There are several really popular instant-messaging services out there. AOL, ICQ, Microsoft and Hotmail are all big names in a game that includes millions of daily users. Recently, IM client startup Cerulean Studios began offering its multi-homable client for instant messaging, named Trillian. This tool allows you to run only one piece of software and connect to the five biggest IM vendors' servers. You can access your accounts at these vendors through this software without running the vendor's client. That is if AOL fails in its attempt to block traffic from competitive instant-messaging systems.
There are several distinct advantages to the type of connectivity that Trillian offers. First off, there are no advertisements. Next up is the fact that you can connect with users of other IM services, which means if you have AOL, you can connect to a user on ICQ through Trillian. Nice effect, unless you're one of the messaging vendors, and you can't tell advertisers or prove that you have both customers.
AOL has driven home this point by attempting to block Trillian's access to its servers. Officially (see article), AOL has told the world that it is attempting to maintain the security of its servers by disallowing "rogue" software from logging into them. The reality is that if merely attaching to AOL servers is a security risk, then they'd better shut them down. After all, they exist for the purpose of "servicing connections." I can't see how there can be such a risk from a third-party vendor -- unless AOL has something to hide or something to lose, that is.
How much tracking is done by AOL of connections and conversations? How much marketing information is gathered in an average business day? How much is AOL making per ad? How would third-party software (with ads included) impact ad revenues?
Personally, I see the problem from a business perspective. AOL's IM software makes money from two things: business relationships and advertisements. And those matters have nothing to do with security, unless AOL means financial security, in which case I can wholly understand the problem. However, a better approach for AOL would be to publicly approach Cerulean Studios to begin a business relationship that requires payment for use of AOL IM services.
But this presents another problem. If Cerulean Studios is allowed access, then Microsoft and ICQ -- both of which have long attempted to interoperate with AOL -- must have access also. Since standard Microsoft marketing practice is to get in the door, and then attempt to take over the market, AOL is not going to open up a closed market even slightly.
What's an IT Pro to do?
The biggest problem for corporate IT is pretty easy to discern. Intentional or not, some segment of most organizations counts on instant messaging to keep in touch. So what can you do? Exactly what AOL doesn't want you to do. Set up a stand-alone IM server, and administer it for your organization. There is no stand-alone IM server from AOL, so this guarantees that your employees will not be using AOL. It also guarantees that AOL's predatory and exclusive business practices will not impact your organization.
Setting up your own instant-messaging server also allows you a little better control over the spread of IM trojans -- once one is detected on the network, you simply tell everyone that the server will be down, and then go clean up. Once the trojan is eliminated, you bring the IM server back up, and your users go happily on their way.
If your users are using IM to keep in touch, you will simply have to
consider some option that eliminates AOL because its software is simply too closed. Interestingly enough, AOL is under a court restriction that if it offers high-speed IM, it must offer interoperability to competitors. According to AOL, it is not even considering offering high-speed access. Guess why? The company wants to make it clear that it will run its business the way it likes. So your only option is to clean them out of the corporate house.
RSS
