The Norwegian folks who created the popular Opera Web browser have submitted a mobile version of their software, Opera Mini, to Apple for inclusion in the App Store, where more than 100,000 iPhone apps are available either free or for a fee.

Now they’re waiting to see how Apple responds.

The Cupertino, CA, based company isn’t tipping its hand just yet, so nobody knows if they’ll give the OK to Opera for the iPhone or not. Apple chiefs may decide Opera — popular for its rock-solid security and privacy features — is too much of a challenge for the Safari browser that’s already built into the iPhone.

And if they do, it’s likely they’ll fall back on their carefully crafted excuse: The application duplicates features already included in the phone. In other words, the phone has a browser, it’s named Safari and no other browsers are needed.

The company pulled out this explanation when Google attempted to get the App Store to carry Google Voice, an app that would allow iPhone owners to use Google’s telephone service and bypass AT&T, the phone’s exclusive carrier in the United States.

Some believe Apple was caught between the proverbial rock and a very hard place in the Google Voice dust up. Their choice: Offer users something they really want and get into a legal tussle with a business partner (AT&T), or turn down the competitor and alienate many customers.

What’s the big deal about Opera? Speed, for the most part. Opera renders Web pages on its servers, where they’re compressed by about 90%. The compression makes them download fast, really fast.

In fact, the makers of Opera claim that Opera Mini generates Web pages six times faster than Safari. Duplicate that, Apple.

The problem for Apple is that its fans, many of whom are nearly evangelical about their preference for Apple’s products, didn’t react well to way their favorite computer company slammed the door on Google Voice.

The blogosphere was rife with complaints from Apple users about strong arm tactics and Microsoft-like marketing strategies that focused on shutting down competition rather than being able to win a fair fight.

Of course, nobody says Apple has to sell products that are direct competitors of its own offerings. Nobody, that is, except some die-hard Apple fans.

The folks at Opera are saying if Opera Mini gets App Store approval, they’ll create a version for the soon-to-be released iPad.

If Mini gets turned down, Apple could wind up in a court fight with its makers. That would mean even more negative publicity for the shy, secretive company — something they can’t really afford when they’re prepping for the coming War of the Tablets.

UPDATE: While Apple made neither an announcement nor a comment about the Opera app, as of April 12, it was available for free download from Apple App Store.

And by help, we mean the FCC will give you a way to test your speed using a tool on their Web site here. So now, if you’re paying your ISP to deliver a certain speed, there’s a way to check — using a government site — to see if you’re getting what you paid for.

The FCC has added the tools to the Broadband.gov Web site not only to help users measure their broadband speeds. The site also gives you a button to click for reporting that you don’t have broadband available.

The new test tools are called, respectively,  the Consumer Broadband Test and the Broadband Dead Zone Report to Broadband.gov. Both are free.

The Consumer Broadband Test measures broadband quality indicators like upload and download speeds,  latency and jitter. The test takes about a minute and when the results come back, the report tells you what upload and download speeds, latency and jitter mean. They also report your speed to the FCC — and for that, you’ll have to give them your address, or you won’t be able to use the tools.

What the report won’t tell you is how fast your connection should be or what kind of speed other users get with their broadband connection. It also won’t tell users who don’t know a kilobyte from a megabyte how to tell the difference between the two, or if jitter and latency actually matter. (IT pros won’t have a problem with this, but their users might.)

The tools don’t work with Safari, Opera and Chrome Web browsers. Java’s required to run the test, but if you don’t have it, the site let’s you download it right then and there.

There’s also a mobile version of the app called, somewhat appropriately, “FCC Broadband Test”. This is  the first mobile app released by the FCC, and it’s available (free) through the Apple and Android app stores.

The warning is part of the software giant’s emerging reaction to an unpatched vulnerability that hackers could exploit to hijack PCs that run Internet Explorer.

Microsoft is investigating new public reports of a vulnerability in VBScript that is exposed on supported versions of Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 through the use of Internet Explorer.

But good news for Vista and Win7 users: Their investigation has shown that the vulnerability cannot be exploited on Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Vista or Windows Server 2008.

The main impact of the vulnerability is remote code execution.

The vulnerability exists in the way that VBScript interacts with Windows Help files when using Internet Explorer. If a malicious Web site displayed a specially crafted dialog box and a user pressed the F1 key, arbitrary code could be executed.

On systems running Windows Server 2003, Internet Explorer Enhanced Security Configuration is enabled by default, which helps to mitigate against this issue.

