure that last proposal would have the strong support of Mrs Cameron so I will take that up if I possibly can.
I'm happy to facilitate discussions between you and [Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt] to have the discussions you want. We take this issue very seriously. We think the responsibility deal has achieved great things but there is more to be done.
• Cameron has said he will consider claims that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is not working properly. He was responding to the Labour MP David Lammy at PMQs. Lammy said there was an urgent need to reform the IPCC.
• Tristram Hunt, the shadow education secretary, has said that under Labour plans every school in England and Wales would have a teacher dedicated to maintaining order.
• Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Ofsted chief inspector, has said it is a "national scandal" that around two-fifths of teachers leave the profession within five years despite massive investment in training. He made the comment in a speech to the North of England Education Conference in Nottingham.
If you talk to a lot of headteachers, they would have the same reservations as I have today. How many times have heads said to me that their trainees had been tutored by people with little or no up-to-date school experience or a record of outstanding teaching? How many times have I heard that trainees have been sent into schools without proper guidance on professional behaviour or dress? How many times have I heard trainees say that they had no idea what 'good' looked like because they had been sent into schools that did not employ good practice? Even worse, how many times have I heard that, once their training was complete, newly qualified teachers (NQTs) were left to flounder because they received little or no support from senior and middle leaders?
It is a national scandal that we invest so much in teacher training and yet an estimated 40% of new entrants leave within five years. We will be much tougher on providers as well as with schools that don't adequately support those new to the profession.
• Jeremy Paxman has accused education secretary Michael Gove of "wilfully misquoting" a Cambridge University professor in a row about the first world war and its portrayal in Blackadder.
• José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, has suggested that Britain, not the EU, is to blame if EU migrants are abusing the benefits system in this country. He made the comment in a speech to the European Parliament.
Contrary to impressions created recently in national debates, [free movement] is not a freedom without rules. If there is an abuse of free movement the member states are not only entitled, they have the duty to act.
• Justine Greening, the international development secretary, has told a UN conference that Britain will provide another £100m of aid for the victims of Syria's civil war.
• Birmingham council has revealed it is considering selling off land and property to help pay a £1bn bill to settle thousands of equal pay cases.
• The Ministry of Defence has been named most improved employer of the year in an annual list of the most gay-friendly organisations in the UK. As the Press Association reports, the MI5, the Army and the Royal Navy also featured in the report by Stonewall, the charity that campaigns for lesbian, gay and bisexual equal rights.
That's all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
And here's a round-up of what bloggers are saying about PMQs.
• Mark Ferguson at LabourList says Ed Miliband's calm approach to PMQs is not working.
Miliband, meanwhile, was left to leave the chamber wondering whether or not a new, calmer approach to PMQs can be sustained. The answer is a certain no, unless he wants to get used to this losing feeling. A calmer PMQs only works if both sides adopt it. A truce is only a truce if everyone plays ball. You can no more have half a truce that you can be a bit pregnant.
The problem Miliband faces is that he's not especially good at shouting, yelling and wild gesticulation either. Nearly three and a half years into his time as opposition leader, Miliband still doesn't seem to have hit upon the right way of performing consistently well – despite some fleeting periods of PMQs-dominance. Regardless of how trivial PMQs has become, that's still a real concern. And one that needs to be addressed quickly. There are general election debates coming, after all…
• And James Forsyth at Coffee House agrees.
Today's PMQs has left Ed Miliband with a strategic headache. Miliband's new less-Punch and Judy approach to PMQs isn't working. In large part, this is because Cameron — who thinks he wins more of these sessions than he loses and that the facts on the ground now favour him — isn't interested in cooperating. So Miliband is faced with the choice of continuing with this approach and being beaten up every Wednesday or abandoning it after just two sessions.
• George Eaton at the New Statesman says Cameron won.
When Miliband returned to his feet a few minutes later, after splitting his questions, his luck got no better. He noted that there were sites with planning permission where "a quarter of a million homes" could be built, before correcting this to "250,000". When Cameron rose, he pounced on this tautology with ruthless efficiency, declaring "we just had a demonstration of the grasp of maths at the Treasury". After that, Miliband never recovered, with Cameron loftily dismissing his questions on landbanking.
• Kiran Stacey at the FT's Westminster blog says Miliband was defeated "by a mix of clever announcements and old-fashioned aggression".
• John Rentoul at the Independent says Siobhain McDonagh asked the best Labour question.
The only Labour MP to land a blow was Siobhain McDonagh, Blairite Central, who prefaced her question by saying that most people did not know that the Government plans to make applicants for the police force pay a £1,000 fee to sign up. She called it a "bobby tax" and asked if the Prime Minister agreed that it was wrong, decades after having abolished the purchase of commissions in the armed forces, to reintroduce it for the police.
Cameron was discomfited, muttered something about a College of Policing to turn the force into a profession and said that the Home Secretary would get back to McDonagh about it.
I give the "bobby tax" about a week. On style, Cameron won. On substance, McDonagh put him flat on his back.
• Andrew Gimson at ConservativeHome says PMQs allowed David Cameorn to introduce a new character - Oltep.
The truth about Oltep turns out to be less interesting. Oltep is an abbreviation. The letters stand for Our Long-Term Economic Plan. Mr Cameron referred over and over again to the wonders of Oltep, and so did just about everyone on the Tory side who asked a question.
The Lib Dems have just announced that they will not be taking action against Lord Rennard over allegations that he sexually pestered women.
Here is the start of Rowena Mason's story.
The Liberal Democrats will not take any disciplinary action against Lord Rennard, the party's former chief executive, who was accused of sexually pestering women.
Alistair Webster, a QC appointed to look at the evidence as part of a disciplinary process, found that the peer ought to apologise and commit to changing his behaviour, which may have caused "distress" to women, but that there was not sufficient evidence that he had acted in a sexually inappropriate way. Rennard has always vigorously denied acting inappropriately towards the complainants.
PMQs - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat
Here's what journalists have been saying about PMQs on Twitter. I have been looking at journalists I monitor who posted a tweet including "PMQs".
These are the tweets from political journalists who thought David Cameron won, or who suggested that Cameron had the upper hand.
I could not find any tweets from people who thought Ed Miliband came out on top.
Here are other comments people have been making.
Javid says Labour plan to use the bank levy to fund numerous policies.
Labour's old policy was to stick their head in the sand. Their new policy is to stick their head in the clouds, he says.
He urges MPs to reject the proposal.
And that's it. Javid has finished.
I'll post a summary soon.
A Labour MP asks if Javid has a view on what the maximum bonus should be. And does he have a view on the bonuses at Chase Manhattan Bank.
Javid says even Labour does not have a view on what the maximum bonus should be . And, as fare as he is aware, the Chase Manhattan Banks does not exist any more.
Chris Leslie asks what the government will do if RBS asks to pay bonuses worth more than 100%.
Javid says the government has not received a request yet. If it does receive such a request, it will decide what is in the best interest of taxpayers.
Javid says the government understands the depth of public anger on pay.
Bonuses are down 85% from their peak in 2008.
New rules have been introduced.Significant parts of bonuses have to be paid in shares, or deferred, so there is a better link to performance.
And bonuses can be clawed back.
Bonus pools at most large banks have declined.
Labour's Huw Irranca-Davies asks why, when constituents, MPs and ministers are having to accept pay restraints, bankers are exempt.
Javid says he will address this later.
He says there were 10 big banks when Labour came to power.
But Labour allowed them to merge.
Javid says the government set up the Vickers commission. And it passed the Banking Reform Act to implement its recommendations.
The Act introduced a bail-in tool. That means creditors and shareholders are first in line to pay the cost of banking failures.
Many MPs have been appalled by the poor behaviour of some in the industry, he says.
These poor practices, like PPI mis-selling, were taking place when Ed Balls was in office, he suggests.
Javid says he will say something Labour is afraid of saying: we need successful banks, he says.
And the government needs the taxes that the banks and their employees pay. That amounted to £60bn last year, he says.
Jesse Norman, a Conservative, says the banks had the same level of leverage for 40 years. Then it went up by two and a half times under Labour.
Javid says that is a good point.
Javid says that when Ed Balls was City minister in 2006, he said nothing should be done to put Britain's "light-touch, risk-based regulatory regime" at risk.
Harriet Baldwin, a Conservative, says it has been reported that Labour will impose quotas on the share of the market that banks can own. Has this been tried elsewhere?
Javid says he does not know if this has been tried elsewhere, except perhaps in Soviet Russia.
Labour's Lyn Brown asks Javid if he ever received a 100% bonus when he was a banker.
Javid says Labour seem to be saying it is wrong to have ministers with financial experience in the Treasury.
Javid says Labour has admitted that it got it wrong on immigration and education.
He hoped they would admit they got it wrong on banks. But they haven't.
