"I'm not sure how data is structured and encapsulated with Thunderbolt but I suppose it could use a similar method as ethernet.
"
I thought it was inherently similar, so I am thinking the only reason this would really pose a problem is if there is some granular difference that a security expert can point out to us. Otherwise, as you said above, given the ease to work around, I don't see why greater focus isn't put on new types of wireless and OS level security.
"That sounds like something that could be done but that seems like a complex solution to me. If given a choice I'd have to side with keeping ethernet, even if it means using a smaller port interface."
Well again, if it is an easy work around to begin with, why isn't there greater emphasis put on more low level measures? Seems like IT as well as some end users are just doing a lot of back patting.
"PS: It's odd that ethernet is still using the J-45 jack and yet USB has so many variances in port interface sizes."
No, then you'd have all the same adapter whiners lining up to bitch about having to buy a different cable.
"I [don't] know about this or how it could be used with a network connection."
"New Security Features in Ivy Bridge
Intel will also implement a digital random number generator (DRNG) with Ivy Bridge; another move that should save power over the current analogue design. The random number generator in a CPU helps to create a secure link with the security of a website by creating a unique link between the site and your PC thats very hard to snoop and piggyback. Analogue RNGs are said to be quite inefficient when it comes to power draw, however.
The new DRNG is designed with standards compliance in mind, with support for ANSI X9.82, NIST SP 800-90 and NIST FIPS 140-2/3 Level 2 certifiable entropy source all cited. The random number can be 16-, 32- or 64-bit.
Theres also Supervisory Mode Execution Protection (SMEP), which Intel says will help to prevent execution out of untrusted application memory while operating at a more privileged level. This refers to the rings of security that we mentioned when talking about performance upgrades. The idea is that the software is run in one of four rings (or levels) of privileged access, and that you dont want malware creeping from a less privileged ring of access into a more privileged ring, where it can really do serious harm."
This as well as Mountain Lion sandboxing with Mac App Store deployment and device management should offer more than enough security for everyone but the tin hat committee. Unless I'm wrong, which is entirely possible.