Information security – Page 12 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

DAUSA

Maybe we should just push for a swift implementation of the megasystem that will be the Digitally Autonomous USA. No more need for things like a ‘POTUS’, or ‘Congress’ or so. When we already have such fine quality of both and renewal on the way into perfection (right?), and things like personal independence and privacy are a sham anyway, the alternative isn’t even that crazy.

But then, there’s a risk (really?): Not all the world conforms yet to, is yet within, the DAUSA remit. Though geographical mapping starts to make less and less sense, there’s hold-outs (hence: everywhere) that resist even when that is futile. The Galactic Empire hasn’t convinced all to drop ~~the Force~~ irrationality and take the blue pill, though even Elon Musk is suspected of being an alien who warns us we’re living in a mind fantasy [this, true, actually — the story not the content so much].
But do you hope for a Sarah Connor ..? Irrationality again, paining yourself with such pipe dreams.

On the other hand … Fearing the Big Boss seems to be a deep brain psychology trick, sublimating the fear of large predators from the times immemorial (in this case: apparently not) when ‘we’ (huh, maybe you, by the looks of your character and ethics) roamed the plains as hunter-gatherers. So if we drop the fear, we can ‘live’ happily ever after; once the perfect bureaucracy has been established. Which might be quite some time from now you’d say, given the dismal idio…cracy of today’s societal Control, or may be soon, when ASI improves that in a blink, to 100,0% satisfaction. Tons of Kafka’s Prozesses be damned.

Wrapping up, hence, with the always good advice to live fearlessly ..! 😉

[Some Door of Perception! (and entry); De Haar castle]

Pebnickanic

Hey why are so many using PICNIC instead of the age-old PEBKAC ..? No, I’m not complaining ‘because’ old, nor on the ‘ …, got the T-shirt’ route. Just would want to know. Is it that the latter is too difficult to remember the meaning of ..? If so: Sad for its Shallows calibre. If otherwise: Please advise.

Well then…:

[Trismegistus’ view on things. Obvious where.]

Overwhelmed by ‘friendly’ engineers

The rage seems to be with chat bots, lately. Haven’t met any, but that may only be me — not being interesting enough to be overwhelmed by their calls.
Which will happen, in particular to those in society that have less than perfect resistance against the various modes of telesales and other forms of social engineering (for phishing and other nefarious purposes) already. Including all sorts of otherwise-possibly-bright-and-genius-intelligent-but (??)-having-washed-up-in-InfoSec-for-lack-of-genuine-societal-intelligence types like us. But these being the ones of all stripes that ‘we’ need to protect, rather than the ones apparently already so heavily loaded that they can spare the dime for development of such hyper-scaling ultra-travelling foot-in-the-door salesmen. Is this the end stage, where none have a clue as to which precious little interaction is still actually human-to-human, and the rest may be discarded ..?

As for the latter … It raises the question of Why, in communications as a human endeavor… Quite a thought.

But for the time being, you’re hosed, anti-phishing-through-social-engineeringwise.

Just sayin’. Plus:

[Retreat, a.k.a. Run to the hills / Run for your life; but meant positively! Monte Olivieto Maggiore near Siena]

Wats’on your bug-hunting program ..?

Tinkering with some unrelated ideas …:
How would one go about setting Watson (Clone, III) to work on bug hunting ..?
Where the Beast would be fed all sorts of past code / code patterns (source~ or executable~, or whatever style you’d prefer) with known bugs / errors / exploits and the way in which they failed, and then have the Big W scan, e.g., Win10 source code and come up with a list (in this case, assuming sufficient storage ;-| ) of bug red flags. Probably, to be classified in a range of Sure Thing, via Commonly, to Maybe. As we’re discussing patterns, certainty can’t be had for all found points of interest per se.

That being the simple part, what about automated immunization ..? If some patterns are near-certainly bugs/errors/exploit-points always, can they be plastered ex ante ..? It might be easy(er), too, to throw in an extra development test in the first place (“Sorry Dave, I can’t compile that”). But this sort of scope creep could easily lead to creepy behavior, e.g., if (??) the (??) system would get hijacked.

Oh well. Would still be glad to have your thoughts. And:

[“Tin”foil hat for actual protection (well, No.), at Haut K-bourg again]

Plusquote: Critique of the Pure Reasonlessness

This episode, by reference to the excellent Future Crimes (Marc Goodman, as here), one originally by G.K. Chersterton (The Blue Cross):

The criminal is the creative artist; the detective only the critic

To which we would want to add: And the auditor, only the disgruntled desk-bound traffic cop.
Since, the checker (and penaliser) of the trivial petty little rules, should remain in the third line, right ..?

Where by the way, the creativity of the artist is required to make the art work that sells — and hence all make their living off straightforward crime or would perish. The more you bureaucratise into totalitarianism, the more you see life wither, till death. Even if the crime keeps on being perpetrated — by laxity of the second and particularly third lines, in cahoots with the profiteers. … Maybe that’s a bit deep-but-overly-lapidary …
Hence, just:

[Panopticon Central, Strassbourg]

Miss(ed), almost ..?

