education – Page 14 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Four horsemen, with a badge

Now that ‘our failproof heroes of integrity’ (one of those five words is correct) have gained the right to hack and exploit each and every users’ device in their battle (huh) against the four horsemen, each, all and every proof of misconduct of however grave or minor import that anyone would conduct using any such ‘cyber’ device would not hold in court because no-one can prove it was the general user / suspect (sic) that put the data onto there or used it and the police would be implicated as well but cannot prove satisfactory it wasn’t them.

Obliterating any chance of ever proving actual foul horsemen…

But hey, they seem to have wanted that. For a reason? E.g., the above suspects were in majority already among the pursuers ..?

Why would I care… and:

[Your ‘straight’ thinking…; Zuid-As Amsterdam]

Throwback Thursday: Coke not (?) Classic

This Throwback Thursday (new category indeed — here), we start off with a Piece of Art, both qua visuals and musical score…
Of course, this can only be, and the title refers to, this. Click and admire.

We’re done.

You're not dumb

That’s why I agree so much with the first of this, and keep on ~~trucking~~ posting for the, hardly a, few reader(s) as per sub/secondhalf title of this. With the previous sentence demonstrating that thus.

OK, still with:

[For the views, with built (in) defences against the hoi polloi; Haut Köningsbourg]

Low standards

The compliance check-box approach is an atrocious thing for and to many things and reasons, but has been induced by the very growth of the industry. Since all margin calls at all controls and controls objectives achievement have been whipped out — and no-one dares to or has the experience for margins calls anymore. How low can your standards of professionalism dive.

Sic transit gloria mundi; the trade once was a veritable gentleman’s (M/F/~) affair, for one put up one’s honour and good name (and standing including life, liberty, welfare and happiness) for the value of the second opinion over the full width of the (opinion about subject matter) playing field.
But one’s good name is no more. Men are no longer honorable, virtue isn’t a thing anymore; pluto reigns, in particular at 1600 Penn Ave — the demise of humanity. In the coming years, the standards will follow; having deteriorated from standards to hold Men to, to straight jackets most easily escaped from by surreptitiously gaming the system, making the system the mockery of men. I repeat myself.

But ideals, values, virtue and all things principle-based will resurface; if only trivially since the now resurgent risk-management approach would not work otherwise. The value is already returning to the dare of the expert to call it not to fold on details.
Hence, new standards will emerge. Pure-principles lists, no nitty-gritty stuff. To be audited on, by knowledgeable advisors that can relate sample controls / -frameworks to the principles and back. The 27k1/2 divide, but strengthened, widened.

About the latter; the renewed gap between principles and samples, will also allow auditors more flex when determining their audit approach as in next week’s post ;-|

By the way, the Dutch may read a bit on the same issue, au fond, and some pointers to solutions, if they’d work (put hypothetically for a reason), in this here piece, released after my draft of the above.

Oh, and:

[A winery, of course; Douro valley]

Cyberprevention

Just a signal, of a new movement. Which isn’t.

For one, the -prevention — doomed from the [ word Go | – part ]. Which becomes less and less valid. Yes, some deterrent actions may help, but one better focus on the fact of future break-ins… And act accordingly — much more efficient for almost all. Take the 1st graph of this, and weep / go / the rest of it, too.
For two, ‘cyber’ … #ditchcyber nails it, in the Manifesto.

Yes that’ll be all for today, including:

[So, you can #ditchcyber, too]

The CyberDarwins

As we’re nearing the end of the year (Western calendar, others not spoiling the party — learning point), we draw towards the ‘people being stupid with fireworks’ scenes that are oh so similar to ‘people managing systems’ situation. The former, focusing on the most beautiful display and/or the loudest Bang, the latter the same if you think of it.
The former, with latent recognition of ‘safety’ also re bystanders and collateral injuries possibly grave or life-, liberty- and happiness-threatening. The latter, with a desperate few considering ‘security’ and ‘privacy’, a even fewer thinking of collateral damage and implicit injuries and infractions to life, liberty and happiness — if you think that’s overrated, have you ID stolen.

The former has the Darwin Awards, for those that improve the gene pool by taking themselves out of it.
The latter, none such yet.

That’s where I aim:
Shouldn’t we instate the CyberDarwin Awards (acknowledging #ditchcyber), for the most egregious (i.e., outrageous, glaring, flarant) mindlessness in information security in the widest sense that fly in the face of basic common decent thinking?
So that by their occurence, the candidates volunteer to be taken out of the connected environment which, being their oxygen, improves what’s left (the most).

I have no idea how to pull this off; there should be some sort of portal where candidates may be proposed and results be displayed for common laughter but who will build and maintain such a thing before it can become a success, advertisers will flock in droves to sponsor for ads, and I take over again to reap all the financial benefits… #helpappreciated

And:

[This has zero relevance. Toronto]

Free standards

… How on earth is it possible that a great many dinosaurs still ‘issue’ standards — this, triggered by this — that are fully payd by tax money and still one would have to pay for a simple PDF download? What about the law; would one have to pay to know that, too??

Morons.

Apologies for the faint of complexity that might have been taken aback by my, of all decent people, use of that word that has some strength attached in its sparse use against common decency. But you get my drift.
And:

[Not paying for their undeserved study trip (a lie, too); Curaçao]

Is quantum computing replacing Turing Machines ..?

About scientists, and quacks.

… stayed as guests in the Ehrenfest home, they were no doubt amused by their host’s pet parrot, which had been trained to say, “But, gentlemen, that is not physics.”

But gentlemen, let’s discuss quantum computing. How can that, and its current state and moreover, its current systemic and systematic (sic the diference) difficulties be explained by taking note of actual ‘computer’ science (theoretical computing), sparse as it is, in the form of the theories surrounding Turing Machines..?
As the latter were proven mathematically (logically) to rule…. All that ever can compute anything, can be represented as a Turing Machine; logically, they’re all (can be made/translated! into) equivalent, computationally.

So, how could one arrive at “Drop all knowledge you had about computing” in the same way as “In this area, gravity no longer exists” …?
I’m really curious.

Plus:

[Yes gravity’s at work here ..! Barça]

Temporary Awareness

A call for poignant pointers.

You may be aware that research is on-going (among other, by Yours Truly) in the area of sustained ‘security awareness’ — a misnomer for security habit change. Which is driven by psychological stuff like everyone’s individuality, everyone’s individual circumstances (not only at work, not only formal short/medium term) and everyone’s learning and operations style and preferences. And hence, habit change would also have to cater for all these differences. One-time ‘awareness training’ (sic), yeah, right on.

Still, such would be a somewhat valid approach … for perm staff.
Not for infrequent visitors, like your garden variety (IS) auditor, that would drop in every now and then and till have access to sensitive data; on purpose or not, benign or malign leakage or not.
Not for temps, interns et al., that are around too short for true awareness to sink to the back of the head, for instinct reflexes (oh ideal). Or the induction program would be a grilling drill; conter-productive.
Not, and this is where my problem is mostly, with third party staff, that primarily work for the vendor and have other KPIs than client security — at least, higher on their agendas. They come in (physically or remotely), do their thing that hooks quite deep into your operational processes (physically like cleaners and installers, logically through e.g., software and parameter updates) almost always at arms’ length control with still their other KPIs first, and then leave you possibly vulnerable or robbed, and ith full accountability without grip on actual operations taken place.

Apart from the platitudes of requiring transparent compliance with all your security policies (purely hypothetically, IF you’d be able to find and collect them, they’d be sorely outdated, and 50% or more wouldn’t be applicable but which 50% you have no clue), what about the above-mentioned change to the ~~good~~ sufficient habits ..?
Your input would be much appreciated…

Also:

[Temp attention, eternal bliss; Syracuse]

Dense, but study

All about this here article. Yes I too, started out as picture browser through this. But more careful study unearthed a lot of gold, qua understanding of the issues. Even to the point of pointing out some gaps, here and there — well, the understanding did, not as much the overview — in ‘moral continuums’, that can and should be filled.
And, much work can be done on opeationalising the Obvious breaches of fundamental human rights (as per Universal Declaration) so don’t go babbling about commerce needs a chance.

[And now for a switch of goal but you’ll find the relation …!]

Where the latter is one big part often missing with ‘disruptions’ quod non:
Doing something simply illegal is just that and is not ‘allowed’ because innovation should be allowed to be tested.
Innovation should not be attempted when the new has been determined already to be illegal
How hard can it be? Laws had been put in place to protect the weak against the powerful, specifically at points where the need was obviated. IF some law has no purpose anymore, one should first do away with it, first through political ways and if that wouldn’t work out to be possible, only then, through e.g., courts for obvious unfairness (sic; if your law system is of the common type you’re hosed anyway). When you don’t succeeed in this the only legal ways, too bad that’s how democracy works, if.
If some law still has purpose but there’s negative side effects you’d want to do away with, do away with the side effects not the law; in the two ways as before doofus!

Oh well. Mock disruptors beware; the world does not need nor welcome you.
And:

[Sometimes, Classics are perfect enough; Prague]