City bonuses surged to an all-time high under Labour.
In 2008 over £12bn was paid on bonuses, he says.
Leslie has finished.
Sajid Javid, the financial secretary to the Treasury, is replying.
Leslie turns to the "continued dominance of the big five banks".
There needs to be more competition, he says. There has to be a whole-hearted shift in the number of banks, not a half-hearted one, he says.
Therese Coffey, a Conservative, says it has been reported Labour wants to force banks to sell off branches. That is worrying people in rural areas who fear branches will close, she says.
Leslie says this is not about closing branches.
The customer needs better service, he says.
There is still no obligation on banks to provide people with a basic bank account.
And it is not clear whether the seven-day bank switching system will work.
Banks are an essential utility, he says.
Leslie says the government's bank bonus has raised £2.1bn less than promised.
Kwasi Kwarteng, a Conservative, asks what Labour did about bank bonuses.
Leslie says Labour introduced a bank bonus levy.
Labour's Chris Williamson asks Leslie if he has seen the briefing note from the British Bankers Association about today's debate. It says no other industry is subject to "such influental pay supervision".
Leslie mocks the idea that people getting a 100% salary as bonus are hard up.
The government has rejected Labour calls for bankers to face an independent licensing regime, he says.
Even though lending to SMEs has been falling month after month, the government has ditched Project Merlin, he says.
The government's half-hearted attempt at a business bank is not up and running, he says.
Leslie says the government has a complacent desire to move on from banking reform.
They are pretending that Labour spending on schools and hospitals caused the global recession.
The banks have not been made to pay for their "egregious" abuses. Ministers want to blame Labour, instead of upsetting their corporate friends.
They have the wrong analysis, which is why they have the wrong policies.
They have failed to ensure that in future taxpayers will not have to pick up the tab for banking failures, he says.
Leslie says ministers still have not grasped the need to reform banks.
Most constituents would say bonuses need to be for good or excellent performance, he says, not for ordinary performance.
Jesse Norman, a Conservative member of the Treasury committee, asks Leslie if he agrees banking supervision was too lax under Labour.
Leslie says he and Norman differ. Leslie says he does not accept that the government has finished the job of banking reform.
Leslie says Labour would repeat the bank bonus tax.
The government says curbing bonuses will just lead to pay going up, he says.
But bankers' pay needs to be more transparent. And it needs to be sustainable.
It is a mistake for the government to sue the EU to try to stop the bonus cap coming in, he says.
Leslie says that George Osborne promised in opposition to curb bank bonuses.
Labour have been tweeting the quote.
He says Sajid Javid, the Treasury minister responding to him, used to be a banker. Perhaps he will say what his bonus was, Leslie suggests.
Leslie says Cameron gave the impression at PMQs that he was going to veto higher pay and bonuses.
RBS has been cutting the number of bankers on its books by about 2,000.
As a result, you would expect the pay bill to fall.
The government must say whether it will allow people earning more than £400,000 at the bank to receive bonuses worth more than 100% of salary.
Labour's Huw Irranca-Davies says his constituents cannot understand why bankers are under no legal or moral obligation to curb their bonuses.
Leslie agrees.
Chris Leslie says this is the bonus season for bankers.
One survey showed bonuses going up by 44%.
Another survey found that last year there wre 2,671 bankers in Britain earning more than £800,000. That is more than in the rest of the EU put together.
Sammy Wilson, the DUP MP, says bonuses are still sometimes twice as high as salary.
Leslie says the government is trying to give the impression that it is tackling bonuses.
But it will have to decide what to do about RBS.
Surely the Treasury will not cast its shareholder vote to allow RBS to pay bonuses of more than 100%.
MPs debate bank bonuses
MPs are now starting their debate on bank bonuses.
Chris Leslie, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, is opening the debate.
Here is the Labour motion.
That this House believes that Government reforms have failed to deliver a competitive banking system which serves the interests of consumers or the needs of businesses and the British economy; is concerned that customers have limited choice and low levels of trust and confidence in the banking market; is disappointed that recent legislation has fallen short of the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking which called for action to diversify the sector and ensure that major new banking service providers are created; believes that banker remuneration remains unacceptably high; regrets the fact that it has taken the EU to act to rein in excessive bonuses in Britain in the absence of domestic action, but believes that the Government as a majority shareholder in RBS should not approve any request to increase the cap; and calls on the Government to prevent a return to business-as-usual in the banking sector, which continues to require real reform and competition so that the UK can earn its way out of the cost of living crisis.
My PMQs Verdict
PMQs Verdict: That was not quite as subdued as last week, but Ed Miliband was definitely adopting a different strategy from the one he used to follow in the past. He has not given up party politics, but he chose to fight with sensible, specific questions only, instead of padding out his interventions with mocking, rhetorical soundbites designed to sound impressive on the TV news. Personally, I liked it (I think politics is a grown-up undertaking, and I like it when politicians acknowledge that), but did it work? I'm not really sure it did. The gravitational pull of the confrontation, yah-boo bear pit is very strong and, although Cameron was probably not quite as aggressive as normal, his verbal duffing up of Miliband sounded effective. It felt like a win for him.
On the other hand, though, people outside Westmister may quite like Miliband's new mature approach. At this stage it is hard to know what the final verdict will be.
Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative, says Miliband has said that what Francois Hollande is doing in France, he wants to do in the UK.
Cameron says Hollande is now proposing to cut taxes to make business more competitive. He hopes Ed Balls will follow his example.
And that's it.
I'll post a quick PMQs verdict soon, and then pick up the opening of the bank bonus debate.
Labour's Jack Straw says he supports fracking, but that he thinks the amount offered to communities where it takes place is derisory.
Cameron says people are asking for 10% of profits to go to the community. But 1% of profits can be more. He visited a fracking site on Monday. That went ahead without any community benefit at all.
Simon Hart, a Conservative, asks if Cameron watches Benefits Street. There is a street like that in every constituency, he says.
Cameron says he has only seen a bit of the programme. The government must make work pay. But the programme also shows that some families need support.
Naomi Long, the Alliance MP, asks if Cameron supports the Hass proposals in Northern Ireland.
Cameron says he hopes all sides in Northern Ireland will take them forward.
Cameron says Labour are hiding the shadow chancellor. They won't let him speak on the RBS issue, or in the banking debate today.
Siobhain McDonagh says people joining the police have to pay £1,000 for a certificate. This is like charging for commissions in the army in the last century.
Cameron says people have to pay something to the College of Policing as part of the government's efforts to professionalise policing. But he will ask the Home Office to take this up.
Cameron says the government should look at ensuring that parishes and individuals can benefit from fracking in their area.
Labour's Pat McFadden asks again about Amritsar massacre. British Sikhs are very concerned about the recent revelations. This is an open wound that will not heal until the truth come sout. Will Cameron ensure full disclosure of all relevant papers. And will there be a statement in the Commons?
Cameron says he agrees with McFadden about the hurt caused by the massacre. He has visited the Amritsar temple, he says. A statement in the Commons when the inquiry reports might be the right approach, he says.
Tom Watson, the Labour MP, asks about the Amritsar massacre. Why doesn't Cameron just ask Geoffrey Howe? And could the Thatcher's government's decision have had anything to do with the Westland affair.
Cameron says that sounds like a conspiracy theory too far. He hopes the inquiry will conclude quickly.
Snap PMQs Verdict: A defeat (possibly permanent) for Miliband's sensible, no-sloganising approach. He adopted a low-key approach, and quite successfully exposed Cameron's inability to answer key questions on RBS bonuses and Labour's housing policy, but, while he was happy to eschew the aggressive polemic, Cameron wasn't - and he sounded the more triumphant.
Miliband says Labour councils are building more homes than Tory ones. He says he is still no clearer whether or not Cameron supports the "use it or lose it policy". Does Cameron accept that we are building 100,000 too few homes to meet need.
Cameron says Miliband is jumping all over the place. Inflation is coming down. We have a government with an economic plan, and an opposition that hasn't got a clue.
Ed Miliband says there are sites all over the country with planning permission, where 250,000 homes could be built. Labour is in favour of a "use it or lose it" threat to developers. Cameron said that was mad. Does he agree?
(Miliband stumbled over the number.)
Cameron says that shows Labour's grasp of numbers. House building is going up.
Miliband says house building is at its lowest level since 1924. Boris Johnson supports the "use it or lose it" policy. So is it nuts?
Cameron says the government should carry on with its policy. There as been a 16% increase in housing starts. Labour shadow ministers oppose the government's planning reforms. And they oppose Help to Buy. Why not force Labour councils to sell council homes?
Daniel Kawczynski, a Conservative, asks about the economy in Shrewsbury.
Cameron says there has been a revolution in business.
Labour's Cathy Jamieson asks if the public will be put at risk when Tpims expire?
