Category: Innovation, economics, society at large

Waves of IoT

Tinkering with the great many (unknown) unknowns of the IoTsphere, it occurred to me that there are various intermediate phases to deal with before we can consider ourselves comprehensively outdone after the Singularity (dystopian with P(X)=1).

By which I mean the following ‘growth’ model:

  • Current-day operations: Factory ‘robots’ or process plants being (factory-)centrally controlled from e.g., typical classical (?) control rooms. And ATMs, the robots without arms!
  • IoT in its four distinct forms. With ‘robots’ moving out of their prothesis confines, as e.g., here. Possibly with some ANI.

    Both these levels can be regarded to have operational level problems; ethical, security/privacy, industry-disruptions and comprehensively new business and labour models, etc.etc. but relatively definitely operational, to be solved.

  • At a tactical level, there’s AGI stuff to be figured out.
    Ethics, ‘robots’ like self-driving/autonomous cars [yes, yes, I know those two are very much not the same!] as proxies for humans, with all the rights and duties including how to enforce those, and Privacy on a much larger, impactful scale. Including also, all problems you thought to have solved in the previous rounds, now coming back to haunt you and be very much harder to solve.
  • The Strategic level, with ASI all around. To repeat, including also, all problems you thought to have solved in the previous rounds, now coming back to haunt you and be very much harder to solve.

This, as just a briefest of summaries of all sorts of dilemmas to be figured out. Sonner rather than later, or bingo (points of nu return) will have been passed sooner than you realise. I’ll try to help out with a post here and there, or course ;-]

For now:
DSCN8357
[At what stage will AI understand the genius of this design ..?]

Before it disappears: Told you so

Oh, before it returns to oblivion; re the Hacker Team hackback: I’ll just join the endless queue of Told You So’ers with reference to this.
Noting that there is a confusing connection to the illegalise-encryption-cum-mandated-government-backdoors stupidity that keeps coming back like whack-a-mole, to put it very, very friendly.

OK, leaving you with:
DSCN4521
[Antwerp beauty, untiltshifted]

The need for a new security framework

… I feel the need for it. A new security framework.

Because what we have, is based on outdated models. Of security. Of organisations. Of how the world turns.
Bureaucracy doesn’t cut it no more. The very idea of hierarchically stacked framework sets (COSO/CObIT/ISO27k1:2013/…) likewise, is stale.
And the bottom-up frameworks en vogue, e.g., OSSTMM (if you don’t know what that is all (sic) about, go in shame and find out!) and core work like Vicente Aceituno Canal’s, haven’t found traction enough yet, nor are they integrated soundly enough (yet!!) into further bottom-up overarching approaches. Ditching the word ‘framework’ as that is tainted.

But what then? At least, OSSTMM. And physical security. And SMAC. And IoT. And Privacy (European style, full 100.0%, mandatory). And business-organising disruption, exploded labour markets, geopolitics, et al.

OK. Who of you has pointers to such an Utopia ..? [Dystopian angles intended]

Unrelated:
DSCN6146
[Your guess. Not Nancy. But is it Reims ..?]

Today’s-Tech-Yesterday-Craving

As a question: What is the melancholic (sic) feeling one gets when realising how great it would have been to have had (some of) today’s technology / hype little tools, already yesterday or rather, a couple of decades back ..?

As logically flawed as the feeling is (you’d change the world of yesterday in a way that would make today’s world impossible to exist exactly like it turned out today… No-impact visits to the past even, are impossible since you’d return with the info of having been there), it still creeps up every now and then. Oddly, it concerns specific technology items, not Technology as a philosophical construct altogether. Is that where the error of thought creeps in; can’t have your tool and not eat the whole thing ..?

Please add your musings… And
DSCN0567
[Quiz: Prato or Pistoia ..?]

I am not me. Myself: nope, neither.

Now that infosec has become to lean so much on the People side of things – as in theory all things Tech have been solved, for decades already just not implemented to any degree of seriousness..! and ‘process’ having been exposed as utter nonsense ‘management’ babble – it is strange to see that psychology hasn’t come to the fore much, much more. Even when pundits and others, and the minions like Yours Truly even, have posted over and over again that no tech system however perfect can stand the assault of through, e.g., casual negligence and unattentive error let alone gullibility and other vices.

E.g., in the area of IAM. Where I, the construct, the behind-the-persona ego I recognise as such, is constantly changing. In my case, developing fast, forward, up. In your case… well, let’s be nice to one another so I’ll remain silent.
And all sorts of avatars are developing as substitute for you and me within systems. See, with AI mushrooming lately, avatar ‘development’ may quite easily, soon, surpass ‘you’ in being ..?

Back to the story line: It’s just not userIDs anymore; context-aware and -inclusive, capability- and rights-attached constructs they are, and integrating with the Avatar Movement (Rise of the Machines, yes) to morph into actual beings that might soon pass Turing for comparability to/with humanoid identities. We’ll be on equal footing, then, or soon after, bland dumbed-down versions of personas/egos.

But How Is This Relevant … Ah, the clue of today’s post: Because social engineering, phishing etc. play on the weaknesses of humans to be able to impersonate. So, either stop the weaknesses (as vulnerabilities; eternally impossible) logical-OR stop the impersonation (the assumption of avatars/personas by attackers; taking down their masks). The latter, by at least being aware that the avatar, the persona, isn’t the actual person. How to get that into systems, and at the same time recognising ‘actual’ avatars/personas i.e., the link between those and the right real persons behind the masks even when considering through human weakness the persona has been ‘compromised’ …? That will solve so many infosec troubles…
But heyhey, I don’t have a clue like you do. Or do you ..? Very much would like to hear ..!

[Edited to add before publishing: Hold Press; include this on behavioural stuff]

DSCN2608
[“Riga”..? Aptly French?]

Disruption, -parity

Just wondering: How’s the disruption in your ICT coming along ..?

Seriously; hardly at all ..!?

Join the club. Of almost all. Public, private, large, small; all organisations suffer your fate of [barely; outdated browser] being able to read all about the Great New stuff that’s out there, but seeing nothing of it in your daily work. Strange, eh?
Or is it again the short-term impact being overestimated until it’s “too” “late” to join in, for most orgs ..? Because the real talent, the people that actually want something out of life either with, through your org or without it, elsewhere, will have gone to that elsewhere with all their motivation, and you’re left with the dull, exhausted, numbed-by-the-avalanche-of-downsizing-rounds petrified staff [you deserve, if you don’t pay attention]?

So, be positive; hunt for the opportunities and push your people to do the same! While also bulldozering through the roadblocks, often (middle? elsewhere too?) management having been trained to the hilt with objection finding, -raising stamina to defend the stasis quo [intended]. Close the gap, from veering into nothingness off the path of innovators, to return to lead at the head.

Oh well; for now:
DSC_1026
[Needs serious renewal above the shoulders; DC]

Nice note

Just a long-form quote this time, by Norm Laudermilch:

In addition, we should stop using the term “advanced threat” to describe the threats we see every day. It’s too common to hear a recently breached company point to a “very sophisticated cyber attack perpetrated by a nation-state”, which makes it sound like this was something undetectable and impossible to stop. Gartner analyst Neil MacDonald calls this the “dog ate my homework” excuse. More likely we find that it was just another piece of malware cranked out by one of the latest exploit toolkits, delivered via spear-phishing or targeted malvertising, perpetrated not by highly advanced nation-state adversaries but by comparatively low-tech cyber crime gangs. Even if a nation-state attacker crafts an extraordinarily unique and complex malware payload, they’re probably using the common delivery vectors mentioned above. Why? Because these attacks work every time.

Emphasis mine and I second. Until quantumcrypto is cracked, each, any and all cracks are of sophistication Zero. Or One, at most. Combining the most basic of ‘attacks’ i.e. exploits of negligence. Read the full article, and agree. Oh, and [self-plug] there could be side benefits in sloppiness, like this – IF deployed properly. And have your press release at hand, like this one.

So, …
DSC_1024
[Surpreme court; would you want your ball there?]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord