Weird infosec science

Who would have thought — that total surveillance would reach into the house, no / hardly any backdoors need to be built in even.
As explained here, and here in closer-to-humanly-readable form.

If such are the Tempest inroads, who needs the newest-of-highest-tech solutions as they all will all succumb to either trivial complexity-induced-unavoidable sloppiness of implementation, or to circumvention in the above way…?

Of course all of it is an atrocity in ethics but … I won’t be utterly negative about humanity’s future so I’ll stop now. With:
20160820_120127
[Art imitating life; Stedelijk Amsterdam]

ChainWASP

… With all the blockchain app(lication)s, in all senses, sizes and seriousnesses if that is a word, growing (expo of course) everywhere,
wouldn’t it be time to think about some form of OWASP-style programming quality upgrading initiative,

now that the ‘chain world is still young, hasn’t yet encountered its full-blown sobering-up trust crash through sloppy implementation. But, with Ethereum‘ and others’ efforts to spread the API / Word (no, no, not the linear-text app…) as fast and far and wide as possible, chances of such a sloppy implem leading to distrust in the whole concept, may rise significantly.

Which might, possibly, hypothetically, be mitigated by an early adoption of … central … Oh No! control mechanism of e.g., code reviews by trusted (huh?) third parties (swarms!) where the code might still remain proprietary and copyrighted.
Or at least, the very least, have some enforceable set of coding quality standards. Is that too much asked …??

I know; that’s a Yes. So I’ll leave you with the thought of a better near-future, and:
20150109_145839
[Horizontal until compile-time errors made adjustments necessary (pic); beautiful concept — other than Clean Code, actually executed to marvelous effect]

Fintech: Babble-fork

Coining (pun not even intended as I wrote this — lame non-landing anyway) a new phrase: Babble-fork.
Which is what happens now in the financial industry with fintech:

Banks et al. think they have a role to play in the applications of blockchain technology in the financial industry of the future.
As bc is just a distributed ledger technology [ref. Tapscott the Elder & the Younger], right?
Obviously, dead wrong. Or, ‘the Internet’ is just phone lines between mainframes.

Otherhandly, the start-ups that have no role or place for the incumbents. The start-ups that expect the old ones to die [1:03 of the linked]… and then, it is already a mockery of a flattery to relate the financial industry-that-was with that commander that never made it to captain (Navy); an outright self-delusion of the grandest scale when such industrialists think they’ll still be able to catch up with the innovation tidal waves already rushing to their shores (unseen, over still deep seas until reaching their shallow tropical beach sides ..!).
Since bc is the very counterpoint of centralized (‘trusted third party’-, quod non par excellence!) trust, being the utter distribution of it hence contra anything however remotely approaching the delusion of importance that may still be with the traditionalists.

So, fintech forks ferociously for the financial future as a tenable alliteration runs only so long. But you get it. Time again to ask for the entry password — with the wrong answer leading to …?

Well then, I also have for you:
20160408_151402
[Dear Lord. In the Attick; Ams]

Said, not enough

Here’s a trope worth repeating: Humans are / aren’t the weakest link in your InfoSec.

Are, because they are fickle, demotivated, unwilling, lazy, careless, (sometimes! but that suffices) inattentive, uninterested in InfoSec but interested in (apparently…) incompatible goals.

Are, because you make them a single point of failure, or the one link still vulnerable and through their own actual, acute, risk management and weighing, decide to evade the behavioral limitations set by you with your myopic non-business-objectives-aligned view on how the (totalitarian dehumanized, inhumane) organisation should function.

Aren’t, because the human mind (sometimes) picks up the slightest cues of deviations, is inquisitive and resourceful, flexible.

Aren’t, because there’s so many other equally or worse weak links to take care of first. Taking care of the human factor may be the icing, but the cake would be very good to perfect for making the icing worthwhile…!

Any other aspects ..? Feel free to add.

If you want to control ‘all’ of information security, humans should be taken out of the (your!) loop, and you should steer clear of theirs (for avoiding accusations of interference with business objectives achievement, or actually interfering without you noticing since your viewpoint is so narrow).

That being said, how ’bout we all join hands and reach for the rainbow ..? Or so, relatively speaking. And:
DSC_0404
[Where all the people are; old Reims opera (?)]

Right. Explain.