Cameron says the government will do everything necessary to keep the public safe.
It is a myth to think that the control order regime worked perfectly, he says.
Andrew Bingham, a Conservative, asks about the regional growth fund.
Cameron says it has played a valuable role.
Labour's David Lammy says the Mark Duggan inquest found errors in the police investigation. And PC Wallace admitted he lied about plebgate. Does Cameron agree it is urgent to reform the IPCC?
Cameron says there is an ongoing investigation into the Duggan case. There was a big reform of the IPCC recently. He is happy to look at this again. The Wallace case was "deeply troubling and deeply disturbing". But the vast majority of officers do a wonderful job.
Miliband is splitting his questions. He has sat down now.
Miliband says he is not asking about that. He is asking about paying more than 100% bonuses. RBS are making a loss. These bonuses lead to risky decisons. A bonus of £1m is quite enough.
Cameron says if Miliband is not asking about total pay, he should be. The total pay bill at RBS will come down. Labour introduced the biggest bust. Miliband comes here to complain about problems created by Labour. Last week it was gambing. This week it is banking. Miliband has all the authority of Rev Flowers.
Ed Miliband asks if it would be acceptable for RBS to allow bonuses to be paid of more than 100% of salary.
Cameron says the government has acted on bonuses. There will be limits on cash bonuses at RBS.
Miliband asks if Cameron will drop the idea for bonuses worth more than 100% of salary.
Cameron says the government will veto an increase in pay bills at RBS.
Henry Smith, a Conservative, asks what the government is doing to help commuters.
Cameron says there has been major investment in the south east. Between 2015 and 2020, the government is planning to invest £56bn in transport. That is three times as much as in HS2.
Labour's Keith Vaz asks about the Action on Sugar campaign to reduce the sugar content of food by up to 30%. Will Cameron discuss this with a delegation of experts, and will he give up sugar and sugary drinks for one day?
Cameron says his wife would approve of the last idea, and so he may take it up.He commends Vaz for his work campaigning on this. He will set up a meeting with Jeremy Hunt.
David Cameron takes PMQs
PMQs will be starting in five minutes.
We'll find out whether Ed Miliband is going to try a repeat of his attempt to introduce a kinder, gentler PMQs.
Here's a blog that Newsnight's Emily Maitlis wrote about it last week. And here's an excerpt.
Today I was told the "sombre and serious tone" was being "tried out" - on merit and will depend on how it is received by David Cameron.
There has been no mutual agreement, there has been no time scale set - they're playing it by ear to "see how it goes".
Ed Miliband has - I understand - wanted to do this for some time, but the combination of the New Year and the poor tone at the end of last year has spurred him on.
The public might thank him for this - if it collectively even notices. But the press gallery probably wont.
And Business for Britain, the Eurosceptic business group pushing for EU reform, is saying much the same. Here is Matthew Elliott, its chief executive.
We fully support the Chancellor in his push to reform the EU and his pursuit of treaty change, however we will very shortly need to start seeing the detail of what changes the Government would like to make.
The prime minister's Business Taskforce proposed exempting micro-businesses from various single market regulations, and the prime minister himself has spoken about his desire to remove certain EU employment laws from organisations like the NHS.
Business for Britain hope that the gvernment will consider the British Option - freeing the businesses that don't trade in the EU from EU regulations - as a simple and achievable blueprint for retaining access to the single market whilst helping to make Britain's vital SMEs more competitive in the global race.
John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, says, in response to George Osborne's speech, that the government needs to set out more details of the EU reforms it wants to achieve.
The chancellor is right to say that the status quo is not a viable option – that the challenge of reforming the eurozone will lead to institutional change with potential implications for non-euro countries within the EU. Our polling evidence has consistently shown that businesses are pragmatic and back the plan for renegotiation and reform, but we must be as mindful of the future as we are of renegotiating the past.
The chancellor has set out a strong case for reform, but it has been a year since the prime minister announced his intentions on Europe, and we are still yet to learn what areas he will seek to negotiate. Firms want action on areas such as employment and health and safety laws, but also more information, so that they can plan ahead to invest and explore international markets both within and outside the EU.
Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, has put out a response to the Osborne speech. Here's an excerpt.
Once again we have the Conservatives talking about EU reform, and once again their claims are utter bunkum. The cat is already out of the bag; the Prime Minister has repeatedly asserted that his intention is to keep the UK in the EU in order to try to reform it from the inside. Yet he has seen over the past year, since his ill fated Bloomberg speech, that every time he tried to push for a little change, he simply gets swept aside by the EU juggernaut.
The Conservatives are not going to get re-elected with a majority next year so we can wave goodbye to that referendum pledge, even if anyone trusted another David Cameron referendum pledge. The EU is not going to suddenly turn around and be dictated to by a man with only 15 months left as Prime Minister and who has repeatedy caved in to their demands and given away any leverage in the negotiations he may have had by declaring his support for EU membership.
Gary Gibbon has written an interesting post about the Osborne speech for his Channel 4 News blog. Here's an extract.
The PM's renegotiation-followed-by-referendum strategy is based on a premise of a renegotiation opportunity happening.
This speech is part of the on-going attempt to try to explode the massive road-block in its way: an existential fear of treaties amongst many member countries who fear they cannot get a treaty past national electorates in referenda that could be used to reject whatever it was the sitting government in an age of austerity wanted to get passed.
But the resistance is real, the fear existential and today served notice of a fight that is in no way won yet.
One EU ambassador who was at the speech said afterwards that there was "no chance whatsoever of a treaty being completed by 2017," the timescale in David Cameron's plan for a post-treaty negotiation referendum.
He said he'd love to have asked the chancellor what he'd do if there was no completed renegotiation by 2017 – postpone the referendum or go ahead and vote to come out? Alas, he wasn't called to ask it.
George Osborne's speech - Summary and analysis
It would be a mistake to describe George Osborne's speech as "pro-European", but hardline Tory Eurosceptics will be disappointed and it is hard to think of any senior minister who has taken a more constructive stance towards the EU recently than, well, perhaps Ken Clarke. Chris Grayling, this wasn't. Overnight the Treasury released extracts from the speech showing that Osborne would deliver a stark "reform or we quit" message to the UK. And it was in there; the language about the European way of life being under threat was strong. But, when you get the chance to read the full text, you realise that this was tempered by plenty of comments that were rather positive about EU developments. Osborne repeatedly singled out other reform-minded EU member states, like Germany, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark, and diplomatically avoided naming others that have been less supportive. His speech said virtually nothing about the constitutional objections to the EU that lie at the heart of Tory Euroscepticism. (See 9.25am.) And, crucially, he kept stressing that it was possible for Britain to reform the EU from within - because that was already happening. For example:
Now there are those who throw their hands up and say "we can't reform Europe, it can't be done, it's all too hard", I say "we've already proved you wrong".
Again, for those who say reform isn't possible – we've been more successful in starting to deal with [the problems facing the Eurozone] than some people expected.
People said we would not be able to secure a new voting system, that it was impossible. But we did.
Although he did not rule out Britain leaving the EU, it would be hard to identify anything in the speech that suggests that this is an outcome he desires. In broad terms, the speech does not change the Conservative's party policy towards Europe at all. But it might go someway towards persuading those who study these matters closely (ie, other EU ministers) that David Cameron's party is not quite as hostile towards the EU as some might think.
I have quoted large chunks of the speech already. Here are the top lines.
• Osborne said the European way of life was under threat.
The hard truth is that if we want to maintain our way of life in Europe we've got to get more competitive. And that's going to require some tough steps: living within our means, making our labour markets competitive, expanding free trade.
• He said Britain had already shown that it was possible to reform the EU from within.
• He said EU treaty change was essential because the existing treaties were not fit for purpose. In Britain this should be followed be a referendum, he said.
[The British people] are rightly suspicious that the one thing that unites those who urge Britain to join the Euro and those who advocate leaving is their shared conviction that any change is impossible, and that there is no other way.
There is another way.
It is to change the EU and to change Britain's relationship with it, and then to place the decision in the hands of the British people: do you want to stay in a reformed Europe, or would you prefer to leave?
• He said the EU should extend the free market and press ahead with the US/EU free trade deal. On the free market, he said he was "attracted" by the proposal from the Open Europe thinktank for countries to be allowed to press ahead with extending the free market on their own, without EU-wide agreement, if they wanted (so-called enhanced cooperation).
• He said Britain was increasingly taking the European Commission to court, not on anti-EU grounds, but because it was defending the principles of EU law.
Far from being unthinkingly anti-European, we are using the European court to enforce European principles of non-discrimination and adherence to European law.
He also said it was wrong to think of Britain as "always the member state arguing for less activity or blocking things" in the EU.
• He criticised those who want to use the Edward Snowden revelations about US spying to hold up the US/EU free trade deal.
