Tag: Risk Management

Mixing up the constitution

When your state secretary is mixing up all sorts of things. When at the official site, at last email (and other ‘telecomm’) is listed to be included as protected on the same footing as snail mail has always been, qua privacy protection.

Which raises the question: Does that include the right to use (uncrackable) encryption, because that is what is equivalent to a sealed envelope ..? When the same government wanted to ban that, or allow simply-crackable [i.e., with bumblinggovernment means – the most simpleton kind or ‘too hard’] encryption only?
Why would this have to be included so explicitly in the constitution no less, when just about every other tech development isn’t anywhere there, and in the past it has always been sufficient to interpret/read the constitution to automatically translate to the most modern tech without needing textual adaptation ..? [As has been the case in every civilised country, and maybe even in the US too.]
And where would GDPR impinge on this; is the rush necessitated by GDPR (with all its law-enforcement exemptions, pre-arranging the ab-use of those powers GDPR will give), or is this an attempt to pre-empt protection against Skynet overlords (pre-pre-empting GDPR protection for citizens), – recognising that anything so rushed will never be in favour of those citizens – or what?

One wonders. And:
[So many “unidentified” office buildings in NY, NY …]

The Secret of Innovators — “Keep on trying harder!”

Recalling all those ‘motivational’ quotes about seriously too late, ridiculously over-aged to ever still start a unicorn eleven-somethings, you having to fail for the rest of your life or you’re a failure (right? If you don’t fail, you don’t learn or whatev’), or in conclusion, you’re not failing grossly enough if you don’t succeed – or was it the other way around ..?

Suddenly I realised: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it. (W.C. Fields)
And: The above keep-on-trying train / ship of fools, is a perfect application of The Secret to innovation.

Yes, indeed, ‘perfect’ with the pejorative tone you carry throughout the day. And The Secret being that oh so rightfully discredited piece of paper (!) waste that even today some still believe in; would you believe it?
Yes, have a fresh look at the first line above: It’s the same as the book’s content.

On a less black-and-white note: Aren’t ‘Innovators’ typified as those that naïvely believe that one just have to deny very hard that anything might not work, just put in endless effort and hey presto you’ll succeed? If you fail, you didn’t deny hard enough.
[ Or you’re outright criminally breaking the law, then complain that the law needs to be changed to allow you to reap unethically large profits for just-above cold air, like the … U know who … Why am I not allowed to be a gun for hire!? I make good money out of it and the current system doesn’t get my opponents killed fast enough! Totally ineffective! but that’s beside the main line of this post…]

Where actual Innovators that win in the end, are (what you read in Originals plus) the ones seeking the highest-risk roadblocks and undo them when possible or evade them, believing that fortune will come your way when caring against ill fortune.

So no putting your life’s all into something and hope you’ll win life’s lottery of purely accidental unicorn success, but spread your bets, cut losses, etc. Less exiting a gamble maybe but less of your life at stake.

Plus:
[Down (to) the Tube(s); for no apparent reason and no reference to ‘Samsu’ in the background either, Vienna]

Collateral (un)patching; 0+1-day

Is this a new trend? Revealing that there had been a couple of exploitables, backdoors in your s/w when you patch some other ones and then have to roll back because you p.’d off the wrong ones since you accidentally also patched or disabled some hitherto secret ones.
At least, this is what it seems like when reading this; M$ stealthily (apparently not secretly enough) patching some stuff in negative time i.e., before-zero day. When later there’s rumours about this patch(ing, possibly parts of) is retracted.

For this, there appear (again) to be two possible reasons:
a. You flunked the patch and it kills some Important peoples’ system(s);
b. You ‘flunked’ the patch and you did right, but the patch effectively killed some still-not-revealed (in the stash) backdoors that the Important peoples (TLAs) still had some use for and were double-secretly requested to put back in place.

I’m in a Movie Plot mood (come to think of it, for no reason; ed.) and go for the second option. Because reasons (contradictory; ed.). Your 2¢ please.