One might have easily missed one of the most valuable annual reports … but if you trust it (you can) or would want to dismiss it (you can, for various reasons like the management babble leading to a great many missed threats and ~levels as here, always of course, but still), it is an important item when you’re in InfoSec despite #ditchcyber! so you’d better study it.
Oh, yeah, this being the thing.

OK now. Plus:

[In “cyber”space (#ditchcyber once more), easily scaled. Haut Koenigsbourg again.]

Emerging degrees of privacy

Given that ‘privacy’ is a property that emerges from good Security, more particularly from Confidentiality (and Integrity), there’s two avenues to succeed in this field:

If quick and maybe even too dirty: Data minimalisation (as e.g., here, in Dutch)
Else (OR?): Fine-grained protection, also against the default Read all down the stack (user / end point / comms channels / applications / middleware / servers / storage — with the latter maybe crawling up and down the stack again when virtualizing in the cloud)
Because binary’s not my thing and keeping it real (i.e. (!) not being consistent) is: Would any of you have pointers to some science on possible degrees or levels of privacy ..?
The idea keeps floating around in my skull. Including degrees of invasion! Where sometimes, the required degree (as set by the subject) would be less than the degree for some government agency so everything goes … for this some data point only. Yes, Value creeps in as a boring subject but isn’t everything. Should be a field of study …?

Thanks anyway for all your pointers on the last item… (none); hence:

[It’s watching over your shoulder….! Het Loo]

Repeat: Trawling for noise

So… Legal developments go at glacial ‘speed’, thus mumbling critical oversight to sleep. Happened, once again, in NL. Mass collection (sic) of and trawling through all sorts of data ‘out there’ is free game for gov’t agencies.
NO the oversight committee will not do anything. Anyone saying so, plainly and simply lies under oath to overthrow the constitution (isn’t that high treason?)

But what will happen of course, is that those that in the past weren’t able to connect the dots (proven fact), will now be swamped in enormously bigger piles of noise data. At the very very best (??) they’ll find bucketloads of false positives — ruining perfectly normal, perfectly legally operating citizens’ lives, of course without any serious recourse or restitution of lost life’s pleasure and happiness…
And the false negatives will also explode, induced by the very ‘countermeasures’.
So, also those that propose and implement and work with such ‘solutions’ quod non, will be culpable to.

Oh well Or well was right. Plus:

[I don’t want or like, but do expect, a similar thing again; for different reasons but with no really different methods — Prinsenhof Delft ya’know]

Crash’in the wings

… Thinking back of the Taleb’ian remarks, and truths, on Extremistan, and how some more or less closely watched parameters may lose their variance but not their uncontrol since such petering out of shock’lets are just the precursors of an asteroid impact scale collapse, I wondered what is about to happen in infosecland. Since for weeks, nay months already, there has hardly been any news… Apart from the usual suspects (#ditchcyber ..!), there hasn’t been anything serious, has there, by means of yet another class break or more comprehensive controllability breakdown?

Which is why everyone should sit more uneasily, in stead of the opposite sleeping better than ever.

But then, this was the message from your Wolf-crying boy …?

To which:

[Since last Friday, you know this isn’t a reindeer but an elk that is no moose, at least not everywhere]

Watson’s ID

Does Watson have an identity? Because, when it (sic; why not ‘she’ ..?) is intelligent enough to make its own decisions, it may want to, or know ways to obtain, or be bestowed with, personhood of some sorts. To which it may need an identity, and according ID.
But that all hinges on the construct of a single, identifyable instance of <something>. And all sorts of fancy dancy press announcements — where one might ask ‘Where you’ve been to come to the show only now’ — regarding deploying ‘Watson’ in some confined business context seem to start to fly around; mostly with corporates having a dire need to blow over the news of their atrocious lack of morals — but what is it they use?
Most probably only a time share (think S/36 style) or copied-instance or copied-engine of the concept / most elaborately trained instance available.
Do we have a criminal / misdemeanour system in place already for such non-human persons? No, I don’t mean the sorely failed ‘corporate’ personhood approach as that’s a hoax. People still are in charge of corporates, and are punishable per (Board!) capita for anything that anyone does on behalf of their employer XOR they are fundamentally not allowed to act independently in any society.

Only now do we have new entities coming aboard that behave like individuals but have none behind them to cover for accountability … or they aren’t individual operators. So, no choice. But as yet, no legal system to operate in. Conundrum!

On a somewhat tangential (is it?) node: Yes, AlphaGo has beaten a human a couple of times, and the other way around now, too, but that doesn’t mean the game is lost (its interest); see Chess. And, ‘who’ has beaten the human player? Is it a ‘who’ or is it (not only) an ‘it’ or not even that, is it too abstract to say that a ‘robot’ that is in fact an ‘information system somewhere out there dispersed in place, maybe even in time’ has beaten a human..? AGI has no power plug, people!

Also,

[“The” Church, Ronchamps]