Some in the European Parliament talk about stalling this Trans-Atlantic Partnership to pursue other agendas.
But when a quarter of young people looking for work in Europe are unemployed, this would be a complete betrayal.
• He said "strong feelings" about Europe should not allowed to cloud a judgment about Britain's economic interests.
Feelings run high on both sides of the argument – that is understandable.
But strong feeling must never be allowed to cloud clear judgement about where this country's real long term economic interests lie.
You could read this either way, but to me it sounded like an argument against those wanting Britain to leave the EU.
I missed some of the Osborne Q&A. But here are some tweets about what he said after BBC News and Sky switched away.
Here's the CBI's response to George Osborne's speech. It's from Katja Hall, the CBI's chief policy director.
The benefits to the UK of the EU single market far outweigh the costs and it remains fundamental to future growth and jobs.
The chancellor sets out a compelling case for reform to ensure Europe stays competitive. We need an EU that is more open and outward looking and must protect UK influence as the Eurozone integrates.
A growing EU is in the UK's national interest so we must build alliances with other member states to get the reforms we need.
Labour has issued a response to the speech. This is from Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary.
The Conservative leadership seems to be spending more time negotiating with their backbenchers than negotiating with Europe to deliver real reform.
All of us know change in Europe is needed, but the tragedy is that David Cameron's internal party weakness is preventing him from approaching the need for reform in a sensible way.
A year on from his Bloomberg speech, David Cameron's approach to the EU has been shown to be not just bad policy, but also a bad party management strategy, with nearly half of his own backbenchers just this week demanding more.
Instead of threatening exit, David Cameron and George Osborne should be focused on delivering reform in Europe. Reform in Europe not exit from Europe represents the right road for Britain.
Osborne is still taking questions, but BBC News and Sky have cut away.
I will post some reaction and a summary very soon.
Q: [From a Swedish Young Christian Democract] Can you elaborate on how you would like to change the EU budget?
Osborne says in negotiations you have to focus on the main thing you want to achieve. Cutting the budget was the main thing for Britain, he says. Then you look at where the money goes. Spending 40% of the money on agriculture is just the wrong priority for Europe. Some big science projects are too expensive for a single country. That is the kind of thing the EU should be focusing on. Some progress was made, because the science budget went up.
There are "blatant abuses" and some of the decisions are a "total waste of money", he says. For example, it is wrong to have the European parliament meeting in two locations.
Osborne is now taking questions.
Q: [From the director of Open Europe, Berlin] There is a growing appetite for EU reform in Berlin. How will you work with EU partners to promote increased competitiveness?
Osborne says the government works hard at its European relationships, particularly with Germany. He says he was trying to make the point in this speech that these alliances have worked well. David Lidington, the Europe minister, is the first Europe minister to have been to every EU member state, he says.
The eurozone, and especially Germany, understand that there has to be treaty change to put the euro on a solid foundation.
Britain wants treaty change too, he says.
And here is the final passage.
The biggest economic risk facing Europe doesn't come from those who want reform and renegotiation - it comes from a failure to reform and renegotiate.
It is the status quo which condemns the people of Europe to an ongoing economic crisis and continuing decline.
And so there is a simple choice for Europe: reform or decline.
Our determination is clear: to deliver the reform, and then to let the people decide.
And that's exactly what we will do.
Osborne is now summing up.
Let me recap:
Europe urgently needs economic reform.
Eurozone integration is necessary if the euro is to survive
But proper legal protection for the rights of non-euro members is also absolutely necessary - to preserve the single market and make it possible for Britain to remain in the EU.
I believe it is in no-one's interest for Britain to come to face a choice between joining the euro or leaving the EU.
We do not want to join the euro. But also our withdrawal from a Europe we'd succeeded in reforming would be bad for Britain.
And a country of the size and global reach of the UK leaving would be very bad for the whole of the EU.
Let us not shy away from robust democratic argument on a subject that goes to the heart of our own national interest.
Feelings run high on both sides of the argument – that is understandable.
But strong feeling must never be allowed to cloud clear judgement about where this country's real long term economic interests lie.
It is clear what the British people want.
They refuse to accept that we just have to take the EU as it is – that one size must fit all, that change is impossible, that reform is doomed.
Nor do they accept that the only course open to us is to pack up and leave, to abandon the single market and the common rules from which we benefit, and to walk away.
They are rightly suspicious that the one thing that unites those who urge Britain to join the Euro and those who advocate leaving is their shared conviction that any change is impossible, and that there is no other way.
There is another way.
It is to change the EU and to change Britain's relationship with it, and then to place the decision in the hands of the British people: do you want to stay in a reformed Europe, or would you prefer to leave?
Osborne says there is some support in Europe for this.
We are not the first to recognise this. The new German coalition agreement states "we will adapt the Treaty bases of the Economic and Monetary Union". Enrico Letta has also talked about Treaty change.
There is potential common ground here.
Osborne says the euro should be put on a firm foundation.
The euro has to be put on firmer foundations, for the crisis in the Eurozone may have abated, but the contradictions it revealed are not yet resolved. We should use this moment of relative tranquillity in markets to build those foundations for the future.
And wider EU reform is needed too, he says.
And that's why the questions thrown up by Eurozone integration are inevitably linked to the wider reform negotiations that I touched on at the start.
Ultimately I don't think we will be able to maintain this approach of patching things up as we go along with contorted legal innovations and short term fixes.
We are taking a great risk with the future economic security of Europe if we do so.
Instead of make-do-and-mend, we should make the Treaties fit for purpose.
But more reform is needed, Osborne says.
We are achieving more
But this isn't enough.
What is becoming clearer, as Eurozone integration increases, is that we are now at a point where we are stretching the EU institutional architecture to its limits. We risk going beyond what is legally possible or politically sustainable.
The European Treaties are not fit for purpose. They didn't anticipate a European Union where some countries would pursue dramatically deeper integration than others.
Rather than face up to the truth, those in Brussels are being forced into legal gymnastics as they try to stretch the existing Treaties to fit a situation they were not designed for.
Osborne says Britain has not always been trying to block proposals in Brussels.
It is not the case that the UK is always the member state arguing for less activity or blocking things. We've led the way on financial services regulation and ringfencing our banks – and we have the most stringent capital and liquidity rules in Europe.
Nor are we "sitting on the sidelines."
We have been active in fighting our corner, building alliances and winning arguments in Brussels.
For example we ensured that the so-called "Hedge Fund Directive" protected the single market with passporting rights for EU players that meet the rules. This was against opposition from others to keep markets closed.
We're now fighting for the opening up of the derivatives market, to bring competition and better value to European customers.
We have achieved a lot.
And the fourth challenge was about bail-outs, Osborne says.
And lastly, on the whole issue of 'ins' versus 'outs', we inherited a situation where the previous government accepted that the UK and other non-euro Member States would be liable for contributing to the costs of Eurozone bailouts.
That was completely unacceptable.
So another principle this government has established, thanks to the very hard negotiating of the Prime Minister, is that the UK and other non-euro members will not pay for European bailouts alongside the new European Stability Mechanism.
Third, we've had problems with accountability and transparency and basic policy discipline in some European institutions.
The Commission's legislative proposal on the financial transaction tax, for example, was contradicted by its own original impact assessment which showed that the policy would reduce EU GDP.
And then there's the European rules on bonuses, with their damaging consequences and perverse incentives for the big salary rises we're starting to see.
To establish the right principles, we have been taking an increasing number of cases to the ECJ - which is not something that we do lightly.
Osborne says this is not an anti-European stance.
Far from being unthinkingly anti-European, we are using the European court to enforce European principles of non-discrimination and adherence to European law.
We have a good argument in all these cases. The ECJ's advocate general, and the Council Legal Services have on separate occasions both agreed with key UK arguments. We await final judgement.
Osborne turns to the second challenge.
We've had problems with discriminatory treatment of non-eurozone Member States.
A clear example is the European Central Bank's policy of forcing clearing houses with large euro-based transactions to move to the eurozone.
How can we say there is an EU wide single market if we say that certain businesses can only locate in certain member states?
That's why we're taking the European Central Bank to the European Court of Justice.
And that's why alongside double majority voting, we fought hard for and secured a new binding legal provision in the Single Supervision Mechanism regulations to prevent discrimination against financial services providers based on their location within the EU.
Osborne says protecting British interests has not been easy.
There have been four challenges, he says.
First there is a danger that the euro members could start to use their collective voting weight in the EU to effectively write the rules for the whole EU by Qualified Majority Vote.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, from 2016, the Eurogroup on its own will have sufficient votes to pass any financial services legislation for the whole of the EU.
That's a problem because it could leave us in a position where euro members – including ones with little or no financial services industry – can caucus together to impose financial services legislation on the UK –the world's leading financial centre.
And we've already started to see the Eurogroup discussing EU directives privately before involving other member states – like they did over the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive last June.
It means there's a very real risk that badly thought through legislation will be imposed on the UK.
And as the Chancellor of a country where financial services represent a tenth of the economy, and employ more than a million people, I could not let that happen.
Osborne says he had to fight hard for new rules to address this.
It was a long hard fight, but we negotiated in the ECOFIN and European Council a whole new voting system – the so called "double majority" system – which will apply in the European Banking Authority.
Double majority voting means that legal proposals now require a majority of both eurozone and non-eurozone countries to pass.
People said we would not be able to secure a new voting system, that it was impossible.
But we did.
But, as eurozone integration goes ahead, Britain needs to protect its self-interest, Osborne says.
We have been clear from the outset that in return for this integration, non euro members like the UK would need safeguards to protect their rights and interests.
Some on the continent like to assume this is just the UK pursuing its own self-interest, at the expense of the collective good.
But it's the opposite.
If we cannot protect the collective interests of non-eurozone member states then they will have to choose between joining the euro, which the UK will not do, or leaving the EU.
Osborne turns to the eurozone.
Everyone is now aware of the problems of trying to run a currency union without fiscal and political union, he says.
Three years ago I predicted that that the economic crisis in the eurozone would force the "remorseless logic" of monetary union towards greater fiscal and economic integration, including a banking union.
Even as late as 2011 that was regarded as a controversial prediction.
I also said that this loss of national control, and the loss of economic flexibility, was precisely why I didn't want to see the UK in the euro.
But since then the Eurozone has started to work through that remorseless logic. Creating the Banking Union, the European Stability Mechanism to bail out Eurozone countries and now the proposed the Single Resolution Mechanism to bail out Eurozone banks.
And the UK has not blocked them.
We could have blocked crucial parts of the Banking Union, but we didn't.
That's because we want the euro to work. Work for those in Europe who use it, and work for us, because an unstable euro on our doorstep has already done great damage to jobs and growth in Britain.
Osborne says he would like to extend the single market.
We need to stop talking about completing the Single Market in services, energy and digital, and get on with it.
I remember sitting around the ECOFIN table nearly four years ago and listening to Mario Monti present his "Report on the Future of the Single Market"
It offered a detailed plan for boosting the Single Market. On the services sector alone, it estimated we could boost GDP by up to 1½ per cent.
And it was agreed by the EU.
But four years on, what has come of it? Precious little.
We need to come up with innovative ideas to overcome the vested interests that are holding back progress in this area.
Personally I'm attracted to Open Europe's thoughts on using enhanced cooperation to allow a smaller group of Member States to move forward toward trade liberalisation in areas like services among themselves if not all EU member states can agree.
If enhanced cooperation can be used by others to create expensive job destroying ideas like a Financial Transaction Tax, why don't we think about using it for job creating measures that others oppose?
But action to improve competitiveness is needed at an EU level too, he says.
Now there are those who throw their hands up and say "we can't reform Europe, it can't be done, it's all too hard", I say "we've already proved you wrong".
Take the EU Budget.
Last year, the Prime Minister negotiated the first ever real terms cut to the EU budget.
For the first time, EU spending is not going up but coming down.
The EU is also tackling bureaucracy, he says.
The UK, drawing on the findings of our business taskforce, has proposed a programme for cutting red tape in Europe that has secured the support of 13 other Member States and the European Parliament.
And it is promoting free trade.
Britain was one of the strongest promoters of the recent trade deals with Canada, Singapore and Korea. The Canada deal alone will be worth £1.3 billion pounds to Britain.
Reducing the budget, tackling red tape, some free trade agreements - this is a good beginning, but it's not nearly enough.
We need to be much, much bolder.
We should set ourselves the urgent task of completing the transatlantic trade and investment partnership – the EU-US Free Trade agreement.
This would be the world's biggest ever trade deal – together our economies would account for half of global output.
The Commission estimate it would boost the European economy by 120 billion euros a year – that's over 500 euros for every family in the EU. It would bring £10 billion pounds a year to the UK alone.
Some in the European Parliament talk about stalling this Trans-Atlantic Partnership to pursue other agendas.
But when a quarter of young people looking for work in Europe are unemployed, this would be a complete betrayal.
Osborne says some EU countries are also reforming.
Many of our neighbours have also taken tough decisions in recent years. We in Britain should praise them for it, not dismiss them.
Germany led the way a decade ago with its employment and welfare reforms.
Unemployment has halved since, and remains half the European average.
Spain is undertaking radical labour market reforms that are now yielding real results.
Sweden has reformed its education and welfare systems.
Osborne says most of the action in the EU will have to be taken at a domestic level. He is not here to "lecture" other EU states about what they must do, he says.
Not least because the UK has had to take more action than most.
When I entered office three and a half years ago, we had just suffered one of the sharpest falls in national output, and faced the highest budget deficit of any major western economy – higher than Spain or Portugal, and much higher than Italy or France.
Indeed, our budget deficit has fallen a lot but is still one of the highest in Europe.
That is why the government acted to cut the deficit, he says.
Osborne raises Europe's scientific past.
This is the continent that for centuries led the world in innovation and scientific discovery, enterprise and work ethic. Are we to say that the Europe that gave us Galileo, Darwin and Marie Curie, the industrial revolution, democracy and the free economy, has given up on the future because it is all too difficult?
As a father of two young children, I don't want to turn to them as we see the latest Chinese scientific breakthrough or Indian innovation and say: "that used to be us. That used to be Europe."
Osborne turns to changes in the global economy.
We knew there was a competitiveness problem in Europe before the crisis. But the crisis has dramatically accelerated the shifts in the tectonic economic plates that see power moving eastwards and southwards on our planet.
Over the last six years, the European economy has stalled.
In the same period, the Indian economy has grown by more than a third.
The Chinese economy by nearly 70 per cent.
Over the next 15 years Europe's share of global output is forecast to halve.
Make no mistake, our continent is falling behind.
And he goes on to Angela Merkel's famous statistic.
Look at welfare.
As Angela Merkel has pointed out, Europe accounts for just over 7 per cent of the world's population, 25 per cent of its economy, and 50 per cent of global social welfare spending.
We can't go on like this.
Without economic success the EU will not be regarded as democratically legitimate. You can see that in the way that support for the EU has fallen sharply right across the continent during the economic crisis.
So today I want to develop the conversation about some of the economic reforms that we want to secure as part of the forthcoming negotiations. We need two things.
First we need economic reform that enables the EU to create jobs and economic security, and compete in the global race - something it is not doing well at the moment.
And second as the Eurozone undertakes the integration required to make the euro work, we need constitutional reforms to make sure that those countries which are not in the euro can remain in the EU, confident that their interests and rights will be protected.
Osborne said that when William Hague was Tory leader, he predicted the euro would become a burning building with no exit.
These issues have become even more relevant, he says.
David Cameron committed the UK to a renegotiation.
Sometimes it feels as if there are two debates: about sovereignty, and about the economics of the EU.
But the two issues are essentially the same, he says.
Osborne says that it is hard to remember now how close the UK came to joining the euro.
He pays tribute to those who campaigned to keep it out.
George Osborne's speech
George Osborne is starting his speech now.
He is speaking at a conference organised by Open Europe and Fresh Start.
Fresh Start are providing the practical thinking that the government needs as it promotes EU reform, he says.
Opponents of the European Union are in the ascendancy in the Conservative party now, but pro-Europeans are not entirely extinct. Today the Times (paywall) quotes Nicholas Soames telling his fellow Tory pro-Europeans (all 12 of them?) to fight back.
Mr Soames, a former defence minister, urged other pro-European Tories to start "vigorously making the case" for Britain to stay in the EU. He said: "Having won the European argument,about in the future. Pro-Europeans have only themselves to blame for being so wet in not putting the arguments forward vigorously over a period of time."
He agreed that the EU needed to be "more relevant to the needs of modern states in today's world", but added that leaving would lead to disaster.
On the subject of Europe, the Conservative MP John Redwood was on the Today programme this morning explaining some of the thinking behind the letter signed by 95 Tories saying parliament should have a veto over EU laws. Redwood said the proposal was just an attempt to replicate an arrangement that applies in Germany.
Behind the letter is a very important report by the European [scrutiny] committee pointing out that the European Union is now just simply grabbing power and authority when the British parliament has not approved it and when it wasn't agreed by the previous Labour government under the Lisbon arrangements. And so very wisely on a unanimous cross-party basis, the Select Committee has said that the United Kingdom parliament should do something in response.
The European Union now seems to think that the charter of human rights - fundamental rights - is directly acting as good law in the United Kingdom, whereas the United Kingdom parliament expressly put through our own version and said that that was what we thought was acceptable and that it should not be directly acting from Europe.
We are suggesting to the Government that they might respond positively to this very important seminal report and take to ourselves, really, a parallel power to that which the Germans have always exerted through their constitution. Because when the European Union does things that go too far from the German point of view, they call in aid their constitution and say that Germany cannot do that. Our equivalent is the sovereignty of Parliament, and we are suggesting to the United Kingdom government that we need to show that British parliamentary sovereignty is still there as a reserve power when the British national interest is threatened.
I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.
Here's another extract from the Osborne speech released in advance.
We knew there was a competitiveness problem in Europe before the crisis. But the crisis has dramatically accelerated the shifts in the tectonic economic plates that see power moving eastwards and southwards on our planet.
Over the last six years, the European economy has stalled. In the same period, the Indian economy has grown by a third. The Chinese economy by 50%. Over the next 15 years Europe's share of global output is forecast to halve.
It's a busy day today, with a big speech from George Osborne on Europe in the morning, the debate on bank bonuses in the Commons in the afternoon, and PMQs in between.
Some extracts from Osborne's speech have already been released in advance. As the Guardian reports, he will argue that the European Union will continue as it is now. He will say:
The biggest economic risk facing Europe doesn't come from those who want reform and renegotiation – it comes from a failure to reform and renegotiate.
It is the status quo which condemns the people of Europe to an ongoing economic crisis and continuing decline ...
Make no mistake, our continent is falling behind. Look at innovation, where Europe's share of world patent applications nearly halved in the last decade. Look at unemployment, where a quarter of young people looking for work can't find it. Look at welfare.
As Angela Merkel has pointed out, Europe accounts for just over 7% of the world's population, 25% of its economy, and 50% of global social welfare spending. We can't go on like this.
I will cover the speech, and reaction to it, in detail.
Here's the agenda for the day.
9.30am: George Osborne delivers a speech on EU reform. As Nicholas Watt reports, Osborne will deliver a stark warning to Britain's European partners that the UK will leave the EU unless it embarks on whole-scale economic and political reform.
12pm: David Cameron and Ed Miliband clash at PMQs.
12pm: Tristram Hunt, the shadow education secretary, delivers a speech. He will explain how Labour would ensure teachers in all state schools are fully qualified.
Around 12.40pm: MPs begin a debate on a Labour motion on banks saying the government should block any attempt by RBS to pay bonuses up to 200% of salary.
2.15pm: Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee.
Today I plan to be focusing on the Osborne speech, on PMQS and on the bank bonus debate. But, as usual, I will also be flagging up any breaking political news, posting summaries at lunchtime and in the afternoon with a round-up of all the day's developments and highlighting the most interesting political articles on the web.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Athletic Goddess Enjoys A Dip in The Pool
This Athletic Goddess picture is sure to make her fans swoon and get turned on – just look at her massive back, coupled with a very powerful pose which shows how big her biceps are. See more of Aleesha exposing solid body and lavish your eyes with such beauty from this athletic woman, who works so hard in maintaining those sold as steel muscles on her well shaped body. As a kid, Aleesha had muscles and as she grew up, these paved the way for who she is now.


text:
Status: Open
Know more about this business than we do? Cool! Please submit any corrections or missing details you may have.Help us make it right
At La Pine Animal Hospital we strive to provide comprehensive veterinary services, while providing exceptional customer service. Our goal is to establish and maintain a long-term relationship with our patients and clients. We will provide the highest level of care for your pet and we will work together with you to keep your pets healthy and happy. Our available services include: -Check-ups and...
La pine chamber of commerce.246021attr:full servicedentistry
Lapine Animal Hospital practices at 51693 South Huntington Road, La Pine, OR 97739.
Veterinarians offer general and emergency pet care services. Some veterinarians offer 24 hour emergency services-call to confirm hours and availability.
To learn more, or to make an appointment with Lapine Animal Hospital in La Pine, OR, please call (541) 536-2001 for more information.
Be the first OregonLive.com user to add photos or videos of La Pine Animal Hospital
We've been to lots of vets over 50+ years and these folks rate in the top 2-3. The facility is clean and well kept and the staff friendly and helpful. Getting an appointment was easy and convenient. We have been there several times over the years and the service has always been great. The Vets are knowledgeable and very caring in handling our dogs. They clearly like animals and know how to make...
Q: Was this veterinarian friendly?
A: Yes
Lapine Animal Hospital can be found at Huntington Rd 51693. The following is offered: Veterinary Medicine. The entry is present with us since Sep 9, 2010 and was last updated on Nov 14, 2013. In La Pine there are 2 other Veterinary Medicine. An overview can be found here.
La Pine Animal Hospital is located at 51693 Huntington Rd in La Pine and has been in the business of Veterinary Services, Specialties since 1989.


text:
Considering the future of military may be in unmanned fliers, how should you trade the aerospace/defense space?
The Dow is now up 10 out of 11 days and within striking distance of 11,000. Will the melt-up propel us over this milestone?
Find out why even the most bullish traders are getting nervous about this market!
These stocks should fly right along with the company and its long-awaited new plane, Cramer says.
Stocks ended Wednesday little changed after the Federal Reserve concluded its 2-day meeting and pledged to keep interest rates low for an extended period.
Alcoa led the Dow higher on Friday after new data out of Beijing showed China's recovery looked to be solidly on track.
All twelve of the S&P 500 Aerospace and Defense stocks were trading up this morning on the news that President Obama has decided to expedite the deployment of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Will the trend continue?
Investors are eyeing Rockwell Collins for a trade after the firm posted lower-than-expected results on Tuesday and shares sold off.
Stocks finished mixed Tuesday as techs struggled after a downgrade on Intel. Transports rose following news that that Warren Buffett is buying Burlington Northern railroad. Industrials also gained after this week's encouraging manufacturing reports.
Stocks tumbled Tuesday, led by techs after an analyst downgrade on Intel. Transports rose following news that Warren Buffett is buying Burlington Northern railroad.
With the markets in volatility mode, investors will likely be focusing on the Federal Reserve Tuesday, even though the 2-day Federal Open Market Committee meeting that begins this afternoon won't conclude until Wednesday.
September was a fairly good month for stocks, but how should investors prepare for October? Dan Fitzpatrick, president of Stockmarket Mentor, and Tommy Williams, president of Williams Financial Advisors, weighed in.
Investors were desperately seeking direction on Thursday as they weighed better than expected economic data against disappointing sales numbers from Oracle and FedEx.
In the after hours, investors poured over earnings from Dell, hoping to gleen insights about the market and the economy from the computer maker's results.
Stocks rallied Thursday as investors were encouraged by the latest jobless report and round of corporate earnings.
Stocks rallied Thursday as investors were encouraged by the latest jobless report and round of corporate earnings.
Futures indicated a higher open for Wall Street on Thursday as investors were encouraged by the latest jobless report and round of corporate earnings.
Stock action in the last week of the month supports bull position. Remember the bull position: that the great decline in stock prices, combined with government support, along with economic news that will prove to be "less bad" as the months go on, is providing a floor under the stock market.
The swine flu epidemic remains a wild card, as no one is quite certain how far the epidemic will spread.
Stocks advanced Monday, but ended off session highs, as hopes for an auto bailout and action by world governments helped offset the grim reality of a fresh wave of layoffs.


text:
Mannesmann: The Right Call?
Few German companies have transformed themselves as much with so little fanfare as the engineering conglomerate Mannesmann. In the past three years, Mannesmann has quietly divested 39 businesses with sales of $4.2 billion. It has moved aggressively into telecommunications, which now accounts for two-thirds of its profits. Unlike giants such as Siemens and Hoechst, which have trumpeted their restructuring plans, "we decided to work without big announcements," says Chief Financial Officer Klaus Esser, who will become CEO in May. "This gives us more flexibility and keeps critics off our backs."
Mannesmann's record speaks for itself. Net income is expected to surge 86%, to $537 million, for 1998, on sales of $27 billion, up 16%, estimates investment bank Paribas. As a result, the company's share price has soared 78% this year, to $103, compared with a 9.7% climb on the DAX blue-chip index. "Mannesmann is the paradigm of the German restructuring story," says Patrick Shields, strategist for Paribas.
OLD LINES. Now, the company is angling to become a leading player in telecommunications Europewide. In the past two years, it has spent some $2.1 billion to buy into upstart carriers competing against former state monopolies in France, Austria, and Italy. Starting next year, it will also offer services to multinational companies on the Continent through euro.map, a joint venture with Olivetti. The two partners plan to invest $240 million in integrating their fixed-line operations and aim to offer specialized business services as well as compete on price. Mannesmann is looking to expand further in both Western and Central Europe. "We are running after anything that's valuable," Esser says.
Mannesmann is already one of the most experienced players taking on former telecom monopolies. It has under its belt a decade of competition against Deutsche Telekom with its mobile-phone service, which was launched as the first alternative carrier in Germany and is now highly profitable. The cellular mobile unit earned $633 million on sales of $2 billion for the first half of 1998. The company also has a fixed-line telephone business through a controlling stake in Mannesmann Arcor, a joint venture with Deutsche Bahn that has a nationwide network of over 40,000 kilometers of telephone and data lines. Expected to break even in 2001, Arcor has nipped at Telekom in the long-distance market since competition was thrown open in January. It now claims a 2.8% share of revenues for fixed-line phones, and is aiming for a 10% stake. Mannesmann's experience competing with Deutsche Telekom could give euro.map an edge as it tries to become the No. 2 alternative carrier in other European markets.
But building a Europewide telecom business will be tough. Mannesmann and Olivetti must face strong contenders such as British Telecom, which has teamed up with AT&T to attack the Continental market. And the German-Italian partnership may have trouble competing on technology. They will be stitching together a patchwork quilt of old-style voice lines just when the challenge is to create a network capable of handling gigawatts of data for Internet and intranet traffic, video, and movies. In contrast to Mannesmann, MCI WorldCom Inc. is jumping straight to the data market by spending $1.8 billion in 1998-99 to string together massive fiber-optic systems throughout Europe.
"SPIRIT AND EXPERTISE." Mannesmann also faces uncertainties in the German telecom market that could affect profitability. On Nov. 30, German regulators will decide what price new entrants such as Arcor must pay to Deutsche Telekom to use its lines to connect to customers at home for local calls. Moreover, a price war is brewing as Telekom prepares to slash rates on long-distance calls, the area where it has already lost an estimated 20% to 30% of its market to newcomers. The former monopoly has hinted that it may slash prices by up to 50%. "The real question for next year will be the price structure," says Harald Stober, CEO of Mannesmann Arcor. Currently, a three-minute call during a weekday morning to a German city more than 50 kilometers away costs $1 with Deutsche Telekom and 69 cents with Mannesmann Arcor.
The decision to plunge into the telecom market fits the Mannesmann corporate psyche. The company was founded 108 years ago by brothers Rheinhard and Max Mannesmann, who invented a process for making seamless steel pipe. Mannesmann remained a steel company for 75 years. But in the 1970s, it set out to diversify through acquisition and has remained in motion ever since. Its targets: businesses with high growth and a hefty market share. In the 1980s, Mannesmann moved into engineering and automotive parts, still core areas today. This search for new businesses "brought a spirit and an expertise into the Mannesmann executive board to go for new things," Esser says.
That spirit prompted the company to enter the telecom business by bidding for a German mobile-phone license in 1989. "No one could imagine at the time what the decision would really mean," says Joachim Funk, the current CEO, who is retiring next year. Analysts predicted in the late 1980s that Germany would have a total of 2 million mobile-phone users by 2000, yet already there are nearly 12 million.
But in its constant search for acquisitions, Mannesmann also strayed into poorly performing areas. That hurt when global markets opened up in the early 1990s. So in 1995, shortly after taking over as CFO, Esser helped launch a massive restructuring plan that led to the unloading of units such as information technology. He devised a system for measuring performance based on return on assets rather than the return on capital pursued by most companies. His logic: It was easier for his engineers and salespeople to understand.
BIG PLANS. The goal is for the entire company to reach a 15% return on assets by 2000. Each of the company's 50 units is also developing a plan for achieving at least a 20% return on assets over the next several years. The Arcor telecom business, for example, is aiming for 30%.
Mannesmann executives insist they will not completely divest their engineering and automotive businesses. "We have ambitious strategic targets in engineering and automotive," Esser says. "There will be a time when 50% or more of our asset base is in telecoms, but we are not a telecom company." As long as the industrial businesses perform, investors will be patient. "I don't see the synergies, but I won't argue with a winner," says Oscar Castro, fund manager for Montgomery Asset Management in San Francisco, which has a $50 million stake in the company.
Still, investment banks are already starting to rate Mannesmann as a telecom play. Dumping the industrial businesses could boost the share price 20% overnight, argues one London-based telecom analyst. The promise of higher returns as well as a soaring share price might persuade Esser to push Mannesmann's streamlining even further.


text:
Evidence-based partnerships are improving lives/
More than 30% of the children in St. Louis had lead poisoning in 2000*.You read that right.I learned this alarming statistic from Robert Fruend, CEO of the St. Louis Regional Health Commission (RHC), during TheAtlantic's "Conversation on Community Health" (underwritten by GlaxoSmithKline).It was offered as a model for action.
Fruend explained how the RHC, the City of St. Louis, Saint Louis County, the State of Missouri, RHC Advisory Board members, community organizations, and hundreds of community members began collaborating to tackle this enormous lead poisoning challenge. Through their collaboration, the St. Louis community can now report that fewer than 3% of their children have lead poisoning--a dramatic drop achieved in just a decade. Bravo St. Louis!
As St. Louis health leaders gathered last Wednesday for the second in this series of community forums with The Atlantic, they discussed the health issues currently crippling their community, from asthma to obesity. Although some of the current health statistics are frightening, I couldn't help but feel optimistic. The audience used iPads to share ideas and provide feedback, making the meeting highly interactive. It was amazing to see the ideas streaming from the collective brainpower in the room. I am confident that if the St. Louis community can come together as they did ten years ago when they tackled lead poisoning, then they can address any health challenge. GSK, which employs more than a hundred people in the St. Louis region, primarily through our TUMS manufacturing facility, is engaging in these conversations in several communities across the US--and looking for insights and best practices that could improve the health of our nation.
This concept of allowing the data to guide community health strategies and encouraging various agencies to collaborate throughout the process is not a new idea; it is a winning strategy that was reaffirmed again and again last week during my travels. In addition to the program in St. Louis, last week, I also joined the Executive Directors of the five GSK 2012 US IMPACT award-winning nonprofits for an awards ceremony and panel discussion at GSK's US headquarters in Research Triangle Park, NC. Throughout the dialogue, the directors shared data about the tremendous community health challenges we face and emphasized how critical partnerships are for addressing these challenges. I was proud that we were able to convene--and recognize--these exceptional nonprofits that have found innovative ways to improve access to healthcare in our communities.
At GSK, evidence-based and collaborative organizations are natural partners in our shared mission. Please take a moment to read about all our US-based nonprofit partners here. And I look forward to sharing with you specific examples of community health outcomes achieved through GSK evidence-based partnerships in 2013!
*Note - You can review the data of the St. Louis lead poisoning problem among children through the St. Louis Regional Health Commission's new report, "Decade Review of Health Status" released earlier this month (December 2012; page 38).


text:
- log in
- account
Application Whitelisting Offers A Tantalizing Alternative To Popular "Whack-A-Mole" Antivirus Strategies
Posted by Stephanie Balaouras on September 10, 2012
- 725 Recommendations
- 6 comments
Guest Post From Researcher Chris Sherman
Traditional antivirus techniques have been fighting a losing battle for years. Popular hacker exploit kits pounce on new vulnerabilities quickly while advanced tools such as polymorphic viruses propagate their malicious intents. As a result, signature databases (known as "blacklists") have ballooned in size, causing strain on a company's infrastructure and endpoint performance. Combined with the fact that antivirus vendors miss a significant number of the unknown or zero-day threats, many security professionals are left questioning their antivirus-centric approach to endpoint protection. As the number of malware samples rise, this traditional "Whack-A-Mole" blacklist strategy of signature-based antivirus protection is simply unscalable.
In our new report "Application Control: An Essential Endpoint Security Component," my colleague Chenxi Wang and I discuss the importance of supplementing antivirus with application control in an effort to reduce the number of potential avenues for attack (otherwise known as the endpoint's attack surface). One of the most promising forms of application control comes is application whitelisting. Whereas traditional antivirus technologies laboriously scan every file on the endpoint looking for known bad scripts, whitelisting takes a very different approach and blocks everything except those applications known to be trusted. This leads to faster endpoint performance and overall better protection against zero-day threats when compared to traditional antivirus techniques.
Now of course, there are operational challenges that make the move to a whitelisting approach difficult in certain environments. Organizations will sometimes struggle with building an initial whitelist, and there can be many difficulties maintaining one once it's set in place, especially in dynamic environments. Deciding which applications are necessary and which should be eliminated is not a trivial task. However, at the end of the day you are left with an endpoint environment with less reliance on antivirus techniques and a significantly reduced attack surface.
For more information on the challenges and benefits of application control, as well as how the attack surface can be further mitigated through targeted patch management and privilege management, look to our published report. And as always, we welcome your comments below.
old arguments and outdated perspectives
Comment from Jonathan Penn on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 12:51
Hi Chris (and Chenxi),
Seems like every few years we see the topic of whitelisting resurfaces with the same tired arguments against ever-growing signature databases. I'm not against whitelisting per se as a tool in the toolbox, but the perspective in this report about the traditional AV tools, and even about whitelisting, seems inaccurate, out of date,or incomplete.