Oh, and:
[So crowded and you’re still much less than a stone’s throw from a Da Vinci Code (was it?) big secret — I may have the pic elsewhere on my blog…; Barça]

Common(s) as privacy and vice versa ..?

Remember from your econ class that concept of The Commons, and how problematic it was? Is?
There was this intriguing post recently, on how Free Speech might be considered and deliberated in terms of the commons being exhausted by undue over-use (abuse) — for its use alone ( → ). Leading to aversity of the concept not of the abuser or his (sic) apparent locally recognised but globally not, ‘valid’ reason(s) for over-use.

Which, as is my wont of the moment, driven by personal business interests, I took to be applicable to Privacy as well. Maybe not in the same way, but … This will need quite some discussion between me on the one hand, and peers and others on the other who would actually know what they’re talking about. Throwing in a bit of anglo-american data-isn’t-yours versus European (‘continental’ — will brexit – which starts to sound like a lame Benny Hill kind of joke ever more – change that ..??) data-is-datasubject’s-always divides, and some more factors here and there. Complicating matters, but hey life’s not perfect.

Waddayathink? In for a discussion ..? Let’s start!

And:
[Not so very common-s; Toronto]

Authentic means work, you see?

Recalling the recent spat about passwords again (and elsewhere), and some intriguing, recent but also not so recent news (you get it when you study it), it seems only fair to the uninitiated to clarify some bits:
Authentication goes by something you know, something you have or something you are. Password(s), tokens or biometrics, in short. All three have their drawbacks.

But that’s not the point. The point is that authentication is about making the authentication unspoofable by anyone but the designated driver owner.
That is why you shouldn’t dole out your passwords (see the above first link) e.g., by writing them on a post-it™ whereas writing a full long passphrase on just one slip of paper that you keep to yourself more zealously than your money, will work.
That is why tokens shouldn’t be stolen. Which you might not discover until it’s too late; and tokens have a tendency to be physical stuff that can be replayed, copied, etc. just like a too-short password. Maybe not as simply, but nevertheless.
Same with biometrics. When made simple enough for the generic user (fingerprints, ever so smudgy!) also easily copyable, off a lot of surfaces. Other biometrics, maybe more secure i.e. harder to copy but not impossible. And opening possibilities for hijacks et al., focus on breaking into the systems in the login/authentication chain, et al.
Which brings attention to yet more vulnerabilities of Have and Are: Both need quite a lot of additional equipment, comms, subsystems, to operate and work from the physical to the logical (back) to the IS/IT levels. Weakest-link chains they are ..!

So, the strength of authentication covaries with the non-leakability of the key, since both correlate to the source determinant in-one-hand-ity close to the actual person whose identification-as-provided (by that person, or by anyone else posturing) needs to be authenticated. By which I mean that ensuring one item of authentication, closely glued to the person and with the simplest, least-link connection chain to the goal system(s), is best. The latter, clearly, is the written-down-verylongpassword method.

Just think about it. And:
[They’re called locks. Discuss (10pts); Ottawa]

All fine, for whom?

Just to be clear: Where do all the fines that will rain like hail from heck once GDPR comes into force, go to ..? Yes the supervisory authority may levy the fines, but it isn’t clear to whom the payment should go. Certainly leading to huge differences in compliance chasing: When the auth may keep them for themselves, they’re a. richer than the king since b. sure to penalise each and every futile infringement to the max; when the money goes to government’s coffers, that chasing not so much because who’d care?
You don’t believe me, right? Just wait and see. And weep.

Plus:
[Where the coffers are kept ..? Segovia]

Mastodon as a grassy patch

Just one of those things, questions, that swirl into my mind every so (too) often: What if, when, Mastodon is the Woodstock of social media ..? Wouldn’t that be grand. All pick your own Hendrix in this. Suggestion: him ;-|
On the serious side; the festival itself was hardly in mainstream news at the time, but (helped) triggered major societal changes. Let’s hope Big M (not with ac but on AC/DC) does the same, in these times of need. For such change.

Oh, and:
[No, this is not doctored or otherwise edited. Zuid-As, Ams]

Yesterday, same thing.

This is sort-of the same as yesterday’s post, put into practice, when your AGA now not only remotely slow-cooks but slow-betrays you. Slowly either does not at all or over-burns your carefully prepped meat. So the wretched short-lived lambkin died for nothing.
Would anyone know of any device out there that is duly protected against this sort of thing? Or whether (not or not) this is a generic weakness: Access from the outside, offers access from the outside to anyone, to rattle the door. And some, through persistance or imme force applied, will find the door opens. Your convenience, theirs too. Same, with ‘connected’ toys. Yes they are…

Oh, and:
[May superficially look like an AGA but isn’t, not even a hacked architecture studio’s design, just purposeful – and beautiful – museum design in Toronto]

Learn you will… Recover, you might.

When your countries largest retailer (primarily F&B but non-F only recently growing as well), has finally heard about something-something-smart-fridge. And wants to do it Right and starts off with a pilot. Of, drumroll, a smart fridge magnet with a mic and barco scanner for adding stuff to your on-line grocery list (on-site self-service pick / pick-up, or delivery to follow separately). Didn’t kno that existed already.
Nice idea, to include not (only) a barco deliberate-scanner (no creepy auto-scans) but also a mic when you don’t have the product at hand (and fresh veggies wouldn’t make it; for a long time already not stickered but weighted at the (vast majority) non-selfscanned check-out).

But what security ..? For fun, e.g., putting reams of alcohol stuff on the to-pickup lists of unsuspecting meek middle-classmen that won’t understand but come home with some explanation to do (bonus for taking the stuff off the list once procured so ‘no’ trace on the shopping list). For less fun, snooping off people’s shopping habits and get rich (by ultra-focused ads or selling off the data, or by extortion-light once you get the Embarrassing Items in view). For even less fun but lulz (grow a pair) when changing the list to violate some family member’s med-dietary choices into harmful variants. And don’t forget the option to (literally) listen in on very much that is said in the vincinity of the fridge. Could be anything, but probably privacy-sensitive.
But what security? The press release point to other countries’ supermarkets already offering the Hiku sensors. Nothing is unhackable. Exploit searches must be under way. People never learn. Reputational (corp) and personal-integrity (clients) damages may or may not be recoverable, at huge expense.

I’m not in, on this one. No need. Plus:
[Where you can learn; Zuid-As Ams]

Full cite of important stuff

This being a complete citation of important stuff, on various subjects in one – meaning, that the brillantly brief once more applies to various trades and aspects, for your information:
With the sound off or on?
If you watch a well-directed film with the sound turned off, you’ll get a lot out of it. On the other hand, it takes practice to read a screenplay and truly understand it.
It’s worth remembering that we lived in tribes for millennia, long before we learned how to speak. Emotional connection is our default. We only added words and symbolic logic much later.
There are a few places where all that matters is the words. Where the force of logic is sufficient to change the moment.
The rest of the time, which is almost all the time, the real issues are trust, status, culture, pheromones, peer pressure, urgency and the energy in the room.
It probably pays to know which kind of discussion you’re having.

By Seth Godin, as you may have derived from the style and profundity. (As per here, which is literally the same text – told you so – but also add the Head to your daily reading list! [Noticed that Head thing, intended to refer to a List structure, is a pun when you see the image to click on his blog…].)

Which all relates to a. Privacy [yes it does, just think it through] and b. your IAM ideas, ever in renewal since … decades; plus c. the ‘GRC’ eager beavers — that at last are pushed back, softly and hardly noticably, by counterforces-undetermined that want their space to innovate back. And d. <fill in yourself and colour the pictures>.

Oh, and:
[Marketing -, or was it Design, Department at some Toronto institute]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord