I can assure you that any security breach in our company (we have moved off XP, by the way, so at least that is not an attack vector) would not be published anywhere. And I expect that is how most companies work.
The date for end of support for 2003 has been known for like 10 years so there has been enough time to prepare for it.
IT security is not about "what can we get away with". It is about being ready before the bad people strike. And they will. And you may not even notice.
(albeit with weird proprietary hardware)
You are correct for the big boxes, but there was clustering over ethernet for the MicroVAXen.
Link to Original Source
In the Norwegian tests, the participants used private computers with a web based application.
The attacks on the energy sector began with malware sent via phishing emails to targeted personnel. Symantec observed the spear phishing attempts hitting organizations in the form of PDF attachments between February 2013 and June 2013, mostly targeting the US and UK. They emails were disguised as messages about administration issues such as delivery problems or issues with an account.
Later on, the group added watering hole attacks into its repertoire by compromising websites likely to be visited by people working in the industry and redirecting them to sites hosting an exploit kit known as Lightsout. The Lightsout kit has been upgraded over time, and eventually became known as the Hello exploit kit.
The third phase of the campaign involved the Trojanizing of legitimate software bundles belonging to three different industrial control system (ICS) equipment manufacturers using malware detected as Backdoor.Oldrea (Havex), according to Symantec's report (PDF). "The Dragonfly group is technically adept and able to think strategically," the researchers noted. "Given the size of some of its targets, the group found a “soft underbelly” by compromising their suppliers, which are invariably smaller, less protected companies."
Link to Original Source
Impossible? How come?
It is not a technical issue, it is much more a political issue. Moving to an all electronic voting systyem has not even been discussed. Getting political and public acceptance for it would tale a long time.
Perhaps access to voting facilities was also a problem with their e-Voting trials. In order to cast a vote electronically; voters needed to receive a polling card.
The ability to receive the card through the mail on a timely basis and follow the instructions would be necessary to participate.
All voters in Norway receive a voting card in the mail, and I can assure you that the norwegian mail system is very reliable as well as the cards being sent out well in advance of the election.
Regarding the learning curve... Norwegians have been able to file the tax returns electronically for a number of years, and in 2012, approx 75 % of those who filed did it electronically. Also we have one of the worlds highest use of electronic banking (I have been physically to a bank exactly once during the last ten years, and my current bank does not even have such facilities. Everything is net based).
So basically, it is reasonable to assume that the results are as presented. Turnout is not due to lack of easy access to voting facilities.
There are no problems with keeping only the manual system, while it is impossible in the forseeable future to use only electronic voting.
paper voters have no way of verifying that either, you are simply talking nonsense.
When I vote, I pick a list for the party I vote for, and put it (unmarked) into the ballot box where it is mixed with a significant number of other similar lists. There is no way to track exactly what piece of paper I put in that box. So my vote is anonymous.
by the way increased turnout is not at all the benefit, you not only do know nothing about the system, you fail to grasp what democracy is about. if turnout is a matter of comfort or marketing, democracy is worth a crap.
The aim of this test was to measure if there would be an increased turnout. By the design criterium, the test was no success. As I did not create the design cirteria for the test, I can hardly be blamed if the test used irrelevant criteria?