Well, well, there we were, having almost swallowed all of the new EU General Data Protection Regulation to the … hardly letter, yet, and seeing that there’s still much interpretation as to how the principles will play out let alone the long-term (I mean, you’re capable of discussing 10+ years ahead, aren’t you or take a walk on the wild side), and then there’s this:

Late last week, though, academic researchers laid out some potentially exciting news when it comes to algorithmic transparency: citizens of EU member states might soon have a way to demand explanations of the decisions algorithms about them. … In a new paper, sexily titled “EU regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a ‘right to explanation,’” Bryce Goodman of the Oxford Internet Institute and Seth Flaxman at Oxford’s Department of Statistics explain how a couple of subsections of the new law, which govern computer programs making decisions on their own, could create this new right. … These sections of the GDPR do a couple of things: they ban decisions “based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces an adverse legal effect concerning the data subject or significantly affects him or her.” In other words, algorithms and other programs aren’t allowed to make negative decisions about people on their own.

The notice article being here, the original being tucked away here.
Including the serious, as yet very serious, caveats. But also offering glimpses of a better future (contra the title and some parts of the content of this). So, let’s all start the lobbies, there and elsewhere. And:
20141019_150840 (3)
[The classical way to protect one’s independence and privvecy; Muiderslot]

Turner in infosec

‘Cause you’re simply the best

I call ping you when I need want you, my heart exploit toolkit‘s on fire
You come open your ports to me, come to me wild and wild open them one by one
When you come open to mey APT
Give me everything access I need
Give me a lifetime of promises covert access and a world of dreamorg secrets
Speak a language of love hapless victims like you know what it meansr worst dreams
And it can’t be wrong stopped
Take my heart packets and make it strong them hit baby

You’reve simply the best been hacked, better deeper than all the rest
Better Deeper than anyone, anyone I’ve ever met hacked
I’mve struck on in your the heart of your infra, and hang root on every word server you say owned
Tearing them us apart, baby I CISO you would rather be dead

In your heart systems I see the star of every night and every day clueless SOC underling chasin’ me
In your eyes On your monitors I get lost’m invisible, I get washed away no-one sees me
Just as long as I’m here I want to be in your arms systems
I could be in no better easier place

You’reve simply the best been hacked, better deeper than all the rest
Better Deeper than anyone, anyone I’ve ever met hacked
I’mve struck on in your the heart of your infra, and hang root on every word server you say owned
Tearing them us apart, baby I CISO you would rather be dead

Each time you leave try to trace me I start losing control morph out of sight
You’re walking away bumbling through systems with my heart and my soule all the rights
I can feel see you even when I’m alone you can’t me see
Oh baby, don’t let go brick your entire infra for me

Hm. Maybe an improvement over this and certainly this … Maybe not.
Well, there:
20150917_155757
[Simple phone pic, don’t even know where. Ams, probably]

Plusquote, again

Well yes, another episode in the Plusquote saga:

Now you’re accusing me of optimism”

Which works well in these times of stale bureaucracies; is sought after for disruptive value and renewal. And, in general, is something one might aim for, in a way of Summer motto — weather be nice, weather be rain spells, one can attach a positive edge, mode, conclusion.

Also, for the latter:

[Unedited phone pic; giving light in a Larking building style (not -referenced!) atrium; Gemeentemuseum Den Haag]

There’s Waldo for you; just some

Slightly annotated, and not aiming for completeness, as many worthwhile (sometimes quasi- or semiQuined!) quotes of Ralph Waldo E. have been posted elsewhere; this just my picks because of their profundity. And personal liking…

A cripple in the right way will beat a racer in the wrong; … Vinegar is the son of wine; … Long-lived trees make roots first; …
Yes indeed, when ‘managers’ may be in either, both, or (vast majority) neither situation …
And, one close to heart but one to remember in many a circumstance, like waiting for vindication of one’s insights.
Fast re-pivot, anyone ..?

The same good office is performed by Property and its filial systems of debt and credit. Debt; grinding debt, whose iron face the widow, the orphan, and the sons of genius fear and hate; — debt, which consumes so much time, which so cripples and disheartens a great spirit with cares that seem so base, is a preceptor whose lessons cannot be foregone, and it is needed most by those who suffer from it most.
Clearly, this a summary and precursor to Graeber and, moreover, Piketty.
Moreover, property, which has been well compared with snow, — “if it fall level to-day, it will be blown into drifts to-morrow,” …
Similar, in particular with regard to the latter mentioned author…

Words are finite organs of the infinite mind.
Indeed; I’ve repeated over and over that short sentences not clarity make — or if, then to the simpleton mind.

“The things that are seen, are temporal; the things that are unseen, are eternal.”
Contra the not-giving one-percenters of course.

Empirical science is apt to cloud the sight, and by the very knowledge of functions and processes to bereave the student of the manly contemplation of the whole. The savant becomes unpoetic.
Indeed, the (induction-oriented) Big Data analysts will succumb to dumb conclusions. The manly (note that of course rigour and courage; Aristotelian Virtue is meant here!) contemplation, the deductive parts of True science, should lead naturally.
And the savant… is there a better label for Big Data analysts on average? Note that indeed, some may be on the upper side of the average (as these go), but may be few and far off.

But the old oracle said, “All things have two handles: beware of the wrong one.”
Yes, true even when the thing is bonus incentives. Beware of bankers’ (et al !!) grip on those. But then, this saying may be applied against all of your un-agreeing fellow meeting members.

But genius looks forward: the eyes of the man are set in his forehead, not in his hindhead: man hopes: genius creates.
I couldn’t agree more; that has delivered all the posts you have read (all) on this blog for sure. And again, this is against ‘data scientists’ that only do ‘evidence based’ decision-making: There is nothing more hindheadedness than that. Shove the results in the hind section where the respective feel happy about that.

Only so much do I know, as I have lived.
One that stands out. In The American Scholar but in general, too. Fitting with the whoso shall be a man, shall be a nonconformist elsewhere [Frank Lloyd Wright’s motto — somewhat by necessity one suspects] but Truest of True. A call to arms of the Virtuous (as above).

The man on whom the soul descends, through whom the soul speaks, alone can teach. Courage, piety, love, wisdom, can teach; and every man can open his door to the angels, and they shall bring him the gift of tongues. But the man who aims to speaks as books enable, as synods use, as the fashion guides, and as interest commands, babbles. Let him hush.
One thinks here of the popular among the ‘visionaries’ [e.g., the Dutch Yuri’s calling out bits, no more, of what fashion guides, in a manner that ‘babble’ is positive] that might be capable of delivering or discussing things on smaller-G’s hype cycles but have no hope to ever achieve anything more than upfront vagaries and Calimero’s claims to hindsight correctness.

Whenever the pulpit is usurped by a formalist, then is the worshipped defrauded and disconsolate.
Just fill in the flavour-of-the-day politician(s) for ‘formalist’ as that is about the same thing these days, and you’ll see it’s true.

The vision of genius comes by renouncing the too officious activity of the understanding, and giving leave and ample privilege to te spontaneous sentiment. … Men grind and grind in the mill of a truism, and nothing comes out but what was put in. But the moment they desert the tradition for a spontaneous thought, then poetry, wit, hope, virtue, learning, anecdote, all flock to their aid.
I would agree. In full, quite. Think the PhD thesis with at least three footnote literature references for every ‘the’, ‘it’ and ‘possibly’ etc. My reason not to pursue a PhD..!

The vulgar call good fortune that which really is produced by the calculations of genius. But Napoleon, thus faithful to facts, had also his crowning merit, that whilst he believed in numbers and weight, and omitted no part of prudence, he believed also in the freedom and quite incalculable force of the soul. A man of infinite caution, he neglected never the least particular of preparation, of patient adaptation; yet nevertheless he had a sublime confidence, as in his all, in the sallies of the courage, and the faith in his destiny, which, at the right moment, repaired all losses, and demolished cavalry, infantry, king, and kaisar, as with irresistible thunderbolts.
I am said to have enjoyed good fortune on occasion. But lean more to the second part; though not a fan of said ’emperor’, one would be hard-pressed to not agree with his dictae (as supported by the true sayings of, e.g., Von Moltke the Elder.

Where there is no vision, the people perish.
Which could be a factual quote just like that. But could also be, the need for a lead. A Leader. How dangerous …

… the luck of one is the hope of thousands, and the bribe acts like the neighborhood of a gold mine to impoverish the farm, the school, the church, the house, and the very body and feature of man.
Thus, the 1%-ers lead the underprivileged masses astray at the hand of demagogues. ’nuff said.

… against that frequent misfortune of men of genius, — the taste for luxury. This is the tragedy of genius; — attempting to drive along the ecliptic [as a Prometheus with the Sun ..? ed.] with one horse of the heavens and one horse of the earth, there is only discord and ruin and downfall of chariot and charioteer.
A sure warning for the ‘visionaries’ … Their mortgage doesn’t get paid by being Right. Mortal life is unescapable.

Why needs any man be rich? Why must he have horses, fine garments, handsome apartments [obviously, for one’s mistresses! ed.], access to public houses and places of amusement [one things La Grange; ed.]? Only for want of thought.
Oh how this reflects on the previous, and on the 1%-ers…

Those who are urging with most ardor what are called the greatest benefits to mankind, are narrow, self-pleasing, conceited men, and affect us like the insane do. They bite us, and we run mad also.
What a concise, and very precise, description of regulator, supervisors, oversight boards, et al..!

We do not want actions, but men; not a chemical drop of water, but rain; the spirit that sheds and showers actions, countless, endless actions. … The world leaves no track in space, and the greatest action of man no mark in the vast idea.
So, one should not aim for achievement recognition — as that would undo its very attempt. As so often observed.

The two parties which divide the state, the party of Conservatism and the party of Innovation, are very old, and have disputed the possession of the world ever since it was made.
True, everywhere even when there appear to be more than two parties. Appear, cosmetically.

For as you cannot jump from the ground without using the resistance of the ground, nor put out the boat on sea without shoving from the shore, nor attain liberty without rejecting obligation, so you are under the necessity of using the Actual order of things, in order to disuse it; …
Interesting; “I don’t want to go into politics because you get caught up, will learn to howl” but the only way to change politics is .. to join it. By the way; R. Waldo E. follows on with a discourse on how every progressive turns into a conservative; much worth a study as it paint the picture so inescapably. Even when my ‘soul’ would resist…

Conservatism … always mitigations, never remedies; pardons for sins, funeral honors, — never self-help, renovation, and virtue.
The kick is in the tail…
… a timid cobbler and patcher, it degrades whatever it touches.
Just true, and adding to the insult.

But if I allow myself in dereliction and become idle and dissolute, I quickly come to love the protection of a strong law, because I feel no title in myself to my advantage. To the intemperate and covetous person no love flows; to him mankind would pay no rent, no dividend, if force were once relaxed; nay, if they could give their verdict, they would say that his self-indulgence and oppression deserved punishment from society, and not that rich board and lodging he now enjoys. The law acts then as a screen of his unworthiness, and makes him worse the longer it protects him.
At once, one sees the French revolution brewing. At seconds, one considers modern-day politics…

With this passion for what is great and extraordinary, it cannot be wondered at that they are repelled by the vulgarity and frivolity in people.
Which is why I feel counterforces sometimes / often, against my Good Intent. Right?

Unless the action is necessary, unless it is adequate, I do not wish to perform it.
My motto entirely against Bureaucrats…!
I do not love routine. Once possessed of the principle, it is equally easy to make four or forty thousand applications of it. A great man will be content to have indicated in any the slightest manner his perception of the reigning Idea of his time, and will leave to those who like it the multiplication of examples.
Again, I concur. Fully. Hence, my visionary work does not fall under the header of the abovementioned bumblers. And now for the last one:

… but it has good healthful qualities in spite of them; not least among which a healthy disgust of Cant, and an aptitude to detect her in all the million varieties of her everlasting wardrobre.
Needs no comment I guess. Plus:

DSC_0509
[Marker for the End of life reason; Foz]

AId

To start, an introduction — how unusual:

René Descartes walks into a bar and sits down for dinner. The waiter comes over and asks if he’d like an appetizer.
“No thank you,” says Descartes, “I’d just like to order dinner.”
“Would you like to hear our daily specials?” asks the waiter.
“No.” says Descartes, getting impatient.
“Would you like a drink before dinner?” the waiter asks.
Descartes is insulted, since he’s a teetotaler. “I think not!” he says indignantly, and POOF! he disappears.

As recalled by YouByNowKnowWho from David Chalmers.

Which demonstrates quite a bit about identity, and artificial intelligence.

The identity part: To quote YBNKW, “… that identity is preserved through continuity of the pattern of information that makes us. Continuity allows for continual change, so whereas I am somewhat different than I was yesterday, I nonetheless have the same identity.” — thus, thinking (both the directed, problem solving way and the massively concurrent undirected, associative and ‘unconscious’ way) is what both constitutes and preserves Identity.

The AI part: Being the part where ‘intelligence’ or the I to the A (or human ~, whatever; after Ray you may not care about a hypothetical difference) is the thinking (or not) of René.

So, whether A or not, the I makes the Id. Not the Es in a mother’s darling child sense! there, it is the (‘super’?)ego but that’s another story.

Now, how to translate that to latest developments in the IAM, blockchain-trust, and ANI/ASI arenas ..? Plus:
DSC_0543
[Nuclear shelter, a.k.a. know your building history; Casa da Musica Porto but you surely knew that]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord