<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>VendorRisk Blog &#187; Behind the Scenes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.vendorrisk.com/topics/behind-the-scenes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.vendorrisk.com</link>
	<description>Vendor Management Software</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:55:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Trust Guard, Apache &amp; Rails</title>
		<link>http://blog.vendorrisk.com/2010/07/trust-guard-apache-rails/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.vendorrisk.com/2010/07/trust-guard-apache-rails/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:59:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>vr_admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Behind the Scenes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.vendorrisk.com/?p=60</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We recently added the Trust Guard service to VendorRisk.com.  As part of the package we purchased, Trust Guard scans our server each day looking for vulnerabilities.  On the first scan, it found 4 &#8220;medium risk&#8221; issues that had to be resolved in order to pass PCI compliance.  Here are the issues and what we did ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.vendorrisk.com/2010/07/trust-guard-apache-rails/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rails, authlogic and password history</title>
		<link>http://blog.vendorrisk.com/2009/12/rails-authlogic-password-history/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.vendorrisk.com/2009/12/rails-authlogic-password-history/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:25:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>vr_admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Behind the Scenes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.vendorrisk.com/?p=35</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[vendorrisk.com client sites use the excellent Authlogic gem to handle user sessions. As we mentioned in the previous blog article, we recently added the ability for site admins to declare that users cannot use a password they've used in the past.

After a bit of Googling, I didn't see any solutions out there for dealing with this issue, so we rolled our own.  Here's how we went about it...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.vendorrisk.com/2009/12/rails-authlogic-password-history/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fun with Rails A/B testing</title>
		<link>http://blog.vendorrisk.com/2009/12/fun-with-rails-ab-testing/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.vendorrisk.com/2009/12/fun-with-rails-ab-testing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>vr_admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Behind the Scenes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.vendorrisk.com/?p=22</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When we launched VendorRisk.com a few weeks back, we added a very simple A/B experiment to test which sign up call to action worked better.  The first two options we chose were &#8220;View plans and pricing&#8221; and &#8220;Try free for 30 days!&#8221;.  We assumed that the latter would perform better because it sounded more enticing ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.vendorrisk.com/2009/12/fun-with-rails-ab-testing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
