They're computer crackers. What are they going to do? Why all the fear?
It's not as expensive to spend the money to properly maintain your security than it is to have it massively breached and all your data stolen.
Not as expensive if you only count money.
But in my experience, the problem is the upper executives and their insistence on special exceptions for them and their people who are doing work that is just so important that they cannot be burdened with following the security that applies to non-important people.
And I hope Sony, and all other Big Companies (tm), learn a lesson.
I think that this reinforces the wrong lesson. Everything is okay as long as you can find someone else to blame. Whether it's an employee or a hacker group or a country. The focus will be more on THEM rather than Sony executives who broke security so that they could feel more important than the nerds in IT.
Yep. And even more so.
If you live in the USofA then you have a larger chance of being killed by your spouse / boyfriend / girlfriend / YOUR OWN CHILDREN than by a terrorist.
Just by waking up alive you have alread beaten the "terrorist" odds today.
And in this specific case, what are the "terrorists" going to do? Steal your credit card number? Pay cash instead.
And he makes a FUNDAMENTAL mistake by focusing on "defining how a new technology approach will add value".
At the CxO level that is easy to do. It will allow the company to synergize your core with blah blah buzzword blah buzzword.
But the reality is that it is about adding more achievements and buzzwords to someone's resume so that they can move on before their choices bite them.
Conservative Christians do indeed suck, but I can't think of any serious terrorist or even violent activity by Christians in a very long time, except for a couple cases of some lone wacko shooting an abortion doctor.
The difference is the power structure.
You don't have to personally beat someone for your beliefs if you can have the police do it for you because your beliefs are the law.
Muslims, however, are infamous for organizing to do violent deeds.
The same can be said (and has) about the black "rioters" and the current protests here.
Advocating for various laws (which aren't very successful BTW, gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted in America now and is becoming legal all over; these days I think most ultraconservatives are more worried about illegal immigration, gun control, and various other issues than about gay marriage) is not similar to carrying out violent, terroristic acts.
The difference is whether the majority view them as "legitimate" exercises of violence.
Passing a law that will be used more against X than Y will not be seen as a problem by Y. And the Y's will tend to view any X that complains as being a problem.
100 years ago blacks could not marry whites. And violence against a black man accused of sex with a white woman was "justified".
20 years ago gay marriage was illegal. And it wasn't a "hate crime" to beat someone just because you thought he was gay. I remember online arguments just 10 years ago.
Right now there are states where it is legal to have an abortion BUT it is almost impossible due to the legal restrictions placed upon it. Even if the woman's life is in danger.
Those with the power to make and enforce the laws do not need to personally take hostages.
Islam is a peaceful religion, that's why followers just went out of their way to do this.
There are about 500,000 Muslims in Australia.
1 of them is committing this crime.
If he thought the sequel script was bad, I doubt he would waste his time on it, as he doesn't need the fame, and probably doesn't need the cash.
He did "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". I wouldn't trust his motivations on this one.
But my question is whether they will keep Deckard as a Replicant. And whether he will know that he is or not. Or will they retcon something stupid in.
Blade Runner was a great movie. There is no need for a sequel. They could make another movie in that universe without needing to make it a sequel.
So far timothy, soulskill, and samsenpuss all post this crap from Bennett. Is it official dice policy to promote the shit this guy writes?
Seconded! Is he paying for this placement? Is he someone's friend? WHY is he getting this space on
His posts always follow the same pattern.
1. He becomes aware of
2. His massive intellect solves it.
3. He posts 1,000+ words to
4. His solutions fail to address anything other than the most superficial aspects of whatever it is that he just became aware of.
That's not "News for Nerds". There's no in depth analysis.
So WHY does he keep getting space on
As always, security is not a line-item. You cannot purchase "security".
I prefer to measure "security" as "how many people can successfully attack X".
If fewer people can successfully attack X after a change then that change has made X more secure.
If more people can successfully attack X after a change then that change has made X less secure.
So moving anything to "the cloud" will result in it being less secure. In almost every instance.
I think more and more IT is becoming a manager of services, instead of a manager of servers.
Services run on servers.
Users access services that are running on servers.
When there are companies out there making the basics easy to manage, then you can afford the time to get the Like buttons running.
I keep getting marketing literature from companies promising that. But it never seems that they can deliver on their claims. Instead, it's just another service that needs to be maintained.
Just PATCHING systems includes identifying/testing/deploying:
for every server / workstation / switch / router / firewall / wireless connected to your network.
The main problem is that most of the people making "IT decisions" do not understand the full impact of those decisions (or believe that they will not be held responsible).
Moving anything "to the cloud" simply means moving it "to someone else's computer". How do you judge their security?
What happens when one of their other clients is arrested for something illegal and the "cloud" computers get confiscated?
Anyway, from TFA:
If IT wants to stay relevant, weâ(TM)re going to have to find a way to leverage our deep understanding of technology to a new environment, working with other parts of the organization and relying on influence and expertise instead of gatekeeping and rigid rules.
Which will NEVER work. Spend some time reading up on the latest cracks that leaked credit card info. If you have to rely on "influence" you should look for another job. There will always be someone with more "influence" than you.
If I were President and I felt that X was necessary then I would document why I thought X was necessary and that I was solely responsible for X.
Afterwards, I'd release that to the media.
There wouldn't be any of these rolling revelations. Everyone would know that I thought it was necessary to torture persons A, B and C (and no one else) and that they were tortured and (redacted) information was collected and that the people who did so did so under my DIRECT ORDERS. No one else tortured anyone other than A, B and C.
Instead, we have denials, euphamisms, "extraordinary rendition", "black sites" and unsubstantiated claims.
Part of being the "good guys" means NOT being the "bad guys".
More people die in traffic accidents EVERY YEAR than the "terrorists" have ever killed here. So why give up a morally superior position to "fight" people who pose almost no threat to anyone outside their own countries?
So 1,800 "cyber-warriors" crash 48,000 machines. Or
And crashing 48,000 machines? What is "elite" about that?
This sounds less like "a sophisticated cyber-warfare cell" and more like a few script-kiddies. If you want to cause damage then you search for Excel files and you make a few, random changes to the numbers. Do the same with any database files you can find.
And, lastly, you NEVER crash a machine. You want to maintain control for as long as possible.
So, yeah, it reads like bullshit propaganda. It probably is.
First rule of crowd moderation: flagging as abusive/trolling/offtopic will be used as 'I don't agree'.
Yep. Which is why
Up-mods don't matter. If you want to mod something up then no explanation is necessary since they don't "bury" unpopular opinions.