First of all, "antivirus" is much more than just AV signature-based blocking. None of the major "AV" companies competing in either the enterprise or even the consumer space are just focused on signature-based virus databases, and this has been the case for years. They sell a suite that includes HIPS and other forms of behavior blocking, file reputation, and sandboxing -- all of which are looking at the apps on the PC.
Second, signature databases have been moving to the cloud (granted, not fast enough). So to solve your complaint about endpoint performance hits from large signature files, why not just call for more rapid evolution to cloud-based scanning instead? And anyway, if you map AV performance impact versus virus DB size over time, you will not see a direct correlation, so saying large virus DBs impact performance sounds good but doesn't seem to bear up under evidence.
Third, if most attacks are coming through the web, and specifically through exploits of non-malicious plug-ins like Flash or through JavaScript injected in compromised sites, then it's not clear how application whitelisting actually improves your defenses here, and it sounds like people still need "AV".
Finally, you fail to distinguish between whitelisting of files for endpoint security (ie, a whitelist of all non-malicous files) and whitelisting of files for policy enforcement (where files that don't contain malware may not be on the whitelist because they violate a corporate policy). Yet it's important to maket his distinction because they are not at all equivalent in terms of the problem they solve or how they solve it. It's one thing to block a an app that contains malicious code; it's quite another to dictate which browser employees must use or whether they can download a screenshot app, TweetDeck, or their favorite useful browser toolbar. Both are different forms and uses of "whitelisting". Yet while no one would argue with the first type of whitelisting, the second flies in the face of the entire "empowered" trend running through all of Forrester's research.
Hi Jonathan, Thank you for
Comment from Christopher Sherman on Mon, 10/01/2012 - 15:56
Hi Jonathan,
Thank you for your comments, it's good to get the AV vendor perspective, and especially good to hear from former colleagues! That said, we disagree with you on several fronts. First of all, there is no question that AV vendors are improving their technologies. Anomaly-based detection logics, cloud-delivered signatures- these are just some of the examples. However, what AV vendors are doing is optimization; it does not change the fundamentals of the game. The ultimate limiting factors are still there.
The fact that Google, Facebook, Intuit, some of the most innovative IT companies on the planet implement app control as a fundamental layer of endpoint security illustrates that application control, as a technology, has a lot of value. True, this is not the first time the argument for application control (or more specifically whitelisting) is made, but there are valid reasons to reiterate the argument--the vast majority of the market is still stuck in the old "AV is the be all and end all endpoint security approach" mindset.
It's also important to note that we do not equate app control with "whitelisting". Whitelisting is a specific instance of application control with a stronger logic, but the two are not equal. The fact that companies with some of the most liberal corporate culture find application control essential to their endpoint security tells you that application control does not have to be restrictive; it does not have to fly in the face of empowered employees.
We also note that some of the app control products allow for near real-time visibility of the endpoint environment, which we really like – we are fans of technologies that increase situational awareness and help to improve continuous monitoring capabilities. This visibility part is lacking in many AV products.
We are firmly of the opinion that an endpoint security approach that is focusing on managing vulnerabilities in the environment is more effective than ones that are threat-focused. It is not an old argument; it is the "only" argument.
Once again, thank you for your comments; we welcome others to join the discussion as well!
Well, you're paid to disagree
Comment from Phil Jones (not verified) on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 21:27
Well, you're paid to disagree with him, so this is not surprising. However you still keep introducing "inaccuracies" - now in the comments - which seriously hurt your credibility as a researcher.
First you mention "app control" in Google, Facebook and Intuit. I happen to work in one of those companies, and I can ensure you there is NO app control in terms of whitelisting. Nobody prevents you from downloading the Firefox source code, compile your own Firefox and use it. But if by "app control" you meant the "no warez/copyrighted software" policy, well this has nothing to do with the whitelisting as a security solution.
Second, you mentioned the size of AV databases, but you conveniently forgot to compare it with the size of the whitelisting database. The number of clean applications definitely grows up faster than the number of viruses, and therefore the whitelisting database size should increase much, much more.
Another issue you forgot to mention is the typical whitelist vendor delay to add new versions. For the self-updating modules such as Firefox plugins this may be a major issue. With the regular AV such issues simply do not exist.
And of course there is a major issue mentioned by Jonathan Penn which you ignored altogether. Whitelisting is completely defenseless against such old and well-known attacks like infected DOC and PDF documents - the MS Office and Adobe Acrobat are typically whitelisted apps, so they'll gladly open that infected Word file and send the content of your whole address book to an attacker - all without a single warning from a whitelisting software.
Finally, the effectiveness of whitelisted software is something the vendors claim. Unlike the anti-virus software which is subject to multiple independent tests such as Virus Bulletin, there is no such tests for the whitelisted software. Which makes me take the claims of any whitelisting vendor with a huge grain of salt.
Response to Phil
Comment from Christopher Sherman on Wed, 10/17/2012 - 13:13
Hi Phil, thank you for your comments.
We are not paid to disagree with Jonathan or any other viewpoint for that matter. In fact, Jonathan's company, Avast, is our client. On top of that, we have many AV vendors as our clients. Our opinions are not paid and cannot be bought.
You seem to equate app control with whitelisting. That's a common misconception. We think of whitelisting as a special case of app control. App control technologies can do whitelisting, but the two are not the same. These companies mentioned above, in fact, use app control technologies. All three have app control in their server environments (you can check with your IT department) - some servers implement more strict whitelisting than others. They also have app control on user endpoints, but with different policies than the server environments.
In regard to your comments on whitelist size, a good app control approach does not require you to build a file-level whitelist. What you want is a policy-based app control mechanism, rather than building a massive list of everything under the sun. Sure, you can build an actual file list if you want to do it that way, but that would be the naive way of doing it.
Now you also mentioned the issue of out-of-date whitelists not including recent application updates. Organizations get around this through the use of policies such as trusted application publishers. Any good app control tool worth its salt will include this functionality. However, you brought up a good point. Web scripts are actually difficult for app control technologies - and that remains an issue today.
Regarding your comments on threats faced within whitelisted applications. We did in fact cover this in our report, but just to be clear- the infection process usually includes 2 steps. Yes, vulnerabilities may exist in the approved applications and their associated files, such as PDF and DOC. And the initial exploitation may very well happen. However, the subsequent download, which is the main part of the malware, can be blocked using a good app control policy.
And finally, we would also like to see more industry standard testing for app control technologies. But I would wager you that testing app control products, by definition, will be much more simple and straightforward than testing the AV products.
To add more to what Jonathan
Comment from Damiano Bolzoni (not verified) on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 19:51
To add more to what Jonathan said, attackers are developing techniques to bypass application whitelisting by exploiting vulnerabilities in the whitelisted applications/processes...AWL is becoming something like ASLR...it makes life slightly more difficult for attackers, yet it can be bypassed...
You mentioned the size of AV
Comment from George Danzel (not verified) on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 01:56
You mentioned the size of AV databases, but you conveniently forgot to compare it with the size of the whitelisting database. The number of clean applications definitely grows up faster than the number of viruses, and therefore the whitelisting database size should increase much, much more.
Search Forrester's Blogs
Predictions 2017
The dynamics that will shape the future in the age of the customer »
Free Webinar
Planning for innovation and risk in the wake of Brexit »
Forrester's CX Index
Predict how actions to improve CX will affect revenue performance.
Measure the customer experiences that matter most »
Analyst Blogs
- Amy DeMartine (1)
- Andras Cser (48)
- Chase Cunningham (6)
- Chris McClean (60)
- Christopher Sherman (8)
- Enza Iannopollo (3)
- Heidi Shey (22)
- Jeff Pollard (4)
- Jennifer Adams (2)
- John Kindervag (28)
- Joseph Blankenship (2)
- Laura Koetzle (2)
- Merritt Maxim (8)
- Nick Hayes (15)
- Peter Cerrato (1)
- Renee Murphy (10)
- Rick Holland (45)
- Stephanie Balaouras (80)
- Tyler Shields (24)
Top Categories
- Disaster recovery (15)
- Business continuity (11)
- Security & Risk (10)
- Enterprise Risk Management (9)
- Podcast (9)
- High availability (8)
- audio podcasts (7)
- Acquisitions and Partnerships (5)
- IT Risk Management (5)
- News and events (5)
- See all
- May 2017 (2)
- November 2016 (1)
- October 2016 (1)
- July 2016 (1)
- May 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (1)
- January 2016 (1)
- October 2015 (1)
- September 2015 (1)
- August 2015 (3)
- July 2015 (3)
- June 2015 (2)
- May 2015 (2)
- See all