Until a patch is ready, users can protect themselves by not pressing the F1 key if a Web site tells them (repeatedly) to do it.

Another workaround: Disable Windows Help by modifying the ACL on winhlp32.exe to be more restrictive on Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 by running the following command from an administrative command line:

echo Y | cacls "%windir%\winhlp32.exe" /E /P everyone:N

Last week, Google announced a bug-bounty program that will pay researchers for each vulnerability they report in the browser and its underlying open-source code.

Base bounty: $500 per bug. But a particularly nasty or insidious rascal could net the finder a fee of $1,337.

If that second amount sounds a bit odd — in fact, it is odd — it’s because its a reference to “leet,” a kind of geek-speak used by some researchers. (”Leet” is based on the word “elite” and is meant to imply super powers of accomplishment or prowess.) In this tech language, which has its own alphabet that’s based on various combinations of ASCII characters, “leet” is “spelled” as “1337.”

Of course, this isn’t an original idea. The folks at Mozilla offer a similar reward for browser bugs. (Check out their offer here.)

According to a post at the Chromium blog (where you can get more details on the bounty program), “We will be rewarding select interesting and original vulnerabilities reported to us by the security research community. For existing contributors to Chromium security — who would likely continue to contribute regardless — this may be seen as a token of our appreciation. In addition, we are hoping that the introduction of this program will encourage new individuals to participate in Chromium security. The more people involved in scrutinizing Chromium’s code and behavior, the more secure our millions of users will be.”

Okay, you unmotivated security researchers, get cracking.

In recent weeks, two major European governments have urged their citizens to find an IE alternate. Both France and Germany recently issued warnings against using the browser from Microsoft.

A French cyber agency –- Certa -– recently cautioned against using all IE versions. Germany issued a separate warning after lines of malicious code used in recent attacks against Google were leaked online.

While IE still commands the lion’s share of the browser market, its use has steadily declined in recent years.

And because it continues to be the most-used tool for Web browsing, you can expect it to be the one most targeted by cybertheives.

Firefox is currently the No. 2 most used browser, but Google’s Chrome has the most rapidly rising popularity.

And for anyone with products or services to sell, the most important data from the survey will be that 50% of folks who went online bought something.

A new Harris Poll found that adult Internet users now spend an average of 13 hours a week online.

Usage varies greatly, however; one in five (20%) of adult Internet users are online for only two hours or less a week while one in seven (14%) are spending 24 or more hours a week online.

Some background on the study: Harris Interactive polled 2,029 adults by telephone between July 7 and 12 and October 13 and 18, 2009.

Over the years the average hours spent online have increased from seven hours in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002, to between 8 and 9 hours in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

In 2007, it jumped to 11 hours.  Last year (in October after the financial crisis broke and before the presidential election) Internet users were online for 14 hours a week, double the usage from 1999 to 2002.

Other interesting findings in this Harris Poll include:

• The age groups that spend the most time online are those ages 30-39 (18 hours), 25-29 (17 hours) and 40-49 (17 hours).
• Half (50%) of all those online bought something on the Internet in the last month.  This includes 62% of those ages 30-39 and 56% of those ages 40-49.
• The number of adults online, now 184 million (80%), has not changed significantly since 2008 and 2007.  This includes those online at work, at home, at school or any other locations.
• However, the number of adults who are online at home has increased to 76% this year, and 75% last year, compared to 70% in 2006, and 66% in 2005.

The Harris folks say the increase in the number of hours spent online in the last two years compared to all previous years is striking. It probably reflects a growing ability to use the Internet, an increase in sites and applications, increased TV watching online and increased purchasing online.

Also, hours online may have increased because of the recession. Going online is free; going out usually costs money.

The survey also suggests that now, instead of just using a work computer to navigate the Web, users are getting their own systems and learning to use and maintain them at home.

This has likely created greater demand for desktops, laptops, wireless routers and all the peripherals that are used with a computer.

So if adults are now spending 13 hours a week online, what were they doing in the past with that time? If you take a look at the industries in decline, you’ll likely be able to figure it out. Most likely, they were reading newspapers and watching TV with those 13 hours.

Or perhaps they were talking to family members, preparing home cooked meals or visiting friends.

To read more about the Harris Interactive survey, visit their site and have a look at the data for yourself.

That’s right, you’ve now got another browser to try out.

