Attack Thee

A major, huge, missing thing in ‘attack trees’ [aren’t they related to access path analysis?] is that they only depict the ‘opportunity’ part of perpetration, and have nothing on the Motivation of Rationalisation parts (as in this easy explanation). And hey, the latter points at insiders, too, that are so often not to be found in attack trees. Why?
That’s two things that broaden the context to anything realistic. So that, e.g., the following can be applied better:

Which goes way back to the physical realm. Allowing for controls to be seen not only as lines of defence [indeed, not the outright stupid kind], but also being of various categories, for differing purposes. To enrich your protection beyond mere data-oriented classical (info)sec which is but an operational subset of what one want, qua information security in its broader scope for the enterprise; figuratively and literally, when combined with this masterpiece method, as rightfully and correctly promoted by this peer.

So, attack trees yes, but why only now, and weren’t you using them already for a long time, implicitly? When not if, not, how can you ever have given any serious opinion about the Design of the control system (being the opinion of its potential Operating Effectiveness!), let alone its Actual Operating Effectiveness which is a mere afterthought when the Design and Implementation are A-OK. If either of the latter isn’t tip-top, actual operating effectiveness is theoretically impossible.
Also, include the various costs of control figures [introducing reasons you can’t achieve perfection by this reason of needing infinite budgets for achieving that, throwing out the baby with the bandwidth bathwater], and Time, as in trend analysis and second-order errors in that.
The more detailed your model, the more rigid it will be. The more comprehensive, the more … it may be inexact but that’s the price of ‘de-modelling’ i.e. making something applicable in reality. Either your model is perfect [into analysis paralysis] OR it makes sense [better be roughly right than a rabbit in the headlights].

Well, leaving you with:

[Awww, isn’t it beautiful, even from a late-80s analog pic? Pierre Blanche near Courchevel 1850 (most recommended)]

Is progress still Solid ..?

Yes another aside: How’s things with Solid, and why aren’t you onto that yet ..?
Since, it’s ever more clearly needed, and wanted (?), and a seriously viable product. Though the (‘net)powers that be, may not necessarily want it.

Oh well, there’s always:

[Currently live, usage unknown. Not sure this is an improvement in dough though; Albert Heyn Amstelveen]

You do NOT want AI

As was in some recent waste of power/time by marketing apparently-dunces, “… like Neural Networks, Polymorhic [sic] Sensors, Machine Awareness and Automated Data Monitoring. These techniques all use AI.”
OK. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything. Like, elected presidents are better than monarchies – have a look around the world and weep.

The point being,
a. ‘AI’ is what is still outside any machine’s abilities however complex, by definition. All that machines do, is ML. Yes, even ‘Watson’ (which is …!?) beating humans at Jeopardy is but a flimsy, pathetically failed attempt at a Turing test. [I don’t mean this one.] The missing part is not even that training is on past data (sic) and the future is by sheer logic different from that, but the also missing part, huge, is Random Context. ‘AI’ is still trained in closed environments, including supervision over Right and Wrong outcomes even if through automated learning from feedback loops. Indeed, not Good and Evil even ..! But then, you haven’t understood Nietzsche did you? And remember these quotes, relevant when you see it. Returning to the subject, context is still King [heh], and differentiates the Artificial, the Machine Learning, from the I of Intelligence. The latter ai’s have it. All, and yes I mean ALL, current-day software is insufficiently context-aware or, if approaching context awareness [much like we on Earth approach Proxima Centauri – yeah, not much effect, eh?] like in ‘autos‘ still much too little so (follow the link and weep).
b. … the latter also points to the second part of the point that is being: Intelligence seems to need morals and ethics, that we humans (and your political opponents that I shall not consider under this header) seem to have naturally. Right? Not right as a system choice?
c. Don’t know / not applicable / no opinion.

Hence, do you really want AI, or will you be satisfied with ML that takes over all the mundane tasks that bore humans to death? Not like this Boring Company but like accountancy where Intelligence may be reserved for the human overlords after all. Yes, you may snicker. But the truth is: Your job will be disrupted once it’s rid of the mundane stuff and hopefully you have developed some superiority over the remains. Which is inherently uncertain.
Hence, you may not want this. QED i.e. I rest my case as in:

[Better align with what goes on here; Startup Village Amsterdam]

Done, with the droning thing.

Well, that escalated quickly.
Only recently, I posted this here thingy that had been lingering for a long time in the back of my mind. And in repeated discussions with various peers. About how things, as in state of the art AI things, converge to bring smart systems to the vineyard.

The post had an open end, how all things put together woud not exist yet in full.
Negative time. As per this: the solution, deployment-ready. Sans the microlocal antidote delivery, that is. But we can consider the viability a closed issue.

Yeaj! There goes my idea of being in the vanguard. But happy that a. I wasn’t a fool, if anyone had noticed .. my posts, b. this may finally get off, and be true innovation helping eco-friendly(er) viticulture.