Why not eliminate the threat entirely? 'Reducing the risks' just does not gut it in the security industry.
Because in order to eliminate the risk entirely, you will have to shoot the user in the head. They are the largest security risk in any scenario. Requiring encryption won't eliminate your mom from handing you the already logged-in device to troubleshoot it for her.
Secondly, violating international waters legitimises attacks. It gives the attackers reason to say "they strayed into our territorial waters and opened fire on us" and legitimises the price tag they ask for ships and lives because essentially, the cargo vessel commuted an act of war.
Staying legally kosher when shooting up shit on the water is very fucking important.
If the attackers are saying the cargo vessels are straying into our territorial waters and opening fire when they attempt to board the vessel, then they're representatives of their government and committing an act of war by boarding a foreign nation's vessel and killing its crew, and we should treat this as an act of war and declare war on Somali.
If they are not representatives of their government, then Somali should be actively taking measures to eliminate piracy in their waters.
Since Somali is obviously not actively taking measures to eliminate piracy in their waters, the government is either in direct collusion with the pirates, and they are acting as privateers under tacit Somali authorization, or the government is incapable of enforcing their borders, thus not a legitimate nation, and we should have no need to comply with their borders in order to defend our ships.
I would wager the questioner works for SyFy's marketing department and wants to test the waters for additional fees. Hopefully the response on here will be a huge wake-up call for their executives. I stopped watching about the time I dropped cable entirely - it wasn't worth me paying $30 a month for the two channels I actually watched, SciFi (before the name change) and Cartoon Network (Adult Swim).
To quote another great Sci-Fi show: "They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
What? Be reasonable! I don't want some yahoo sheriff coming onto my property and enforcing some law, some arbitrary law, someone came up with no idea what's true and proper to do on my own land! I'll treat my servants however I like on my farm. If there's some problems around Silver Gulch, well, that's what we got those Anonymous vigilantes over there for, running around and hanging people they think done the world wrong. Why, everyone should be proud of those fellas. Even if they get a few innocent people that don't know any better, they're cleaning up this town because nobody else has the gumption. Besides, those people they're lynching probably did something to deserve it.
The hysterical Western media aside, this is an extremely bad situation for a nuclear power plant to even be able to get to in this day and age. By my limited understanding, the reason it's still in operation is basically because the Japanese government have let TEPCO get away with safety coverups and shortcuts on a regular basis, despite the IAEA warning them about this plant being dangerous. I support nuclear power, but these old plants really need to be replaced by modern, safe ones, and it looks like Japan is in desperate need of an attitude change towards its nuclear safety policy.
I agree, regular safety inspections of nuclear plants is a vital safety precaution, and falsifying reports or falsifying repair orders is cause for serious investigation. However, I saw a quote last night that basically brought it home for me: "We have a 43 year old nuclear power plant that got hit by a magnitude 8.9 earthquake, a 10 meter high wall of water, explosions from hydrogen leaks and fires, and the reactor vessels are still contained? And you still think that nuclear power isn't safe?"
If you have a file with a few thousand seeders, then you can be sure that its real.
Or it's actually malware propagating through BitTorrent. I've seen a number of torrents with tens of thousands of seeders on relatively small files, usually with something like 'SEXSEXSEX' in the titles - those are zombie botnets.
Like who? *Googles*
... ok, that's pretty neat, and a nifty idea who's time has likely come, but it's not a 'search engine for the world' like Google intends on being. It's something to follow, but not something that would supplant Google. Not anytime soon, at least.
Google already does some of this with their Maps, fetching local relevant results and so on. They're just talking about mapping to concepts rather than (always) physical locations.
The difference being is that I'm not getting spammy scraper sites, but actual retail outlets with ratings from Google. If they were scraper sites, I'd be much more upset about the whole deal, but as it stands, it's just my poor choices of keywords, not Google rating fake sites above real ones. Lack of user knowledge is a bigger problem than lack of proper search formulas.
I don't have this problem - when I search for things on Google, I get relevant results from real pages. Either I regularly search for things that nobody scrapes, or there's actually some skill involved in getting relevant results that most people can't be bothered with.
The biggest problem I've had of late searching on Google is trying to find reviews of hardware and getting ninety billion pages trying to sell it to me with 'Be the first person to review this product!" I need to find a different keyword on that.
According to the Washington Post, it's all due Mastercard no longer permitting donations via their services to Wikileaks.
However, I doubt the DDOS is going to change their mind.
144
I am intrigued by your statistics and wish to know of their sources.
So we're not equipped to handle hackers - and we've officially been hacked. What do we do?
Hiring 'hackers' is a media fiction - you wouldn't hire someone who was convicted of armed robbery to guard your local bank just because he was really good at it, would you? Hire a security professional who actually takes what they do for a living seriously, has credentials to prove it, and has a reputation for honesty and integrity they're not afraid to defend with references from previous employers and clients. Or contract the same. Or hire a consulting firm that specializes in security. A CISSP should be a minimum bar to get over.
Security is all about setting appropriate levels of trust on personnel. If you don't trust your security professionals (and by the way, the guy who sets up your firewall there should be one of them) then you can't trust the security they're putting in place. Audit the work they do. Trust, but verify. And for your size of network, you should have at least one full-time IT security person on staff.
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect "Hungry." -- a Larson cartoon