According to its development team, who only give their first names on the Chrome Web site, by the way, Chrome for Mac took:

• 73,804 lines of Mac-specific code written
• 29 developer builds
• 1,177 Mac-specific bugs fixed
• 12 external committers and bug editors to the Google Chrome for Mac code base, 48 external code contributors
• 64 Mac Minis doing continuous builds and tests
• 8,760 cups of soft drinks and coffee consumed
• 4,380 frosted mini-wheats eaten.

I’m not sure I believe the mini-wheats stat. Anybody who writes code knows that a project like this takes at least 10,000 of the little buggers.

To download the Beta version, visit here.

You’ve probably heard the Google motto: “Don’t be evil.” But how many companies take their own, self-proclaimed philosophy seriously?

I mean, “Better Living Through Chemistry” made plenty of people’s lives a mess through polluted manufacturing sites or lethal pesticides. And that “Good to the last drop” business? Well, if you’ve ever tasted the dregs of the coffee pot, you know what a bunch of hooey that is.

For some reason, however, Google’s “Don’t be evil” proclamation has irked folks. When the search engine giant was cowed by the Chinese government’s insistence on blocking Web sites, Google folded like a cheap beach chair.

And when crafty online ad campaigns touting flat stomachs or cheap teeth whitening began appearing alongside search results, the ethicists among us seethed with contempt about the evil scams that Google seemed to turn a blind eye to, all for the ad revenues.

All that’s changed.

The makers of the world’s dominant search engine now will not only boot this sort of ad from their results pages, they’re gonna boot the advertiser along with it.

Google chiefs have decided to ban advertisers who place ads that link to sites peddling “free trial” scams, get-rich-quick schemes and malware.

In the past, they’d sometimes ban individual ads, but not advertisers. What Google found was, just banning the ads did little to eliminate them.

Cyber scammers would merely get a new domain name (hence, a new site) for their nefarious products, create a new ad and be back in business trolling for suckers in a matter of hours, if not minutes.

Now, if an advertiser is permanently banned, their account and any new account will be banned from participating in AdWords. How does Google know if an advertiser is banned and just sets up a brand new account? Apparently, they’ve got a way, but they’re not letting anyone know about it for fear of encouraging workarounds.

The increased rate of account bans started back in October and they differ from old bans in a couple of key ways:

• They are permanent account bans, and
• Communication will be much clearer.

What about legitimate advertisers — can they be falsely blocked? Maybe, but Google says there’s an appeal process to fix mistakes. Advertisers will get an e-mail with ban details and directions on how to appeal it.

The question is: Will other online advertising outlets follow the same practice?

Google’s upping the ante for every ad-supported site. They’re betting consumers will prefer sites that don’t bombard them with scams for lower credit card rates, flatter stomachs, whiter teeth and longer… nails.

Take the new tool that helps Firefox users avoid potentially serious plug-in related security issues.

Until now, Firefox users got alerts to plug-in updates, but this new tool lets them go to a “Plugin Check” page which automatically checks all installed plug-ins and links to updates.

Why bother keeping your plug-ins up to date?

• Old Plugins can interrupt browsing and waste your time.
• Old Plugins increase your risk for attack by malware, viruses, and other security threats.
• Updated Plugins have improvements that make the web better and safer.

For IT pros, you may want to give your Firefox users the link to this page so they’ll have the most secure plug-in versions: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/plugincheck/

To use the site, click here.

The Government Accountability Office reported recently that if the flu reaches a pandemic, a surge in telecommuting and children accessing video files and games at home could clog local networks.

And the government has no plan to deal with that problem, the GAO said.

Surprise, surprise.

Health and safety folks have been warning IT and upper managers for years that they need to have some plan in place to deal with flu in the workplace. But few organizations, at last count, have bothered to come up with a plan and take the time to assess the impact of flu.

The federal government seems to be no exception.

Network operators such as Comcast, AT&T, Cox and Verizon are limited in their options. They could add bandwidth capacity and lay down private lines for essential workers, but that is expensive and would take too long. Shutting down certain Web sites or prioritizing traffic could run into technical and regulatory hurdles, the report said.

An Internet service provider could decide to slow all connections in a certain neighborhood, but then that network operator would be violating contracts with customers, says the report.

“Private Internet providers have limited ability to prioritize traffic or take other actions that could assist critical tele-workers. Some actions, such as reducing customers’ transmission speeds or blocking popular Web sites, could negatively impact e-commerce and require government authorization,” the GAO report said.

To find out more about the GAO’s report, visit here.